Wading Thru The Crap 💩 has a Facebook page!
New blog posts are shared there First as well as important articles about politics and fake news alerts.
As well as the occasional funny memes.
New blog posts are shared there First as well as important articles about politics and fake news alerts.
As well as the occasional funny memes.
President Trump’s Travel “Ban” Executive Order, (I’d rather call it a “Pause,”) has been in limbo for over a month, because courts are trying to sort out the legalities of it all. There are some misconceptions, speculations, differences of opinion and conflicting laws that need prioritizing. I wrote another blog regarding it recently, and you can find it here.
(I can’t seem to blog at the “Speed of Trump.” This man is very ambitious, a work-aholic and there seems to be something new everyday. Sometimes bad and in my opinion, a lot of good.)
The new executive order replacing the earlier one that had the country in an uproar, was signed Monday March 6th, 2017 and is only targeting 6 countries this time. Iraq has been dropped from the list, however extra screening will be added to people leaving Iraq, to make sure nobody has ties to ISIS. Iraq has already agreed to work with the US on this matter so targeting them negatively, would be counterproductive. This order also doesn’t single out Syrian refugees for indefinite suspension, it seems to apply to all refugees and just for a 120 pause. It will not take effect until March 16th and everyone seems to be in the loop on this one with no surprises. (exec order text and memorandum text released 3-6-17)
Buried deep in the executive order is the revoking of the old one regarding this matter, because there is 48 lawsuits against it. They originally said they would fight those suits, but revoking the previous order renders those suits all moot, though it doesn’t make them go away. So now the DOJ will have to apply to all of those courts to have those cases thrown out. – via Fox New “Happening Now” Monday March 6, 2017
(It’s probably in the county’s best interest to do this, as President Trump has a very big agenda on his plate and fighting over the old executive order just takes time away from things he could be doing elsewhere.)
“Of the thousand active counter terrorism cases being lead by the FBI at this time inside the US, 300 are focused on individuals who entered the United States as refugees, and we are also told they come from countries on today’s 6 country list, and others who are outside that region”. via Fox New “Happening Now” Monday March 6, 2017
Legal permanent residence, those with visas and green cards prior to January 21st will be getting priority to stay in the US in this new executive order. It sounds like, it seems this one will be “bullet proof” legal, which can explain why it’s taken so long for it to be rewritten. It also explains for the delay in it being implemented, to give those legal permanent residents, visa holders and green card holders who need to make the necessary arrangements to do so. Info via Fox News “Happening Now” 3-6-17
In the legalities of it all, nobody seems to agree that this is not a muslim ban, even though there are many reasons to denounce that theory. One of which, NOT ALL muslims are affected, only ones that reside in the now six countries from the list. There are 40+ Muslim dominant countries around the world whom of which are not affected. Second there is no mention of a Muslim ban in the wording of the order. And lastly, EVERYONE without a valid visa or greencard before January 21, 2017 or who is not a permanent resident of the US in the countries that are forementioned are affected under the executive order, not just ones whom of which practice the Muslim religion.
The Argument of this Executive Order’s Legality
Many people feel that the reason this order is not legal is because of religious discrimination, it violates religious rights of refugees mentioned. However, shouldn’t the people already on our soil, and the ones that already have been accepted to enter our borders, have precedence over anyone overseas that has no claim to residence in the USA?
During former President Obama’s Administration, a bill was introduced that would give religious discrimination rights to possible migrants heading to the US. It’s called The Freedom of Religion Act of 2016, and it states that no immigrant can be denied admission to the USA based on their religion.
NEW BILL WOULD BAN RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION IN IMMIGRATION
http://www.newsweek.com/new-bill-would-ban-religious-discrimination-immigration-458722 – via News Week May 11, 2016
The Freedom of Religion Act of 2016 would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with a new section titled “Prohibition on denying admission because of religion,” which stipulates that “notwithstanding any other provision of the immigration laws, an alien may not be denied admission to the United States because of the alien’s religion or lack of religious beliefs.’’
Concerns about national security are mixing with unchecked anti-Muslim bigotry and fomenting unjust fear and scrutiny of Muslim refugees and immigrants. Sadly, that fear has led some to call for a temporary ban on Muslims immigrating to the U.S., to propose dramatically limiting the number of refugees our nation accepts, and to pursue a host of policies designed to make life difficult for Muslims in America. To close our doors to Muslim immigrants and refugees in need would betray both the First Amendment and our nation’s great history as an open and welcoming land.
Um, no. NewsWeek, you have got it all wrong. Nobody wants to ban Muslims, we want to keep RADICALS out. No one is proposing any policies to oppress Muslims either, so please stop with the fear mongering.
House Passes Upgraded International Religious Freedom Law May 18, 2016
(CNSNews.com) – The House of Representatives unanimously passed the Frank Wolf International Religious Freedom Act Monday afternoon, which upgrades the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 giving the administration and the State Department new resources to help combat the worldwide escalation in persecution of religious minorities.
Congress Passes Bill Aimed at Addressing Worldwide Religious Persecution
December 14, 2016
(CNSNews.com) – The House Tuesday passed the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act, a bill designed to “advance religious freedom globally,” following approval by the Senate last week and is now headed to the president’s desk.
The bipartisan bill, authored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), aims to “advance religious freedom globally through enhanced diplomacy, training, counterterrorism, and foreign assistance efforts, and through stronger and more flexible political responses to religious freedom violations and violent extremism worldwide.”
The legislation requires that the secretary of state “establish and maintain a list of foreign individuals to whom a consular post has denied a visa on the grounds of particularly severe violations of religious freedom” or “who are subject to financial sanctions or other measures for particularly severe violations of freedom religion.”
It also would amend the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA) requiring that the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) “make publicly available, to the extent practicable, online and in official publications, lists of persons it determines are imprisoned or detained, have disappeared, been placed under house arrest, been tortured, or subjected to forced renunciations of faith for their religious activity or religious freedom advocacy by the government of a foreign country that the Commission recommends for designation as a country of particular concern for religious freedom.”
It includes a requirement of international religious freedom training for all Foreign Service Officers and also requires that the Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom report directly to the secretary of state.
The bill calls for an integration of “United States international religious freedom policies and strategies into the foreign policy efforts of the United States.”
My humble opinion is that everyone should have the freedom to worship or not, in any way they want, as long as it’s not hurting anyone else, and they are not forcing anyone, to do as they do. But we should not be giving rights to people in other countries, and prioritizing these rights above those of our own National Security.
Those that are in agreement with the executive order believe that National Security comes before anything else, so this law, The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, has precedence over any other, the law states: Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states: Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
(That would imply in regards to what the president deems is in the best interest of the United States of America’s National Security, that ANYTHING GOES. It’s his number one job to keep the U.S. safe. I completely agree.)
