CNN’s POTUS Approval Ratings SUCK

5446619369bedd2b5b3ecd67-320-619CNN released a new poll today, conducted by Philadelphia pollsters SSRS, showing that President Donald Trump’s approval rating is “holding steady” – and his numbers on handling several key issues are climbing, with almost 6 in 10 Americans say things in Hthat country are going well. 

BUT WAIT… this is not GOOD news, CNN anchors “libsplained” today to their pathetically-dwindling but faithful weekday mid-afternoon viewers.  If you don’t already know it, you’ll soon see why this systemic bias, demonstrated against the current President by “the Most Trusted Name In News” …is exactly why they no longer live up to the tagline.


Here’s some truth in advertising: CNN is actually “The Most Busted, Rusted and Crusted Name in News”. (I want them to properly credit me before they start using the new tagline in their regular advertising )

You may laugh or get mad – but in fact, a March 2017 Business Insider report, using data from a 2014 Pew Research Center study entitled “Political Polarization and Media Habits“, did, in fact, prove that CNN is no longer the “most trusted name in news”.  In fact, the American people surveyed felt that their most trusted news sources at that time were all British, with the BBC and the Economist leading the pack.  I would personally concur.

CNN provided yet one more compelling reason today (May 7, 2017), when releasing President Donald Trump’s most recent Presidential approval rating numbers, just why viewers have abandoned leftist American media outlets en masse.

I noticed it right away when Jake Tapper, one of the longer-serving hosts currently on the financially-limping CNN, stated the following on air, regarding the current Trump Gallup approval ratings:

“Brand new CNN poll numbers revealing Americans’ perceptions of the Donald Trump presidency – and they look pretty locked in, while also becoming increasingly nuanced below the surface.  41% approve of the job the president is doing, 53% disapprove.  That‚Äôs about the same as it was at the end of March.  Every other elected president of the modern era with the exception of Jimmy Carter had higher approval ratings at this stage of his presidency.”  (Jake Tapper, CNN)

What a pile of RUBBISH. Rasmussen Reports, and other much more reputable pollsters (more on that later) disagree.  @jaketapper is a disingenuous buffoon. The fact that you are so desperate to spin polling numbers as to suggest that every President should have the same approval rating at the same period of their administrations is just about the most irrelevant “amazing statistic” nonsense I’ve ever seen.   I don’t think he’s stupid, but Tapper does say some very dumb things that a person could shoot holes through with very little effort.

Here’s the reality:

  1. No two Presidents have ever faced the same issues during the same period.  What a stupid metric to measure Presidential successes by.  George W. Bush was President for 8 months when the Twin Towers fell, and his approval rating went through the roof, lasted about a week and then it dropped constantly right until the end of his administration.  Franklin Roosevelt was elected in the midst of the Great Depression, so again, of course, he was seen as a hero at a very horrible time in American history.

  2. Every single American President has had a lower approval rating than President Trump has right now – with the exception of Eisenhower and Kennedy (from 1952-1963).

Donald Trump – The REAL Numbers

  • Yes, Trump “held steady” this week over last – a 41% approval rating, according to the Gallup organization.  However, the week before that, he was at 38%.  Sorry, a 3% increase IN A WEEK?  No one is celebrating that in the media of course, because it kills the agenda they have, which is to destroy his reputation.

  • That 41% that he is “holding steady” at is in fact the highest rating he’s had since May 22, 2017 (12 months). In spite of all the nonsense that has been dumped on him day after day after day – simply because he won an election that the left just will not accept.  It’s embarrasing, it’s stupid, it’s child, and frankly it’s destroying America.  Grow up, you whiny little jackasses. 

  • The approval rating amongst Democrats is also at a low 13% – but that’s the highest he’s seen since his inauguration.  It was at 50% of that for most of his administration thus far.  THAT is a HUGE win.  In addition, he’s only had 1 month thus far when his Disapproval Rating was LOWER than this. In the new poll, 40% of Democrats say things in the US are going well, up from 25% who said so in February. Democrats’ approval rating for Trump’s handling of the economy is up 11 points to 26%.

  • Overall, 57% say things are going well in the US today — up from 49% saying the same in February — which is the largest proportion to say so since January of 2007.  That’s significant. 

