I think it is safe to say that even hard-core Trump supporters that believed he would attempt to keep his campaign promises, are surprised at the speed, or as The Hill dubs it, the "dizzying pace" at which President Trump has hit the ground running, checking off campaign promise after campaign promise, at least the ones he can keep without Congressional cooperation, which will undoubtedly take longer.
If conservatives are pleasantly surprised, the PC police on the left and the liberal progressives are shell shocked, not knowing which of the first four Executive Orders or the first seven Presidential Memorandums to attack first, or even whether to attack the content and specifics, or just go after the wording, the very UN-PC terminology. (Note- All EOs and Memorandums signed by Trump to date, are linked at the bottom of this article)
Via our own and other conservative websites' comment section, we already had a feel for how Trump supporters were reacting to the flurrying of activity in the White House, or as the Roll Call refers to it, the "Charm Offensive" that contrasts Obama's way of handling things, and the EOs and Memorandums coming out of the White House, but we thought it would be interesting to see how the PC police of the left were reacting.
They are not taking the transition from Obama to Trump well at all.
Before we begin, let me make a point: It is imperative that we understand the arguments, the lies, the "fake news," and inaccurate memes from the left, because had we, and other Independent news sites, not done so throughout the whole election campaign, those would have been the only voices heard and Hillary Clinton would be president right now.
LIBERAL LIES VERSUS REALITY
Over at Slate Magazine, which was purchased by The Washington Post Company in 2004, later renamed the Graham Holdings Company (source) we see on January 25, 2017, just five days after the presidential inauguration, and just three days into the new work week of the new administration, they have declared "Today Was the Worst Day Yet," concluding that "It was a dark day."
While there is a long list of complaints from the Wapo puppets over at Slate, let us start with their assertion that a reference in the Executive Order "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States," to "removable aliens," somehow translates into "disposable people"
Disposable People—Today, the president of the United States began referring to humans as "removable aliens."
The passage in the EO that seems to offend the Slate writer, is part of Section 1, in regards to Sanctuary cities, where it states:
Tens of thousands of removable aliens have been released into communities across the country, solely because their home countries refuse to accept their repatriation. Many of these aliens are criminals who have served time in our Federal, State, and local jails. The presence of such individuals in the United States, and the practices of foreign nations that refuse the repatriation of their nationals, are contrary to the national interest.
Although Federal immigration law provides a framework for Federal-State partnerships in enforcing our immigration laws to ensure the removal of aliens who have no right to be in the United States, the Federal Government has failed to discharge this basic sovereign responsibility. We cannot faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States if we exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement. The purpose of this order is to direct executive departments and agencies (agencies) to employ all lawful means to enforce the immigration laws of the United States.
Liberals have had a long habit of attempting to change the terminology in referencing those in the U.S. illegally, under the guise of being politically correct, preferring the terms "undocumented immigrant" or "Undocumented worker" as Obama preferred or even "unauthorized immigrants," despite the fact that by the very definition, if someone is in the country illegally, it makes them an illegal alien.
Following simply logic, if someone is here illegally, they are "removable," is our laws are enforced.
It seems the writer is also offended by the creation of the "Office for Victims of Crimes Committed by Removable Aliens," which they falsely claim is the "Criminalization of Immigrants," as they bemoan the fact that there will be a weekly report of "a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens."
In other words, they are complaining that there will be data provided to Americans about criminal activity committed by illegal aliens in Sanctuary Cities, which are cities that deliberately disregard federal immigration laws, to which are now upset that Trump is threatening to remove their federal funding if they do not comply with federal law.
A secondary but critical point here is how Slate seems to be attempting the age-old liberal trick of conflating immigrants with "illegal" immigrants in order to justify their false meme that Trump's orders are "new anti-immigration" policies. I have not seen any reputable conservative site, nor Trump himself, state they have a problem with legal immigration..... but Slate wants their readers to be confused and to think that Trump hates all immigrants.
How is that being spun on the left? Slate "So, an undocumented immigrant crime report/sanctuary city shame list." Raw Story, which self-describes as "progressive," uses the same shame meme, headlining with "Trump to publish weekly list of alleged ‘alien’ crimes in attempt to shame sanctuary cities," and the far left liberal Daily Kos, gets the "Unhinged" award of the day with "Trump plans to punish sanctuary cities by undermining local law enforcement—smart play!"
Their liberal logic appears to be that if Trump strips federal funding from law enforcement that is refusing to .... enforce the law, then he is undermining their ability to enforce the laws they are already refusing to enforce.
I have never seen such liberals twisting themselves into pretzels so awkwardly in all my years of writing.
Next up, the AP reported that a draft of another EO, would suspend issuing visas for people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria or Yemen, all countries with a high level of terrorist activity, for at least 30 days, while ordering "Homeland Security and State Department officials, along with the director of national intelligence, to review what information the government needs to fully vet would-be visitors and come up with a list of countries that don't provide it. The order says the government will give countries 60 days to start providing the information or citizens from those countries will be barred from traveling to the United States."
Trump campaigned on the promise he would fix the vetting process in an attempt to stop terrorists from infiltrating the refugee program in order to conduct other attacks on American soil. In October 2015, FBI director James Comey testified before a House Committee on Homeland Security, that "federal government does not have the ability to conduct thorough background checks on all of the 10,000 Syrian refugees that the Obama administration says will be allowed to come to the U.S."
The AP also reports that while this suspension is in place, there will be exceptions made on a case-by-case basis:
The order said while the program is suspended, the U.S. may admit people on a case-by-case basis "when in the national interest" and the government would continue to process refugee requests from people claiming religious persecution, "provided that the religion....is a minority religion in the individual's country." That suggests that would allow the admission of Christians from Muslim-majority countries.
Trump's order also directs government officials to make a variety of changes to how visas are issued, including requiring that everyone applying for a non-immigrant visa be interviewed in person. Previously, waivers could be granted to skip the interview.
How are liberals spinning these proposed moves to protect Americans from terror attacks like what we witnessed with San Bernardino, CA, Ohio State, Orlando, FL, Chattanooga, TN, and others?
Slate: "Refugees Rejected" and "Targeting Muslims," where they assert to their readers "Today, we are one day closer to the president of the United States broadly declaring millions of Muslims unwelcome in America."
The accurate description would be that millions of terrorists from Muslim dominated countries are unwelcome during the new administration and that the vetting process is being revamped to prevent mass terror attacks on U.S. soil.
Make no mistake, the MSM and the left are coalescing around their "anti-immigrant" and anti-Muslim" narrative in order to convince the sheep that still think they are relevant that Trump is attacking "legal immigrants" rather than the truth that he is implementing policy to enforce existing laws, taking steps to correct the failures of the existing vetting process, and to force out-of-control states that are refusing to follow the law, to either do so, or have their funding stripped.
BOTTOM LINE
We all know by now that there is a massive battle to counter the MSM propaganda with the truth, and the only way to counter it is by knowing what they are misrepresenting and intentionally spinning in a false narrative to further divide Americans and to highlight their lies when we see them.
List of Executive Orders and Presidential Memorandums, as of January 25, 2017, listed below. Encourage everyone to read them for themselves, to not allow anyone, on the right or the left to "interpret" them, to spin them, or to decide what part of them are important and what portion to ignore.