The original executive order regarding this “Travel Pause”, was implemented hastily and carelessly. There were many people inconvenienced, scared and negatively affected by it. The President should have included exemptions for those people that already had permissions to be here in the USA, such as visa holders and naturalized citizens etc. Most likely had he done that, a lot less protesting and anger would have accrued. We are told that they eventually clarified that those people were exempt and were handled, then released on a case by case basis.
Administration: Nearly 750 people subjected to travel ban after court order
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/320949-reports-nearly-750-people-affected-by-travel-ban-in-hours-after-trumps-order -via The Hill 2-23-17
The federal government said Thursday that 746 people were “detained or processed” during the 27-hour period after a federal judge blocked enforcement of part of President Trump’s travel ban.
The Justice Department on Thursday turned over a list of the names to a group of civil rights attorneys representing plaintiffs suing the Trump administration over the policy.
The lawyers agreed not to make the names public, but a cover letter from the Justice Department obtained by The Hill says “the list includes legal permanent residents.”
The list of names turned over to lawyers also includes travelers with approved refugee applications, valid visa holders and travelers from the seven countries included in the ban who were authorized to enter the U.S….
It’s not clear how many people on the list eventually gained entry into the U.S…….
“Only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning. Big problems at airports were caused by Delta computer outage,” the president tweeted on Jan. 30……
The government said last week in a court filing that 44 people arriving from those seven countries were deemed inadmissible on Jan. 27 and 28, The Associated Press reported, and another 97 people were denied entry at land border ports or pre-clearance locations abroad.
The government said at the time that 24 of those people who arrived at U.S. airports and 14 stopped elsewhere were ultimately admitted.
(It was originally reported that only just over 100 people were detained by the executive order in question and the 750 were sent back to where they came from. I’m not sure what exactly the truth is on that considering I’ve seen conflicting reports from various news sources. If you can find proof of what is actually true, leave me a comment of the link, I would love to add the correct info. (Hopefully the new executive order has all these kinks ironed out now.)
The hasty implementation of the this travel executive order was said to be a “surprise to our enemies,” so not to give them time to pour into the country before it was implemented. That’s a good argument, however not a very good excuse for such a horrible cluster of a process. Considering, because of the questionable legalities, it’s done the opposite of what it was meant to do. As well as the fact that they have been taking their sweet time re-writing a new one. The new one is said to be air tight, however they don’t seem to be in a very big hurry now, since it has a delayed effective date of ten days from now. This is probably because the courts “suggested” that it violated rights of those people who are legal and who needed time to make arrangements before implementation.
Report: 1800 refugees from 7 banned nations have entered US since court lifted Trump’s “travel ban”
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/26/report-1800-refugees-from-7-banned-nations-have-entered-us-since-court-lifted-trumps-travel-ban/ via The Blaze 2-26-17
Data from the State Department recently revealed that at least 1,800 refugees from the seven Muslim-majority countries targeted by President Donald Trump’s January executive order on immigration and the U.S. refugee resettlement program have entered the United States since the courts lifted the order’s major restrictions.
According to analysis from the Pew Research Center, of those 1,800 refugees, the majority came from Syria, Iraq and Somalia…..
During the first full week of Trump’s presidency (Jan. 21-27), 870 refugees from the restricted countries entered the U.S., accounting for 43% of all refugee admissions during this time. The following week, Jan. 28 to Feb. 3, refugee admissions from the seven restricted countries all but stopped after Trump’s executive order took effect (excluding two refugees from Somalia and Iraq). They then resumed shortly after the federal courts stepped in.
In all, including refugees from countries with no travel restrictions, 6,095 refugees entered the U.S. during Trump’s first month in office (Jan. 21 to Feb. 17), a period that includes the week before he issued the travel order. Among these refugees, a total of 2,778 were Muslims (46%) and 2,610 are Christians (43%).
In total, Pew found that 2,733 refugees — or 45 percent in total — that entered the U.S. during Trump’s first month in office came from one of Trump’s seven targeted Muslim-majority nations.
The Freedom of Religion Act of 2016, that was passed under former President Obama, seems very unConstitutional regarding the security of the American people. The argument that refugees from these FAILED STATE COUNTRIES are protected under our laws is one that has the potential to step on our own citizen’s civil liberties. If we honored rights to everyone around the world under our Constitution before our own people, we are heading down a very dangerous road. These countries do not have records for background checks, it’s not easy to determine who is friendly with America and who maybe is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. This is why we need to improve vetting for these countries and that is the whole purpose of this executive order to begin with. But who would know that after the circus that has been made out of it by the media and Sen. Democrats like Chuck Schumer. (Whom was completely on board with the whole idea just two years ago and there is video proof of him saying so. Nothing has changed since then except for the POTUS.)
Trump’s order is a balm for Christians, not a ban on Muslims
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/30/opinions/trump-travel-ban-christians-swain-opinion/index.html via CNN January 30, 2017
In the following days, mass hysteria and an onslaught of misleading news reports have falsely depicted the President’s actions as an unconstitutional ban on Muslims entering the United States.
Those who object to the order have missed both the actual content of the executive order and the fact that the seven Muslim nations most affected — Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen — were already identified when Congress passed the “Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015.” This act prevented nationals of these countries from traveling to the United States without visas. Muslims from other nations like Indonesia, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are not subject to Trump’s 90-day restriction. Therefore, it is not a Muslim ban.
“In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.”
Some people argue that restricting refugees from Syria and other terrorist sponsoring nations is heartless because many of the persons admitted are women and children. However, there is a serious problem with this argument: there are more male than female refugees. As Megan McArdle of Bloomberg highlights, Europe’s immigration statistics have shown that only 27 percent of refugees were female in 2015. Additionally, jihadists groups have increasingly used women and children to carry out attacks. Women bombers have been successful because they can get closer to their targets, as they are considered less suspicious. Thus, it makes perfect sense for our government to strongly vet all Muslim immigrants, including the women and children.
President Trump has also been condemned for signaling he will give priority to persecuted religious minorities in the Middle East, which means admitting higher numbers of Christian and Yazidi refugees fleeing beheadings, drownings, and other forms of mass torture. Some critics have mistakenly argued that religion should not be a factor in refugee admissions. However, as attorney David French points out, “Religious considerations are by law part of refugee policy. And it is entirely reasonable to give preference… to members of minority religions.”
Elliott Abrams, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, argued that it was almost impossible for a Christian refugee to escape Syria. According to Abrams, although 10 percent of all Syrians are Christian, only one-half of 1 percent of the refugees admitted to the US by fall of 2016 were Christian.
THE U.S. BARS CHRISTIAN, NOT MUSLIM, REFUGEES FROM SYRIA
Via NewsWeek 9/13/16.