Barack Obama: 

  • This darling boy of the Democratic Party had 30 weeks at 41% or less, 22 weeks at 42% and 28 weeks at 43%.  While Trump only had 13% amongst Democrats maximum, in 8 years Republicans only showed 14% approval or more with Obama for less than 20 weeks (that’s about 4% of his Presidency).  That by the way included the last 11 weeks of his Presidency, which was when he saw his HIGHEST OVERALL DISAPPROVAL.  You know what that means?  His Republican approval for a few weeks – was only because HE WAS LEAVING.

George W. Bush:

  • Bush dealt with the horrors of 9/11 just 8 months after being sworn in in 2001. Of course his approval ratings would be higher earlier on as a result.  But he had 91 weeks at 41% approval rating (Trump’s rating today) or less.

Bill Clinton:

  • The other darling of the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton, also had his bad moments, which included almost BEING IMPEACHED.  However, in fairness, Clinton had an overall approval rating that only dipped to 41% or lower for 7 weeks, and that included a relatively strong showing amongst Republicans – kind of the mirrored image of Ronald

CNN, by the numbers:

CNN’s polling company is a woeful embarrassment.  In fact, in the results of the most recent survey on Presidential approval, I noticed that on one question – the May 2-5, 2018 approval results, they asked how well things are going in the country.

In the first 3 columns, on the first row, I note that 45% said “Fairly Well and 13% “Very Well”…but somehow this added up to 57% “Net Very/Fairly Well” in this pollster’s world?

Even someone in kindergarten would know that 45% + 13% = 58%

With the publicity campaign of destruction, @CNN, you aren’t winning – that’s clear.  The American economy, based on the job that President Trump has been doing, is winning the day with Americans.

You know damn well that polls can be manipulated, asking whatever questions you want in the way you want, to get the results you want.  Your pollster, however, can’t even seem to properly ADD so all hope is lost there.  The fact you use the same pollster for everything states that they must clearly share your agenda, especially when you both end up so clearly off the mark so often in polling numbers in these Presidential approval surveys, in polling results before and on election day, and now before the mid-term elections.

In fact, RealClearPolitics, which tracks about 20 different polls for Presidential approval, shows CNN has a CONSISTENTLY lower approval rating numbers for President Trump than many of its fellow news sources.  That’s kinda sad, because it’s so obvious.  To continuously put out these kind of random, ridiculously off-based numbers all the time either indicates some kind of shared mental illness, a shared agenda, or a news source that doesn’t get just how badly they are being duped by their pollster.

But CNN “gets it”, alright – in fact, it reminds me (cynically) that “you get what you pay for”.

Final Word: Rasmussen Reports

Rasmussen Reports still chooses to do an update every weekday to the President’s approval rating numbers, unlike the Gallup organization, which suspiciously stopped doing so in January 2018 – right around the time the President’s numbers started to improve, I note.  I also note that Gallup stopped surveying 3,500 people per update, and reduced that to 1,500, while at the same time reducing the update time to weekly.  Rasmussen Reports has been rated by the popular Media Fact Check site as having a “High” factual reporting history.  They state on their site that “now that Gallup has quit the field, Rasmussen Reports is the only nationally recognized public opinion firm that still tracks President Trump’s job approval ratings on a daily basis. 

Why does all this matter?  THEIR approval numbers for President Trump for the last week was not 41% as with CNN: It was 49%.  

Date

Approval Index

Strongly Approve

Strongly Disapprove

Total Approve

Total Disapprove

07-May-18

-7

33%

40%

49%

49%

04-May-18

-7

33%

40%

51%

49%

03-May-18

-7

33%

40%

50%

49%

02-May-18

-7

32%

39%

49%

49%

01-May-18

-6

34%

40%

48%

50%

30-Apr-18

-7

34%

41%

47%

52%

27-Apr-18

-7

35%

42%

47%

52%

Again, I hear you asking – “why does this matter”?  Because, dear reader, in the 2016 election campaign between Trump and Clinton – Rasmussen Reports was the only one that got it right.  Had you followed Rasmussen’s findings, as I and many others on the conservative side did before the election, Election Night 2016 was not a surprise to us.  We didn’t have fainting spells over the outcome.  We knew it weeks before it happened.

