03-17-2017, 01:43 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-17-2017, 01:50 AM by Mystic Wanderer.)
Right vs. Left vs. Alternative Media
![[Image: American-Flag_shutterstock_52044700.jpg]](http://wonderopolis.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/American-Flag_shutterstock_52044700.jpg)
I've come across several different views concerning President Trump's travel ban being stopped again by a judge in Hawaii.
Personally, I do find it suspicious that Obama re-routed his trip to make a stop in Hawaii and pay a visit with the Judge there, and shortly after, the judge put a stop on the travel ban. Something stinks to high heaven here!
But, that's just my opinion. What do all the other views have to say?
Okay, let's get the conservative side up first, since that's how I listed it in the title:
This video comes from Fox news: http://video.foxnews.com/v/5362253703001...show-clips
(You'll have to click on the link to watch. )
I think the Fox news reporters did a good job covering the story.
Now, notice below how the Liberals choose words that give a negative spin on Trump and his fight to keep us safe.
The Liberal view:
Trump travel ban: Second US judge block new executive order
Quote:Federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland have blocked US President Donald Trump's new travel ban, which was due to begin after midnight on Thursday.
The order would have placed a 90-day ban on people from six mainly Muslim nations and a 120-day ban on refugees.
Both judges questioned the legality of the ban, which critics say is discriminatory.
President Trump insists the move is to stop terrorists from entering the United States.
He complained of "unprecedented judicial overreach".
An earlier version of the order, issued in late January, sparked confusion and protests, and was blocked by a judge in Seattle.
In Hawaii, District Judge Derrick Watson cited "questionable evidence" in the government's argument that the ban was a matter of national security.
US District Judge Theodore Chuang, sitting in Maryland, also ruled it was meant to be a ban on Muslims, and therefore violated the First Amendment.
Hawaii state had argued that the ban would harm tourism and the ability to recruit foreign students and workers, while in Maryland the plaintiffs argued it discriminated against Muslims and illegally reduced to number of refugees being accepted for resettlement in the US.
What did the judges say?
Judge Watson said the court had established a strong likelihood that, were the ban to go ahead, it would cause "irreparable injury" by violating First Amendment protections against religious discrimination.
In his 43-page ruling, he argued that a "reasonable, objective observer" taking into account the context of the Executive Order would conclude it "was issued with a purpose to disfavour a particular religion".
It notes statements made by Mr Trump such as a 2015 press release calling for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States", and his adviser Rudolph Guiliani, who said in a television interview in January: "When [Mr Trump] first announced it, he said: 'Muslim ban'. He called me up. He said: 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.'"
It also says there is a "dearth of evidence indicating a national security purpose".
In his ruling, Judge Chuang wrote: "To avoid sowing seeds of division in our nation, upholding this fundamental constitutional principle at the core of our nation's identity plainly serves a significant public interest."
(There is more, if you wish to continue reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39287656 )
"Hawaii state had argued that the ban would harm tourism and the ability to recruit foreign students and workers, while in Maryland the plaintiffs argued it discriminated against Muslims and illegally reduced to number of refugees being accepted for resettlement in the US."
Harm tourism?! How about your tourism being harmed when the Islamic Extremists come over to "vacation" on your island and break all the windows in your pretty beach front hotels? What about when they start attacking people in the street for no good reason, or beating and raping the women?!
Recruit foreign students and workers?! Well, those jobs should be offered to LEGAL AMERICANS first, right? I bet a lot of young people would love to have a job and get started on planning their future, now that we have a president who is going to help us stand strong again by earning higher wages. Maybe they will be able to afford to get out of their parents basement!
I see no reason why foreign students couldn't come in. They just have to be properly vetted first.
Now, moving on to the Alternative News:
Judges Inventing New Reasons to Obstruct Donald Trump’s Popular Immigration Reforms
Quote:These left-wing judges are competing with each other to throw invented legalistic roadblocks in front of Trump’s legal and proper defense of the nation’s borders, said Hans Von Spakovsky, a former lawyer at the Department of Justice who is now working for the Heritage Foundation.
“I don’t think the [various judges] have any professional shame about it — in fact, they’re being applauded by newspaper editors for actually ignoring the [Congress’] law and [Supreme Court] rulings based on their own personal policy preferences,” he told Breitbart.
The judges’ grab for power, despite the plain text of the Congress’ law and despite prior Supreme Court decisions, “is destructive of the rule of law, which is the entire basis of our Republic,” he said.
“It is a very bad development that threatens our democracy … [and] it looks like it is going to get worse [because] we’re going to have more and more litigation, and it is very clear that the progressive left wants to use the courts to fight way our democracy works,” he said, adding “I think what they doing is very anti-democratic.”
Read more here: Source
The article above brings out more interesting points not covered in the others, but the title is "leading" the reader's view.
Our next alternative site just comes out and says how most conservatives really feel about the matter, I think.
Treasonous Trip: Obama Secretly Jets to Hawaii and Screws Trump's Travel Ban
Okay, this site won't allow me to copy and paste, so...
Read it here: Article Link
And one more site that tells it straight from Trump's mouth, as he said it: Info Wars, with Alex Jones.
Quote:Speaking from a rally in Nashville Wednesday night, the president said it was “unprecedented judicial overreach.”
“Let me give you the bad news,” Trump said. “We don’t like bad news, right? Let me give you the bad, the sad news. Moments ago, I learned that a district judge in Hawaii, part of the much overturned ninth circuit court, and I have to be nice or otherwise I’ll be criticized for speaking poorly about our courts…a judge has blocked our executive order. The order he blocked was a watered down version of the first order. That was also blocked by another judge and should have never been blocked to start with.”
“This new order was tailored to the ninth circuit’s dictates. The law and Constitution give the president the power to suspend immigration when he or she deems — fortunately, it will not be Hillary she…”
“We are talking about the safety of our nation,” he continued. “The safety and security of our people. You don’t think this was done by a judge for a political reason? This ruling makes us look weak, which by the way we no longer are. Just look at our orders…”
“We are going to take our case as far as it needs to go, even to the Supreme Court. We are going to win. I will not stop fighting for the safety of you and your families. Not today, not ever. We’re going to win it. We are going to win it. We are going to apply common sense. We are never quitting and we are never going away.”
U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson froze the order on Wednesday after the state filed a lawsuit against the president’s revised order last week.
The order, which temporarily bars the citizens of Sudan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia and Yemen from entering the United States for 90 days, was supposed to go into effect at midnight Wednesday.
Read the full article
Alex Jones is my favorite. He always shows documentation with his claims, or has people on who know what they're talking about.
If you're looking for "truth", I don't think it gets better than Info Wars with Alex. Again, this is just my personal opinion.
So, there's several news sources covering the same story. Did you notice how the wording can change the view of the reader?
Do you see how the media brain-washes people to follow the narrative from their own view point?
(I did this myself when commenting about the liberals. Sorry... couldn't help it! )
What is your opinion on these news sources?
Which one do you think did the best job, presented facts to backup their claim, while remaining neutral during reporting, and allowing the reader to come to their own conclusion?