The United States takes refugee referrals from the U.N. refugee camps in Jordan, and there are no Christians there.
Here’s the Fox excerpt:
Experts say another reason for the lack of Christians in the makeup of the refugees is the makeup of the camps. Christians in the main United Nations refugee camp in Jordan are subject to persecution, they say, and so flee the camps, meaning they are not included in the refugees referred to the U.S. by the U.N.
“The Christians don’t reside in those camps because it is too dangerous,” Shea said. “They are preyed upon by other residents from the Sunni community, and there is infiltration by ISIS and criminal gangs.”
“They are raped, abducted into slavery and they are abducted for ransom. It is extremely dangerous; there is not a single Christian in the Jordanian camps for Syrian refugees,” Shea said.
The solution would be to allow Christians, and other religious minorities, to apply directly for refugee status, not through the U.N. U.S. Senator Tom Cotton has introduced legislation doing just that.
Genocide of Christians by ISIL (ISIS)
The genocide of Christians by ISIL refers to the genocide of Christian minorities, within its region of control in Iraq, Syria and Libya by the Islamic extremist group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Persecution of Christian minorities climaxed following its takeover of parts of Northern Iraq in June 2014.
According to US diplomat Alberto M. Fernandez, “While the majority of victims in the conflict raging in Syria and Iraq have been Muslims, Christians have borne a heavy burden given their small numbers.”
On February 3, 2016, the European Union recognized the persecution of Christians by Islamic State in Syria as genocide.The vote was unanimous. The United States followed suit on March 15, 2016, in declaring these atrocities as genocide. The vote was unanimous. On April 20, 2016, British Parliament voted unanimously to denounce the actions as genocide. A similar motion however failed in Canada when it was opposed by the majority of PM Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party.
Christians are being beheaded on sight, raped and tortured, because of their religion and because they won’t submit to Radical Islam. They should have precedence as well should Jews, gays, transgender, women, children, Yazidi and any other minority group/race/religion in the region, because these are the people most vulnerable. These are the people that are dealing with life or death if they don’t find safety.
Boston Judge Unblocks Trump Travel Ban, Asks “Where Does It Say Muslim Countries?”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-03/boston-judge-unblocks-trump-travel-ban-asks-where-does-it-say-muslim-countries – via Zero Hedge 2-3-17
“The language in Section 5 of the EO is neutral with respect to religion,
“The provisions of Section 5, however, could be invoked to give preferred refugee status to a Muslim individual in a country that is predominately Christian. Nothing in Section 5 compels a finding that Christians are preferred to any other group.”
STATE VERSUS FEDERAL POWER TO REGULATE IMMIGRATION – Nov. 14, 2007
Many, but not all, state laws addressing immigration are preempted by federal law. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration, preempting state and local laws that also attempt to do so. In this context, state regulation of immigration means a state law or local ordinance that makes a determination of who should or should not be admitted into the country and the conditions under which a legal entrant may remain. State laws that tangentially affect immigration, such as employment licensing laws that can be revoked for violations of federal immigration laws, are expressly permissible.
Sorry, Governors: The Decision To Let In Refugees Isn’t Really Up To You
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/syrian-refugees-governors_us_564a4fbce4b08cda348a32c2 via Huffington Post 11-16-15
The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that the Constitution vests the federal government — and not the states — with “power over immigration, naturalization and deportation.”…..
The key statute here is the Refugee Act of 1980, as noted by ThinkProgress’ Ian Millhiser. That 1980 law declared it to be “the historic policy of the United States to respond to the urgent needs of persons subject to persecution in their homelands.” It gave the president broad power to handle an “unforeseen emergency refugee situation,” such as one involving “grave humanitarian concerns.”…..
“The decision to let a particular person into the United States or exclude them is up to the federal government,” said César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, a visiting professor at the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law who writes extensively on immigration law. “There’s no question about that.”
“The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy……
Specifically, once a refugee is cleared for admission into the United States, federal law renders his or her presence lawful, and under the 14th Amendment, the individual is protected against a blanket policy that singles out people based on national origin.
Government wants appeal of travel ban put on hold
http://q13fox.com/2017/02/25/government-wants-appeal-of-travel-ban-put-on-hold/ – via FEBRUARY 25, 2017, BY ASSOCIATED PRESS
For more than a century – literally, since 1901 – the Supreme Court has been attempting to sort out when the Constitution applies outside the borders of the nation. In a series of rulings in the first two decades of the 20th Century, now known together as the Insular Cases, the court ruled that residents of U.S. territories beyond the mainland did not enjoy all of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, but could expect to be protected by the most fundamental guarantees. The process of picking and choosing has continued since then, and the results have been mixed.
Islam was Banned from the USA in 1952 but You’re Not Supposed to Know It!
May 16, 2016
The Immigration and Nationality Act passed June 27, 1952 revised the laws relating to immigration, naturalization and nationality for the United States.
That Act, which became Public Law 414, established both the law and the intent of Congress regarding the immigration of aliens to the US and remains in effect today.
Among the many issues it covers, one in particular found in Chapter 2, Section 212, is the prohibition of entry into the US if the alien belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the government of the United States by force, violence or by other unconstitutional means.”
IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT \ INA: ACT 212 – GENERAL CLASSES OF ALIENS INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE VISAS AND INELIGIBLE FOR ADMISSION; WAIVERS OF INADMISSIBILLITY
(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or
overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other
unlawful means, is inadmissible.
INA: ACT 219 – DESIGNATION OF FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION 1/
Sec. 219. (a) Designation.-
(1) In general.-The Secretary is authorized to designate an organization as a terrorist organization in accordance with this subsection if the Secretary finds that-
(A) the organization is a foreign organization;
(B) the organization engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) 1a/ or terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 2656f(d)(2)), or retains the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism); and
(C) the terrorist activity 1a/ or terrorism of the organization threatens the security of United States nationals or the national security of the United States.
In my opinion, our citizens and the people already here in our country come first. You can’t help anyone, if you don’t help yourself first. By improving our vetting process and fixing our own procedures, it only makes us stronger and better able to help those who are coming here to make a better life and escape the horrors of religious persecution and in many cases death. However we can’t have that chaos following them and being brought here.
Some of the other concerns of the legalities and intentions of an executive order of this context from the Trump Administration include:
‘Presidential Candidate Trump’ mentioned implementation of a muslim ban during the presidential campaign. (Although I’m not completely clear about the context of it, BUT I DO KNOW that President Trump realizes the difference between a Radical Islamic Extremist and a peaceful Muslim.) I also KNOW that the reason for this executive order is for the safety of the American people not to ban Muslims. The Muslims that are affected by this order are coming from FAILED STATES, (Contries with no governments or government records of their citizens. This is why a more sound vetting process for these countries is needed.)