Rasmussen Reports‚Äô final White House Watch survey showed Democrat Hillary Clinton with a 2.0% Popular Vote lead over Republican Donald Trump.  After all 136+ million U.S. votes were counted, Hillary Clinton, in fact, led the Popular Vote by 2.1%.  In a post-election commentary entitled “Issues Mattered After All,” Rasmussen Reports‚Äô Managing Editor even wrote:

“The media created a false narrative about the 2016 presidential campaign, and most polling reinforced it. Controversy was the name of the media game, most of it focused on Republican Donald Trump, and many media outlets, most prominently the New York Times, and many pollsters were saying a little over a month ago that Democrat Hillary Clinton had already won. But the three daily tracking polls ‚Äď the Los Angeles Times, IBD/TIPP, and Rasmussen Reports ‚Äď consistently showed a much tighter race.”

In 2012 (see above), a Fordham University study by Dr. Costas Panagopoulos, who once served in the office of then Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, compared pre-election polling with the results from Election Day. The study ranked 14 organizations – but suspiciously chose to omit the results of Rasmussen Reports. However, after the 2016 election, an American Research Group study found that…

Rasmussen Reports had the highest accuracy among 25 pollsters in the 2016 election.

CNN was so shamed by their accuracy over its pathetic, completely off-the-mark disaster on Election Night, that they have attempted to discredit in an article in 2017.  But results speak for themselves – when an organization is correct, the one that is so terribly incorrect doesn’t have an argument.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Jake Tapper.  Or whatever you leftists do for fun.
CCClogo-small


By Shawn J.
Founder, Calling Out Community
Posted: May 8, 2018

[God’s Got A Plan For You!] 

The CBC: Public Broadcasting Piggy

On November 28, 2016, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) came up with a bold new revenue concept – just ask the federal Liberal government for more money. ¬†$400 million more, to be exact, so Mother Corp. wouldn’t have to face the gruesome task of having to sell ads. They want a¬†funding model much like the one which the¬†British Broadcasting System (BBC) currently enjoys with their Government. ¬†

We thought – what the heck, since they brought it up, let’s do a cost/benefit analysis of¬†the CBC against some of its global public broadcasting colleagues, such as the¬†BBC,¬†America’s Public Broadcasting System (PBS)¬†and¬†National Public Radio (NPR), and¬†the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, – just so we are truly well-informed.

Warning:  results may be offensive and cause irritation.  Some readers have reported headaches, blurred vision, heart palpitations, sleepless nights, angry talk around the office water cooler.  Serious side effects may include calling your Member of Parliament.  Ask your doctor whether thinking about the CBC is right for you.  Continue further at your own risk, viewer discretion is advised.


img_0634

National Public Radio ( USA)
|Website:www.npr.org
Media Type:  Radio

Possible Reach:  335,332,408
Actual Reach:
 28.8 million weekly listeners, 39.2 million unique monthly listeners
Number of Stations: 1,000

Open, flexible, cost efficient and collaborative, the new NPR headquarters is the home base for NPR News, digital, NPR Music, technical and administrative staff.
(Credit: Stephen Voss/NPR)
Budget (Fiscal Year 2016):

Total Revenue: $216,000,000 includes: 
Government grants: $20,155,000 Рor $0.70/average weekly listener.  9.3% of revenue
Corporate sponsorships: $60,000,000
Station Programming Fees: $73,000,000

Total Expenses:  $212,000,000 includes:
News and information: $81,600,000
Programming Costs: $20,600,000
Administrative Support Services: $60,000,000 Р28.3% of total expenses

National Public Radio (NPR)  has a unique funding model that is probably not matchable in the world. As a result of a very large population base of over 300 million people and being located in a nation where many of the biggest corporate names in the world are located, their ability to gather corporate sponsorships, personal donations, and revenue through other business means, makes it difficult to compare them.

What is interesting, however, is that almost 10% of the country listens to them on a weekly basis. This is substantial considering how few listeners or viewers there might be on other public networks around the world Рand considering the vast number of radio competitors in every market.