7 countries were not the countries that were involved in 9-11, although they were predetermined by the previous administration and are failed states with no governments. Therefore they do not keep records of citizens for background checks.
Concerns that the omitted countries may be related Concernsto business ties with the Trump brand, and that’s why they weren’t included Although just because they aren’t including them now, doesn’t mean they won’t be added in the future. The countries on the list are failed states with no governments or records of their people, so background checks are virtually impossible. Not to mention the information we have about these countries, is not necessarily all the intel that the president has on them. He is privy to much more information. . Although just because they aren’t including them now doesn’t mean they won’t be added in the future. The countries on the list are failed states with no governments or records of their people so background checks are virtually impossible.
Procedural due process claims, which guarantee that people receive advance notice and an opportunity to be heard before they are deprived of liberty or property. (Which is now fixed with this 10 day delay of the new executive order.). Which has been taken care of in the new executive order.
Chuck Schumer Agrees with the travel pause back in 2015.
Please take note of his refugee “props”. It makes me very angry when people accuse others of things they have done themselves.
Immigration explained with gumballs. We can help more people by helping them where they are rather than uprooting them and bring them here.
Other Related Stories and Reference Links:
Trump administration urges appeals court to put travel ban case on hold
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/25/trump-administration-urges-appeals-court-put-travel-ban-case/ via The Telegraph (UK) 2-25-17
Ivanka Trump, a successful business woman, very classy with impeccable taste, and a big heart. What’s not to like? She’s been under scrutiny since her father first started his campaign for president and it’s just gotten worse since he won the election. Should she be punished by the media and the left because of their hate for her father? Or should they try to embrace her as an ally, because of the major influence she has on her dad? I think it’s the latter.
Ivanka has already been in her father’s ear about continuing former President Obama’s LGBT Rights Executive Order. (President Donald J. Trump Will Continue to Enforce Executive Order Protecting the Rights of the LGBTQ Community in the Workplace) She also helped organize a meeting this week, with the President, Prime Minister of Canada and some very power successful women to address some of the women’s right issues that have been a concern of the left recently, Canada-United States Council for Advancement of Women Entrepreneurs.
Ms. Trump could have a very powerful impact on the direction of President Trump’s Administration. The President has already said that she always encourages him to ‘do the right thing.’ Her guidance, and caring heart may be just what us women need in the White House. I would suggest we try and “make nice” with her.
It’s a VERY popular theory, and many consider it fact, that President Donald J. Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump’s brand has been dropped by many retailers, because of a sales decrease. However, if you do a little digging that might not be the whole story.
As Online Boycott Grows Study Shows Millennial Women Stick With Ivanka Trump’s Brand OCT 26, 2016 @ 08:00 AM -via Forbes
Each woman surveyed was asked: “In light of Ivanka Trump’s involvement with the Trump campaign for president, how likely would you be to consider buying her line of shoes or clothing?”
They responded as follows:
Extremely Likely 18%
Very Likely 33%
Somewhat Likely 32%
Not Very Likely 11%
Not At All Likely 6%
Meanwhile, a campaign calling for a boycott of all things Trump, including Ivanka’s apparel and shoe lines, has been gathering social media steam.
Inside Ivanka, Inc: $100M Apparel Sales, And A Bid To Move Some Manufacturing Back From China 7/21/2016 @ 12:24PM -via Forbes
The company doesn’t include a breakdown of revenues by brand in its financial filings, but its 2016 annual report notes a $29.4 million increase in sales of Ivanka Trump’s fashion line from the year before.
Most articles paint a dreary picture of a decline in sale at Nordstrom’s and several other companies. They are mostly copy paste articles that use almost the same exact language. I see that kind of thing a lot. Many news sources will pick up the same story and they will basically copy/paste it and then it ends up coming from 10 different places. (But no matter how many pick up the story and publish it, that doesn’t make it true. That is why finding the truth is so hard these days.)
There are reports of a significant gains in sales at stores such as Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s. There is also information from the brand itself claiming to have a significant rise in overall sales.
Sales Of Ivanka Trump’s Clothing Line Declined In 2016 February 11, 2017 -via Opposing Views
Nordstrom saw $14.3 million in sales in the fiscal year that ended in January, down from $20.9 million the year before.
Nordstrom is not the only store in which sales of Ivanka Trump’s products are down, according to CNBC. An analysis of email receipts by Slice Intelligence reveals sales of Ivanka’s line are down in a number of online stores, most notably following the 2016 presidential election. Online sales of her products fell 26 percent in January 2017 from January 2016.
Ivanka’s line did see sales growth in a handful of retailers. Online sales from Macy’s grew 30 percent, while sales from Bloomingdales.com grew 9 percent in the fourth quarter. However, growth was still slower this fiscal year compared to the previous year.
Ivanka Trump’s brand takes another hit– via kdvr 2-12-2017
Rosemary Young, senior director of marketing at Ivanka Trump, told CNNMoney last week that the brand was growing and experienced “significant year-over-year revenue growth in 2016.”
“We believe that the strength of a brand is measured not only by the profits it generates, but the integrity it maintains,” Young said.
Retailers like Bloomingdale’s, Amazon, Lord & Taylor, Macy’s and Zappos all still carry Ivanka Trump products.
Ivanka Trump has taken a leave of absence from her namesake company since her father won the presidency. She has no formal role in the administration but is expected to have a voice on issues such as women’s empowerment and child care.
Ivanka Trump’s Brand Says Nordstrom Hasn’t Dropped Them Things are getting messy. FEB 4, 2017 6:30PM EST –via Teen Vogue
… Ivanka Trump brand is refuting the claims made by Nordstrom. On Friday, a spokesperson told Refinery29 that they were still in business together, but their merchandise has simply been moved to in-store only. “Nordstrom ordered both apparel and shoes for the spring, and followed through with the orders on the apparel,” the Ivanka Trump brand claims. “They canceled the shoe order, kept the apparel order and moved the apparel from online into stores. It’s there.”
Nordstrom is still admit about their reasoning for dropping the line saying it’s because a drop in sales, but according to this article:
… a source that claims to be near to the first daughter told Refinery29 that wasn’t the case with Nordstrom. “They couldn’t handle the political pressure, someone new came in, and there was a change in the attitude toward the brand,” they told the website.
“I learned a long time ago that I can’t control the opinions of others or what they project on me. All I can do is live my life, and I’ve tried to do that,” she tells me a few minutes into our interview. It’s a classic Ivanka statement, as if to say, I’m perfectly clear about who I am; it’s not my fault what other people decide to think. It’s easy to understand why she feels that way, and why Ivanka—always poised, always on message—seems to work so hard to keep her image under control.