Their real competitive advantage, however, is not government grants or even corporate sponsorships, or their ability to grab large audiences, it’s the quality of their programming – and that’s recognised around the world. ¬†At a time when every radio market probably in every major city has 20 or 30 different competitors on AM/FM – including significant talk radio for mass and the advent of satellite radio which is a growing¬†competitor in the US, they are doing very well.


pbs_logo-svg_

Public Broadcasting System – PBS ( USA)
Website: www.pbs.org
Media Type: Television, DVD Sales

Possible Reach:  335,332,408
Actual Reach:
100 million/month, and 198 million viewers annually, 82% of the population
Number of Stations: 350

The global home of the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) in Arlington, VA (Credit: PBS.org)Budget (Fiscal Year 2015):

Total Revenue: $625,000,000 includes: 
Government grants: $26,000,000 – or $0.13/annual viewer, 4% of revenue
Broadcasting Rights: $165,000,000
Individual Memberships: $158,000,000

Total Expenses:  $618,000,000 includes:
News and information: $372,000,000
Administrative Support Services: $36,000,000 Р5.8% of total expenses

Founded in 1969, PBS is by far the world’s greatest public broadcasting entity and has been rated as the most trustworthy institution among nationally known organizations for 13 consecutive years in the United States. Its reach is staggering, with over 80% of Americans tuning in at some point over the year, and over 100 million regular viewers a month. ¬†With millions of paying members, it’s by far the most loyal¬†audience for any media network in America. ¬†Thousands of Canadians are loyal, paid-up members as well.

PBS averaged a 1.46 primetime household rating during the 2014-’15 season, ranking it the #5 broadcast and cable network. (Nielsen NPower, 9/22/2014-9/20/2015) ¬†In fact, PBS’ primetime household audience is significantly larger than many commercial channels, including Bravo (PBS’ audience is 133% larger), A&E (120% larger), TLC (116% larger), HBO (79% larger), Discovery Channel (51% larger) and HGTV (48% larger). In addition, PBS’ primetime rating for news and public affairs programming is 109% higher than CNN‚Äôs primetime audience. (Nielsen NPower, 9/22/2014-9/20/2015)

Its influence on families is astounding – 71% of all kids age two to eight watched PBS during the 2014-’15 season, ¬†(Nielsen NPower, 9/22/2014-9/20/2015) including global powerhouse Sesame Street, the number #1 children’s programming on Earth. Now into its 46th year on PBS, 95% of American kids have watched an episode before they turn 3. ¬†The winner of 169 Emmy and 8 Grammy awards also has an adult alumni of over 77 million Americans and viewers in 120 other nations.

PBS LearningMedia, a partnership of PBS and WGBH Educational Foundation, is a media-on-demand service offering educators access to the best of public media and delivers research-based, classroom-ready digital learning experiences. Over 1.8 million registered educators have access to more than 120,000 curriculum-aligned digital resources from over 205 trusted media partners, impacting an estimated 40 million students nationwide.


_44006845_bbc_logo_bbc416

British Broadcasting Corporation (UK)
Website: www.bbc.com
Media Type:  Radio, Television, DVD Sales


Possible Reach:
 65,300,000 (United Kingdom), 372 million worldwide
Actual Reach: 96% weekly reach across radio and TV
Number of Stations: 26 local/regional TV stations, 11 international stations, over 40 local and national radio stations

The £1 billion renovated Broadcasting House, first built in 1932, is the global home of the British Broadcasting Corporation. (Credit: BBC.co.u
Budget 
(Fiscal Year 2016):

Total Revenue:  £4.963 billion includes:
License fee income (mandatory): £3.743 billion  (£10 per person global audience)
Sales of television program rights worldwide:  £1.084 billion
Advertising sales:  $0 (the BBC does not sell any advertising)

Total Expenses: £4.797 billion includes:
Operating Costs: £4.773 billion

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), headquartered at Broadcasting House in London, is the world’s oldest national broadcasting organisation and the largest broadcaster in the world by number of employees, with over 20,950 full and part-time staff around the world. ¬†Its news division continues to be the #1 most retweeted in the world.
The BBC was created under Royal Charter and has a funding model unique in the broadcasting world Рa television licence, costing £145.50 per year ($232.50 CA) per household since April 2010, legally required by every home and business to receive broadcast television across the UK, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.  Over £1 billion was used to build their new Broadcasting House, which was renovated and re-opened by Queen Elizabeth II  in 2006.

As they have a direct responsibility to the people of Britain for the money collected by this fee, the BBC has embarked on a miraculous transformation in the last few years.  They have continued to reduce the number of senior managers and their cost Р£78.5 million on August 1, 2009, to £47.0 million in 2016.  The total number of senior managers is 356, 45 fewer than last year and 279 fewer than 2009.