…Net sales of just the clothing arm of the company were up $11.8 million during the first 6 months of 2016 compared to the first 6 months of 2015 as it sold its products online and at department stores, according to public filings from one of Ivanka Trump’s major licensing and manufacturing partners. Forbes reported that Ivanka’s clothing line generated $100 million in revenue last year, and sales were up $29.4 million from the previous fiscal year. The private company will not confirm specific sales figures, but do say their sales went up 37% last year, and that the growth rate has held pretty steady this year. And the website’s traffic is up 50% over last year, thanks in large part to Ivanka’s heightened public profile.
Is Ivanka Trump’s brand losing its bling? –– via Fox 6 Now and http://www.nbc-2.com/story/34460378/is-ivanka-trumps-brand-losing-its-bling -NBC 2
The brand would tell you “no.” A spokesperson for the first daughter’s fashion label said Wednesday that the brand’s overall sales were up 21% in 2016 compared to the prior year.
… plenty of retailers that are still carrying the brand. A spokesperson said over 800 retailers — including Bloomingdale’s, Amazon, Lord & Taylor, Macy’s and Zappos — all carry Ivanka Trump products.
Even with all these reports of significant rises in income for the Ivanka Trump Company, Nordstrom’s continues to insist that they are discontinuing the brand because of a decrease in sales. However, there is an email from Nordstrom’s sent to their employees floating around, that was allegedly sent two days before their announcement of their decision to quit offering the Ivanka Trump Brand.
…two days before Nordstrom dropped Ivanka’s line, the company’s three presidents sent an email to all company staff criticizing President Donald Trump’s controversial travel ban, Daily Mail reports.
The email, obtained by the Seattle-based newspaper “The Stranger,” said,
We literally have thousands of employees who are first and second generation immigrants.
Every one of your unique qualities brings a richness that allows us to better reflect and serve the multicultural communities we’re a part of and ultimately makes us a better company.
We are a better place with you here, no doubt about it.
It’s important that we reiterate our values to all of you and make it clear that we support each of our employees. We will continue to value diversity, inclusion, respect, and you can count on that. (the full email can be read here)
But, in reality, the brand wasn’t performing badly. Nordstrom’s came under political fire from a series of hardcore anti-Trump activists, according to People Magazine.
There are both boycotts of Ivanka Trump’s Brand and Boycotts of the stores that have dropped it.
#BoycottNordstrom Swings From Left To Right After Ivanka Trump Drop – via Investor’s Business Daily 2/03/2017
It was not too long ago that #BoycottNordstrom had a different audience, however, many of whom were concerned about the Trump family’s potential business conflicts of interest….
Grab Your Wallet has been vocal in trying to get shoppers to boycott stores that carry Trump-affiliated merchandise.
Nordstrom shares rose 0.9% to 43.90 in the stock market today, (2-3-17) well off intraday highs of 46.09 as the stock tries to break a downtrend going back to early December.
Macy’s rose 6.5% Friday on continued buyout buzz, after advancing 5.2% on Thursday. Amazon slid 3.5% after reporting weaker-than-expected sales and revenue guidance late Thursday.
So what is it? Is Ivanka Trump Brand sales up overall and only down at a handful of stores?
Or is someone on either side fudging the real story? It’s hard to tell. Because of my own personal experience with trusting the mainstream press; I can’t help but question the dozens of articles that are basically copied and pasted over and over from news source to news source that state a negative bias against the Trump name.
President Trump and his Councilor Kellyanne Conway have been under duress for sticking up for Ivanka and stating that she has been treated unfairly by the retailers that have dropped her brand and by the media. Critics are saying that they are using their political positions to further Ms. Ivanka’s success. (Which is unlawful.)
Here’s How Ivanka Trump Responded to Women Boycotting Her Clothing Line October 27, 2016 11:02 a.m – via NY Mag
“Well, the beauty of America is people can do what they like, but I prefer to talk to the millions, tens of millions of American women who are inspired by the brand and the message that I’ve created,” Ivanka said.
She went on to say that her “advocacy of women” started long before the presidential campaign began. “I never politicized that message,” Ivanka added. “People who are seeking to politicize it because they may disagree with the politics of my father, there’s nothing I can do to change that.”
There has been controversy in the past year over a few instances when Ivanka wore her own accessories and apparel on TV for her father’s interview with 60 minutes and Republicans National Convention.
Ivanka Trump’s Company Scrambles Over ’60 Minutes’ Bracelet Criticism -via NBC NOV 15 2016, 1:25 PM ET
A “fashion alert” was initially sent to journalists on Monday by Monica Marder, vice president of sales for Ivanka Trump Fine Jewelry. It promoted Ivanka Trump as wearing “her favorite bangle from the Metropolis Collection” on the CBS News show. The bracelet costs $8,800 to $10,800. “Please share this with your clients…” the email said.
….The interview was not the first time Ivanka Trump used her father’s political spotlight to highlight her brand. In July, the former model marketed a blush pink sheath dress she wore at the Republican National Convention. The dress, which retailed at a more affordable $138, quickly sold out.
This past week both President Donald J. Trump, and Kelley Anne Conway, stuck up for Ms. Ivanka and were criticized for breaking the law. It’s illegal to use your political office to promote yourself or friends for profit. Which is a valid law and makes perfect sense. Many in the past have gotten away with doing this though.
The same news sources that were telling me just weeks ago about girl power and striving to be successful women for equality are now very anti-Ivanka Trump. The same news sources that were just telling me that ‘us’ women have to stick together and stick up for each other, are now tearing down one of the most successful women in our country. Not because of something she did wrong, but because of who her dad is, and they don’t like him.
Now hypothetically, what if we were talking about Chelsea Clinton? Say, she has a successful fashion brand, while her father is president. The same father who was caught in many unfavorable acts against women. Not just talk and not just one but many. If the same thing was happening to her right now, how would the woman from “the left” be acting?
Ivanka Trump has focused on empowering women to be successful. She even markets her brand as a celebration of women.
http://ivankatrump.com/about/ –via her website
It’s a celebration of women working at all aspects of their lives. Women who transition between their various roles in professional and personal capacities: building careers, raising children, nurturing relationships and pursuing passions.
For instance former President Barack Obama plugged Blackberry at the beginning of his presidency. Some may argue that it wasn’t for his personal gain, however do you know for positive sure that he hasn’t any ties, has never had any ties or friends with ties to that company? I don’t.
Reflections on the Greatest Free Product Endorsement Ever 11/08/2012 @ 9:28AM -via Forbes
January 7, 2009, days before his inauguration and in the face of having to give up his personal phone for security reasons as his predecessors had done, the President-elect said, “I’m still clinging to my BlackBerry. They’re going to pry it out of my hands.” This was a product that was of such great use to him, and represented his connection to the life he was leaving, that he would force his Executive Office of the President (EOP) to change protocol so that he could keep his cherished device. This is the sort of endorsement that companies dream about.
Samsung, selfies and the branding of Barack Obama April 3, 2014 -via Washington Post
During a concession speech in April 2008, Obama spoke in front of a crowd that included someone in an Abercrombie & Fitch shirt. The FITCH part of the shirt was very visible. The company’s spokesperson told the New York Post, “Thanks to the Obama campaign for the great product placement. We wish we had thought of it.”
First Ladies Have Often Made Use Of Their ‘Brands’ Friday, February 10, 2017 -via Valley News
Roosevelt showed up in print and television commercials endorsing bread products, margarine and even the burgeoning airline industry. The latter featured a portrait of Roosevelt seated on a plane, serenely knitting above this quote: “I never cease to marvel at the airplane.” Roosevelt was surprised at her ability to push products, historians recalled, but in the years since the selling power of first ladies has been well documented.
Their position is unsalaried and the work is unofficial, but presidents’ wives have used their platforms to promote worthy causes, promote their husbands — and, sometimes, promote themselves….
…Jimmy Carter’s younger brother Billy, who gained celebrity for his boozy, good-ol’ boy likability. In the late 1970s, he endorsed a product called Billy Beer. The cans read: “Brewed expressly for and with the personal approval of one of America’s all-time Great Beer Drinkers — Billy Carter.”
Former First Lady Michelle Obama isn’t innocent of promoting friends either. Read on to her own quote about being happy to give designers a “boost.”
Like Conway, Michelle Obama boasted about ‘boosting’ sale of designers
By EMILY JASHINSKY (@EMILYJASHINSKY) •2/9/17 – via Washington Examiner
In an interview with Vogue, First Lady Michelle Obama explicitly acknowledged that one of the questions she considered when choosing fashion designers was, “Can I give them a boost?”
According to Vogue, Obama remarked, “There are definitely designers that I love, people I love to work with. And who they are as people matters. Are they good people? Do they treat their staff well? Do they treat my staff well? Are they young? Can I give them a boost?”
The implication here, of course, is that Michelle Obama deliberately exploited her position as first lady to “boost” the sales of private businesses.
There are more instances where these sorts of things have happened and I don’t remember anyone making such a mountain out of it. I’m not saying that it’s right to or it’s legal to use your political platform to make money or make money for family or friends. There is clearly a law saying that is illegal. All I’m saying is that it’s not anything new. Why is it a bigger deal when the Trump Administration has done this, rather than the people that have done it in the past? Shouldn’t we hold all persons to the same standards? If the laws aren’t enforced for everyone, only a select few, that is just unethical.
Women around the globe should be very happy that Ivanka Trump is in the White House, especially the women of America and those who aren’t fans of her father. She has a very good and strong influence on him. She’s ambitious, successful and she cares about women’s rights; everyone’s rights. With her in her father’s ear he will always advocate for women, because he will never want to let “his little girl” down.
There is still a bias, and a “negative narrative” being pushed to the American public, that Neil Gorsuch will take away the right to choose abortion, and that he will be an “enemy” to atheists. He’s also being accused of “only being a friend to giant corporations’. I just saw something about him being a “fascist” even. Which is all just fake news, click bait and attempts to smear his reputation to make an excuse for a filibuster. The reason I think this is, because I can prove that Gorsuch has bipartisan appeal.
The Democratic Party made up their minds before they even knew who the nominee was that they were going to block it.
The Republican Party has done something similar to The Democratic Party in the recent past however, there’s is a lot of hypocrisy going on from everywhere. Let’s take a closer look at what’s really going on.
“Within hours of the announcement of Justice Scalia’s death Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), the Senate Majority Leader, poured cold water on the idea of replacing the justice in 2016. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” McConnell wrote in a public statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) insisted that Obama should nominate a replacement for Scalia.” – See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/13194
This is something you may not know. It’s a well accepted opinion, that if a Supreme Court spot opens up in an election year, that the seat should be filled by the new president, so that the people of America have the chance to elect someone that will choose a nominee, that will reflect the citizens values at that current time.
Here is a video of Democrat Joe Biden from 1992. He’s expressing this opinion.
Via an article from the USA News about Barack Obama’s nominee in 2016 -Joe Biden, with a little contradiction to the video above says:
“No one is suggesting individual senators have to vote yes; voting no is always an option,” Biden said. “But deciding in advance to turn your back before the president even names a nominee is not an option the Constitution leaves open. It’s quite frankly an abdication of duty, and one that has never happened in our history.”
The Democrats are still very mad that the Republicans blocked Obama’s 2016 SCOTUS Nominee, even though they have previously argued, that the spot should be filled by the next president, if the spot is open in an election year. (As seen in the video of Joe Biden above. This is often called “the Joe Biden Rule“.)
Hypocrite Alert: Schumer in 2007: Don’t confirm any Bush Supreme Court nominee
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) said in July 2007 that no George W. Bush nominee to the Supreme Court should be approved, except in extraordinary circumstances, 19 months before a new president was set to be inaugurated.
(Hmmm, so when the Republicans did it in 2016 for 11 months it wasn’t ok. But when Democrats did it for 19, it was? This is hardly a “stolen seat,” like I’ve been seeing in a lot of headlines the past few days.)
The top Democrat in the Senate is warning President-elect Donald Trump about his eventual Supreme Court choice: Name a ‘mainstream’ nominee or Democrats will oppose the individual ‘with everything we have.’ Jan. 4, 2017, at 1:34 p.m.
After Democrats had their SCOTUS blocked by Republicans for so long in 2016, both sides were frustrated. Now Democrats want to push back for a little revenge. They do not like the fact that, not only did they lose the election, and the SCOTUS spot, but they also lost it all to President Donald J. Trump. They had already made up their minds, no matter who he were to nominate, they were ready to “oppose the individual with everything we have.” Chuck Schumer – source US News
But did you know?????
Flashback: These Current Democrat Senators All Voted To Support Gorsuch In 2006
On July 20, 2006, Neil Gorsuch Was Confirmed By The Senate On A Voice Vote As A Judge On The United States Court Of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit. (PN1565, Gorsuch Nomination , Approved By Voice Vote, 7/20/06)
There Are 12 Democrat Senators That Supported Gorsuch’s Nomination In 2006 And Are Still In The Senate: Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Maria Cantwell (D-OR), Tom Carper (D-DE), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Patty Murray (D-WA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Jack Reed (D-RI), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), And Ron Wyden (D-OR). (“Senators Of The 109th Congress,” U.S. Senate , Accessed 7/27/06)
Other Democrat Senators That Supported Gorsuch In 2006 Included Harry Reid (D-NV), John Kerry (D-MA), Barack Obama (D-IL), Joe Biden (D-DE), And Hillary Clinton (D-NY). (“Senators Of The 109th Congress,” U.S. Senate , Accessed 7/27/06)
No Senate Democrats Objected To Gorsuch’s Confirmation Or Demanded A Recorded Vote. ( The Congressional Record , 7/20/06, S8036)
This is quite a different narrative, than Democrats and Mr. Schumer would like you to believe about Neil Gorsuch. It would seem that just a decade ago he had full bipartisan support. How did he go from that, to this horrible narrow minded “fascist” that I keep hearing about on most news sources?