Around a quarter of BBC revenues come from its commercial arm¬†BBC Worldwide Ltd, which sells BBC programmes and services internationally and also distributes the BBC’s international 24-hour English-language news services¬†BBC World News, and from BBC.com, provided by BBC Global News Ltd. ¬†Because of the BBC’s incredible quest for delivering quality programming, they are able to sell their programs to individuals as well, through the BBC Store online, which has over 7,000 hours of programming available for sale. ¬†The BBC is seen as THE English language service for the entire world, thus why they have a substantially higher budget than if they were just within the UK.

Their US offshoot BBC America is one of 11 international channels that they oversee worldwide.  They also have headquarters buildings in Scotland and Wales but have reduced their overall costs for building maintenance substantially over the years.  They also have set a cap of no more than 15% spent on on-screen talent (actors, news anchors, etc.), and have so far kept on budget with that.  They truly are one of the most well-managed broadcasting systems in the world, in spite of their incredible size.


Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Australia)
Website:  http://www.abc.net.au/
Media Type:  Television, Radio, Online music and video services

Possible Reach:  24.13 million
Actual Reach: 23.6 million, based on 98% of homes having access
Number of Stations: 64 radio, 4 television

Budget (Fiscal Year 2016):

Total Revenue: $1.4 billion includes:
Government funds: $1.064 billion – $45.00/person on average
Sale of goods/services: $70 million

Total Expenses:  $1,164 billion includes:
Salaries: $494.947 million – 42% of the budgeted expenses

ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) is another unique entity in the world, in that the government of Australia owns and controls the company.  The ABC is funded mainly by the Australian government, in addition to some revenue received from its retail outlets, which are now closing.

Until 1948, the ABC was funded directly by radio licence fees; amendments were also made to the Australian Broadcasting Act that meant the ABC would receive its funding directly from the federal government. Licence fees remained until 1973 when they were abolished by the Whitlam Labor government, on the basis that the near-universality of television and radio services meant that public funding was a fairer method of providing revenue for government-owned radio and television broadcasters.

The term “where your 8 cents a day goes”, coined in the late 1980s during funding negotiations,¬†is often used in reference to the services provided by the ABC.¬†It is estimated that the cost of the ABC per head of population per day is over 14 cents per day today.

Today, ABC operates 54 local radio stations, four national networks and international service Radio Australia. In addition, DiG Radio launched on digital platforms in 2002, currently offering three separate stations.  Within Australia, the ABC operates four television channels, including flagship ABC. In each state and territory a local news bulletin is shown at 7.00 p.m. nightly.  In 2001 ABC TV launched its digital service.


Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Canada)
Website:  http://www.cbc.ca/
Media Type:  Television, Radio, Online music and video services

Possible Reach:  36.29 million
Actual Reach:  35.5 million, based on 98% of homes having access
Number of Stations: 92 radio, 19 television, as well as 1 Documentary channel.  They also own 40% of the Sirius satellite radio system.

Budget (Fiscal Year 2016):

Total Revenue: $1.55 billion includes:
Advertising: ¬†$253.2 million (down by nearly $80 million – 22% –¬†from 2015)
Subscriber fees: $134.5 million
Government funding: $1.026 billion (66% of the total budget) – $28.27/person

Total Expenses:  $1,619 billion includes:
Corporate Management:  $10.06 million (0.6% of total budget)
Finance Costs:  $28.132 million 

UPDATE РMarch 2017:  Note:  In March 2017, the federal government announced an additional $75 million in 2016-2017 and $150 million per year on an ongoing basis.  The plan is to use the funds for creating new content and making it more accessible.  In other words, they DID NOT GET the $400 million they asked for, as mentioned in our preamble, and advertising revenue is very much required.  The fact that this advertising revenue is down this year by $80 million should be a cause for concern for all Canadian taxpayers.

However, without a doubt the Canadian taxpayer is on the hook for a staggering amount, surpassed only by that of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. ¬†PBS and NPR both have very strong corporate connections, which they can boast because of their quality programming. ¬†Unfortunately, the CBC is funded in such a way that the programming doesn’t have to be quality, and often I believe it is trying to be all things to all people, and doing a poor job overall of it. ¬†More than $1 billion is used to support programming that would never be a commercial success in any form.

Many, including me, believe that CBC should sink or swim based on its own programming merits, as do all the other channels in Canada. ¬†They have an unfair advantage in the marketplace, and even with that unfair advantage, they managed to lose $80 million in advertising revenue this year somehow – 22% of their advertising revenue. ¬†That is the canary in the coal mine here – and Canadians should be very concerned. ¬†Where have these advertisers gone and why? ¬†That’s atrocious.

CBC has had some successes. ¬†From 2015-2016, almost 15 million Canadians used CBC/Radio-Canada‚Äôs digital sites every month ‚Äď more than half of them through their mobile devices. ¬†And that number has increased by 3 million in the past year alone.

CBC also will be pouring taxpayer dollars into incredibly risky coverage of Olympics Games, including the Beijing 2022 Olympic Winter Games and the 2024 Olympic Games. Granted, they have had incredible success of late.  For example, the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games on CBC were the most-watched Olympics in history to that point.  CBC hoped to build on that success together with their broadcast partners from Bell Media and Rogers Media for the Rio 2016 Olympic Games. That gamble was truly an outstanding success:

  • When Andre De Grasse¬†lined up against Usain Bolt for the men’s 200-metre final,¬†7.2 million people turned to CBC to watch Canada’s new superstar take on the world’s greatest sprinter. ¬†The 7.2-million figure was the largest single audience during the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro.
  • Over the span of the 17-day event, more Canadians than any previous Summer Games¬†followed the storylines of the world’s sports stars. Between CBC and its french-language station Radio-Canada, coverage of the Games reached 32.1 million people,¬†equal to nearly 90% of Canadians. ¬†
  • CBC’s digital properties generated¬†229 million total page views and nearly 37 million video views.¬†In total, Canadians watched¬†626 million aggregate minutes‚ÄĒover a millennium‚ÄĒof live and streamed video online.

The same could not be said for NBC Sports. ¬†Over 15 days of competition, NBC‚Äôs Olympics coverage averaged 27.5 million viewers across all platforms, including digital streaming ‚ÄĒ down 9% from 2012. But traditional TV ratings told a far grimmer story, one that began with Nielsen numbers that showed¬†viewership for the Aug. 5 Opening Ceremony decline 28% from London.

And when CBC gambles with taxpayer dollars that they will have success broadcasting an Olympic Games,¬†if you’re hoping to know how much our national broadcaster is paying for the privilege to show the games, you’re out of luck. ¬†Reporters at¬†Global News¬†put in a Freedom of Information request asking for the total cost of buying the rights to the games. ¬†What they got back was 162 heavily redacted pages with a brief explanation of why they wouldn’t share the information.

“The response cited several reasons for the redactions under the Information Act: trade secrets; something that could compromise a government institution‚Äôs competitive position or contract negotiations; something a third party deems confidential; ongoing consultations; and anything relating to the CBC‚Äôs ‘journalistic, creative or programming activities, other than information that relates to its general administration.'”

That’s frightening. ¬†This is the same broadcaster that lost 22% of its advertising revenue last year.

CCClogo-small

fd0ddb5f-75d1-461b-9089-c9dbac91aaf5

By Shawn J., Founding Editor
Calling Out Community
Posted December 
4, 2016.  Updated August 9, 2017

We’d love to hear from you:
FacebookTwitterGoogle+Email

Liberal Liars and the Trump Immigration Ban

 

On Friday, January 27, 2016, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order in which he partially banned immigration in the United States by citizens from seven different countries: Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, Syria, and Sudan.

This wasn’t a surprise since the president was fulfilling at least part of a campaign promise for a TOTAL ban on immigrants from Islamic countries for an indefinite period. The media firestorm has been daunting, and most people would not have been able to withstand the withering attacks in social media and in all major news outlets all day Saturday. They obviously know very little about Donald Trump.


UPDATE – JUNE 26, 2017

On Monday, June 26, 2017, President Trump signed a new Executive Order, restricting travel by residents of six countries into the United States for a period of 90 days Рwhich included all of the original countries in the January 28 travel ban, with the exception of Iraq.  This new Order was crafted to counter the firestorm generated by the news media, and subsequent judiciary intereference in carrying out the original Order.