“I am hard-pressed to think of one thing President Trump has done right in the last 11 days since his inauguration,” wrote acting solicitor general in the Obama administration Neal Katyal in the pages of The New York Times. “Until Tuesday, when he nominated an extraordinary judge and man, Neil Gorsuch, to be a justice on the Supreme Court.”
I don’t think any of this is actually about Gorsuch. If he had been nominated by any other Republican president, he would be having a completely different reception right now. In my opinion, this is more about revenge and a distaste for President Donald J. Trump.
“The Senate must insist upon 60-votes for any Supreme Court nominee,” Mr. Schumer said in a statement.
Republicans could counter with the so-called “nuclear option,” using a shortcut to change the rules and eliminate the 60-vote filibuster threshold. But GOP leaders have been circumspect on that option.
via USA Today
“When the Senate previously confirmed him to the appellate court, the bipartisan support in the Senate was so overwhelming, a roll call vote was not even required,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “I hope members of the Senate will again show him fair consideration and respect the result of the recent election with an up-or-down vote on his nomination, just like the Senate treated the four first-term nominees of Presidents Clinton and Obama.”
Some Democrats have said they are especially wary of Gorsuch’s apparent lack of support for abortion rights and freedom of religion. I can’t say much on the abortion, because he has yet to judge on a case like that, however he has proved to be a judge that will uphold our Constitution and preserve rights for all Americans, including freedom of religion.
Gorsuch attends an Episcopal church and cited his faith in his nomination speech, but he hasn’t ruled directly on abortion rights.
He wrote a book on assisted suicide that concluded “intentional taking of human life …is always wrong” and his originalist stance is hard to square with the reasoning in Roe v. Wade, but he also says it is important to respect precedent.
Gorsuch has ruled consistently in favor of religious rights, joining the Hobby Lobby decision later affirmed by the Supreme Court allowing religious employers to avoid paying for contraceptives.
Everyone is making speculations and causing hysteria. But in my opinion, I don’t think that people should “freak out,” about speculations. I see a lot of that lately.
A fascist would not have had such strong bipartisan support in 2006, by such respected Democrats with in their party.
Via an article from The Huffington Post from 02/13/2016 08:58 pm ET | Updated Dec 19, 2016
Just minutes after news broke Saturday afternoon, (2-13-2016), that Antonin Scalia had died at 79, Republicans said they would not confirm President Barack Obama’s nomination to replace the conservative Supreme Court justice — no matter who it is. “Justice Scalia was an American hero,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a presidential candidate and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, tweeted Sunday. “We owe it to him, & the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement.”
(So as you see they hypocrisy comes from both sides.)
From the same article…
No president in recent memory has faced a Supreme Court vacancy that opened during his final year in office. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s current swing vote, took office during Ronald Reagan’s final year in office. But Reagan had nominated him the previous November. He was Reagan’s third choice — after Robert Bork, who was rejected by the Senate, and Douglas Ginsburg, who withdrew from consideration. And the vacancy he was filling had opened the previous July.
The most recent broadly similar situation occurred in June of 1968 (an election year), when President Lyndon Baines Johnson, who had said he would not run for re-election, nominated Associate Justice Abe Fortas to take over as chief justice of the Supreme Court. Republicans and conservative southern Democrats filibustered Fortas’ nomination, and Johnson eventually withdrew it.
Fortas was already on the court. The nomination was to make him chief justice. Which would not have changed the court’s ideological makeup. (When Johnson nominated Fortas, he also nominated Homer Thornberry, a judge and former congressman, to fill Fortas’ seat. But when the Senate rejected Fortas for chief justice, Thornberry’s nomination died, too.)
Democrats have nothing to worry about with, Neil Gorsuch, he has a dazzling resume and is more than qualified. They should be ecstatic.
Watch out for the crap news out there everyone!
Not everyone knows how this process even works so I thought I’d include this for you.
How the Nomination Process for Supreme Court Justices Works
Who selects the Supreme Court justices?
This is more about a B.S. detection, instead of just fake news. Although many news sources have been setting the tone, that Chuck Schumer, is devastated about, this new terrorist protection executive order, that President Trump has implemented.
If you think President Trump, wasn’t being very nice, when he said, Chuck Schumer was fake crying, about the “refugee pause”. You really should watch this video. It’s very eye opening. Chuck Schumer and anyone promoting the story that, Chuck is in fact genuine about those tears, is manipulating your mind and playing on your emotions.
In my opinion, National Security should not even be a debate, period. According to this video, sounds like that’s what Mr. Chuck Schumer thinks too. However, he’s changed his mind all of the sudden. I wonder why? Could it be because he just doesn’t want to accept the fact that Donald Trump is the President of The United States?
*Notice how there is a small group of refugees standing around Mr. Schumer, in the video above. Is this suppose to make us feel even more guilty? Are these human props to make his statement more impactful? I don’t appreciate tactics like that.
The press is using, mass hysteria and now guilt to manipulate your perception. They want to use your compassion, your giant hearts, and your need to help others, to make you think you should be putting these refugees in front of the safety of your family. They are trying to use guilt, to make you think if you don’t, then you are some how a horrible selfish person. Putting the needs of our country and it’s people is not being mean spirited, or un-American. It also doesn’t mean that people’s rights are being violated. If anything it means our right to safety is being preserved.
This is not a violation of religious freedom, because this is not a “muslim ban.” This is a temporary pause, so that we can “quality check” our vetting process as a precaution. This is a pause of a group of countries, not people. These countries have been marked as dangerous, not by the Trump Administration but by the Obama Administration.
This is immigration explained with gumballs. When I first stumbled upon it, I almost didn’t watch it. By the time it was over, my mind was completely blown!
So after watching this video, you can see that helping people where they are; helping them become strong free countries, where they already live; ultimately helps way more people than trying to bring them all here. Not only that, but by bringing the smartest and strongest people here, it takes away from those communities that would benefit by having that person stay and build their society. It also can end up putting a major strain on our communities and population.
Setting up programs to help these refugees in their countries has the potential to help so many more people, and would make such a bigger impact on the world.