That same day, the United States Supreme Court said it would allow the government to implement parts of its¬†suspended travel ban¬†against citizens from the six Muslim-majority countries with one major caveat: ¬†The ban cannot apply to those with ‚Äúa credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.‚ÄĚ

The state department has now attempted to define what counts as a ‚Äúbona fide relationship.‚ÄĚ Visa applicants from Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Iran, and Yemen will¬†be able to enter the United States if they can prove that a close family member is already living in the US, according to a¬†state department cable¬†seen by the Associated Press. That includes parents, spouses, children, adult sons or daughters, son-in-laws or daughter-in-laws or siblings, but not ‚Äúextended family members‚ÄĚ like grandparents, aunts or uncles, cousins, in-laws, or fianc√©s.

ORIGINAL POST – JANUARY 28, 2017

Then, less a week after being sworn into office, President Trump issued an Executive Order on Friday, January 27 entitled: “PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES”, to fulfill at least part of a 2016 election campaign promise. (Full text of the Order may be found here).

: (CNN)
(Credit: CNN)

Now, this Executive Order isn’t even close to what the President promised to do, which initially was¬†a total ban on Islamists coming into the United States.¬†The libtard news media were outraged that a President would dare do the very thing he promised for 6 months or more to do on the campaign trail. ¬†Utilizing the usual gaggle of half-baked celebrity interviews, and panels of “experts”, fake news networks like CNN practically frothed at the mouth with excitement over the story, which they believed would devastate Donald Trump politically.

After the Executive Order was signed, several leaders in the high-tech sector came out swinging against the ban, in a very calculated, concerted effort Рand receivedreceving far more coverage from mainstream media than their positions or influence deserved.  Why this industry is so specifically harmed by this ban, or chosen as spokesmen for its opposition, is beyond me.  However, it should be of concern to federal regulators that privacy piranhas like Google, Apple, and Microsoft are also now admitting to be hiring people from extremely undesirable places in the world, none of which seem to have any kind of vibrant tech sector previously.  One could understand a backlash if we banned residents of India, for example, because they have a widely recognized tech sector.  But Iraq?  Yemen?  Somalia?  Give me a break Рdo they even have stable electricity in all of these countries?

Here are just a few of their tweets and statements

Google (CEO – @sundarpichai)
Click here for companion story:img_0137

Apple (CEO- @Tim_Cook)
Cook’s full email to staff available here.img_0132

Microsoft (CEO – Satya Nadella)
Click here for companion story:
img_0140

Throughout Saturday, January 28, several news outlets РCNN and the New York Times Рwere painfully obvious in their biased reporting of this Executive Order:

  1. ¬†CNN reported that the ban affected 135 million people. The source of this “amazing statistic” (my codeword for “fake news”) is a mystery. ¬†As¬†IBI Times reported on August 13, 2015:

The immigrant population in the United States hit a record high of 42.1 million in the second quarter of this year, an analysis of monthly Census Bureau data by the Center for Immigration Studies, released Thursday, has revealed. The number of immigrants rose by 1.7 million since the same time last year. Immigrants currently comprise 13.3 percent of the nation’s total population, reaching the highest level in the nation in 105 years.

On average, there have been approx. 1 million immigrants a year, and this ban is currently for 4 months only maximum. In addition, the countries named have never been a big immigrant source for America, with the exception of Iraq in the top 10 nations, with at about 96,000 per year.

The countries affected by the ban include:

Iran:

  • ir-lgflagPopulation: 82,801,633 (July 2016 est.).
  • In America: 470,341 self-identified Iranian-American (2011 American Community Survey, US Census Bureau).
  • Religion: Muslim (Shia 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%)

Iraq:

Libya

  • ly-lgflagPopulation: 6,541,948 (July 2015)
  • In America: 2,979 self-identified Libyan-American (2000 US Census Bureau)
  • Religion: Muslim (official; virtually all Sunni) 96.6%, Christian 2.7%,

Somalia:

  • so-lgflagPopulation: 10,817,354 (July 2016 est.).
  • In America: 126,948 self-identified Somalian-American (US Census Bureau).
  • Religion: near 100% Muslim, small Christian minority

Sudan:

  • su-lgflagPopulation: 36,729,501 (July 2016 est.)
  • In America: 42,214 self-identified Sudanese-American (2013 American Community Survey, US Census Bureau)
  • Religion: 100% Muslim (100% Sunni)