Photo credit: Power of Positivity https://www.facebook.com/powerofpositivity/
This update of the vetting process, is not the first thing that Chuck Schumer has been a hypocrite about. Currently, he doesn’t support, President Donald J. Trump’s nomination for SCOTUS, (Neil Gorsuch), even though, Chuck was part of the unanimous vote in 2006, that confirmed Gorsuch for Colo. appeals court judge. (Blog about this to come.)
Flashback: These Current Democrat Senators All Voted To Support Gorsuch In 2006
On July 20, 2006, Neil Gorsuch Was Confirmed By The Senate On A Voice Vote As A Judge On The United States Court Of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit. (PN1565, Gorsuch Nomination , Approved By Voice Vote, 7/20/06)
There Are 12 Democrat Senators That Supported Gorsuch’s Nomination In 2006 And Are Still In The Senate Including: Chuck Schumer (D-NY),
Other Democrat Senators That Supported Gorsuch In 2006 Included Harry Reid (D-NV), Barack Obama (D-IL), Joe Biden (D-DE), And Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
Below is the actual text of the executive order that has caused all the controversy and protesting. I just want to note to you that it says nothing about a “muslim ban”. It says nothing about discriminating against people, because of religion or race. There are 40 other muslim dominate countries, that are not on the order. I also want to note that the list of countries was taken from intel that was obtained during the Obama Administration. This order is only temporary, so that we can “quality check,” improve our “vetting” and national security. This is a precaution, put in place for our safety. If this order saves even one of our American citizens or individuals already living in this country. It was worth it.
EXECUTIVE ORDER: PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES – Text to the actual Order in Question
It’s interesting to me the picture, that the press is trying to paint, and the actual reality, is nothing like what they want you to believe. Why am I not surprised? I keep exposing their lies.
[Update: 2-3-17 11:18pm: I found this — An open letter to Senator Chuck Schumer http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/01/open-letter-to-senator-chuck-schumer.html –
by Ray Starmann is the founder of US Defense Watch. He is a former U.S. Army Intelligence officer and veteran of the Gulf War] Definately worth the read.
See how CNN Debunks their own fake story about the inauguration photo of President Donald J. Trump 2017
Most of the public has seen the comparison photos of Obama’s Inauguration and Trump’s.(Allegedly that is Trump’s 2017 Inauguration photo on the left and Obama’s from 2009 on the right.)
Above is the photo that went out to the public, just an hour or so after President Trump’s 2017 inauguration was over with.
When I first saw this article, it came from CBS, with a photo credit to Reuters. I knew it was #fakenews. It made me so angry, that I had to post it, to my facebook page, and call it out to the rest of my friends. I included this statement:
I also posted on several news page’s articles, from Facebook, that had picked up story. The story spread like wildfire, in a matter of a few hours. I kept telling people that it was a fake story, and the other things that I have said, in the quote above. I will believe what I saw on live TV, with my own eyeballs. The place was packed all the way to the Washington Monument. There is no way that this picture was taken at the time of his swearing in. Not to mention the fact that it was raining. I was criticised, called every offensive name you can think of, including the absolute worst things you can think of, by every #TrumpHater. It’s very disheartening to know you are right, and no one believes you. The hate was so thick I could have cut it with a knife.
Below you will see a video I found. You can imagine how happy I was to see it. I immediately went to search the heck out of it and make sure it was legit. First I went to CNN, because it claims that CNN debunks their own story. Apparently CNN was either the source of the story, or one of the news sources that jumped on it, as soon as they saw it. (No wonder Trump has been calling them fake news. Right?) After searching CNN I couldn’t find it, but I went and search “giga pixels inauguration day 2017 Trump”. Bam! I left the link for you below the video.
Here is the link so you can see for yourself:
In the video the claim is the President Trump Inauguration picture was actually taken at 8:00 am on Friday January 20, 2017. Deliberately a manipulation to cause drama in the public eye.
Now my questions for you are.
These are all questions that trouble me. Especially because by making you think that no one was there, they manipulated how you feel about the peaceful transfer of power, between our previous President Obama and our new controversial President Trump. You have been mad and stress for over a week and this story helped start the tension. It also has help incite the violence and several people have been HURT because of the tension.
Honestly, in my own opinion, I do not think he overreacted. He could have reacted better. He could have tried to calmed down before he made a statement, however he has every right to be mad. We all have a right to be very mad!
We all think our opinions are right.
#AlternativeFacts is a horrible way of saying, #ADifferentPerspective, but this is what, I believe is the meaning. With this blog my intent is to bring to my readers, just that.
A different perspective is not a bad thing. We all get so caught up in the passion of how we believe, our personal feelings, experiences and opinions…sometimes it’s hard to see any other perspective through all of our own fire.
We all think our opinions are right. What you think are facts, I may know something else that you haven’t read or seen yet, as well as you may have seen or read something I haven’t. The facts I know are a different way of looking at the same thing. As well as vise versa. This is why creating a dialogue between one another is so very important. We can not just spout off anger and then shut down, just because we think our opinion is the right opinion. We will not get anywhere doing things like that.
Listening to each other is key. Educating ourselves is key. RESPECTING EACH OTHER IS KEY. The hating and the name calling is not helping anyone’s cause.
I’ve found that the bias from any news media these days has forced us to read the same story, 3-5 times in order to navigate our way through what the facts actually are and what is the opinions of the author. It’s making it exhausting to try and stay informed. This is not an acceptable practice for any news source to use.
A news source should be giving the straight up factual news and then letting the public decide how they feel about it. That means not leaving out convenient facts, because they do not fit their own agenda/opinion. This also means not trying to turn stories into positives or especially negatives to create angst and/or any other feelings in the public. It’s irresponsible as a journalist. If you are going to be an opinion writer, start a blog like I did.
I’ve also found that the more hateful, outrageous, and inciteful the headlines are the more the media will use them, even if they don’t really have anything to do with the actual story. They do it to get your attention, if a story is posted on social media, they want you to click it. The more clicks the more money for the ads that are supporting their website.
Did you know that most of Americans don’t even read beyond the headlines? Many of them will make a negative comment regarding their opinion and not even know what they are commenting on.
“the average news consumer in the United States is a headline-reader — at best. A new study by the Media Insight Project, an initiative of the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the American Press Institute — the entire thing is enlightening about how we consume (and don’t consume) news — affirms this fact.”-via The Washington Post
In conclusion, it’s best to do your research, and stay informed. Don’t just stay on page one of your search results. I tend to navigate through at least 10 pages. That way you can read the same story from many sources, and include a variety, between left wing/right wing/ and independent opinions. It’s also helpful to look for old news from years past, because you might find that the news is now changing the narrative from the facts of history they were reporting several months or years ago.
Good luck everyone! I hope you all feel better soon and God Bless America!
Source: Washington Post
Americans read headlines. And not much else.