Syria:

  • sy-lgflagPopulation: 17,185,170 (July 2016 est.)
  • In America: 154,516 self-identified Syrian-American (2015 US Census Bureau).
  • Religion: Muslim 87% (official; Sunni 74%, Alawi, Ismaili, Shia 13%), Christian 10%, Druze 3%

Yemen

  • Population: 27,392,779 (July 2016 est.)ym-lgflag
  • In America: 40,731 self-identified Yemeni-American (2014 Community Survey, US Census Bureau).
  • Religion: 99.1% Muslim (65% Sunni, 35% Shia)

One of the first things I noticed, of course, was that all the flags look the same except for Somalia, which was very strange. I’m sure it’s a coincidence but considering they are in different parts of the world, it’s unusual.

The second thing that I noticed, and probably the most important in terms of what we were just talking about – CNN’s figure of 135 million people being affected by this travel ban is FAKE NEWS. ¬†First of all, as indicated above, there are only 42 million immigrants currently in America, growing by 1 million approximately per year. Secondly, in the 7 countries named –¬†just the sheer number of people living in all 7 countries combined – there are over 219.6 million people. ¬†So CNN literally pulled this number out of its collective rear end.

2. ¬†All media outlets have called this is a ban on Muslims. ‚Äď this is no more a ban on Muslims than calling off a Toronto Blue Jays game could be construed as shutting down Major League Baseball, or taking an item off of McDonald’s menu would be the same as shuttering the entire chain.

First off, Muslims can be found in all 196 countries of the world Рso banning 7 countries out of 196 is 3.5%, not a total ban as the hysterical Left suggests. Nor is a ban on 220 million people in those 7 countries (and not all people living in those 7 countries are Muslim) out of 1.6 billion Muslims in the world (as of 2010, according to Pew Research) valid evidence of a total ban (its 13.7% maximum) on Muslims.  The following Muslim-dominated countries are NOT even affected by this travel ban:

3. ¬†¬†Big media also credits President Trump for picking the countries himself for this ban. ¬†In fact, National Public Radio (NPR) contended that Trump picked countries the family doesn’t do business with. ¬†Total BS. On January 21, 2016, President Obama’s Department of Homeland Security announced that it was placing limited restrictions on certain travellers who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011. In February 2016, Al Jazeera reported the Obama Administration added Libya, Yemen, and Somalia to the list of “countries of concern”. That is the COMPLETE LIST announced Friday.

4.   The Executive Order bans Muslims and/or bans these 7 specific countries. A link is provided above tp  the original Executive Order, which President Trump signed on Friday, January 26. The text of the Executive Order is being hosted by CNN Рso there is no inherent Trump bias.

Protesters are very organized – this list was a single days’ activities on January 28. Who’s paying for this and why is #blacklivesmatter involved?

I defy you to read it from start to finish and find an example of more than ONE of those seven countries (besides Syria) that’s actually even named in the Executive Order. I defy you to also find the word “Muslim” or “Islam” anywhere in that Executive Order – IT DOES NOT EXIST.

The Executive Order refers to “foreign nationals admitted to the United States“, seeking “Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits” to “nationals of countries of particular concern” – the administrative staff then simply used the Obama administration’s “countries of concern” list in their announcement.

It does target Syrian nationals specifically as, of course, there was a separate immigration outreach to them, and President Trump had made very clear on the campaign trail that he was not comfortable with it ‚Äď because the US was letting in people who had never been properly cleared. ¬†President Trump said that a system of “extreme vetting” would be developed to screen everyone from those 7 countries in the future ‚Äď therefore suggesting that the ban was a temporary one at best.

SO LIBTARDS OF AMERICA REJOICE – there’s no monster hiding under your bed. There is one visible, however, at virtually every anti-ban protest. This particular monster lies to rile up the crowd – which is tantamount to SEDITION.

mus0a


By Islam Rising, Founding Blog Member
Calling Out Community
Posted January 28, 2017.  Updated June 26, 2017

We’d love to hear from you:
FacebookTwitterGoogle+Email

Hillary, WE ALMOST Forgot That One…

Perhaps you’ve heard this one before. We thought it worth repeating:

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are in a bar. Donald leans over, and with a smile on his face, says, “The media is really tearing you apart for That Scandal.


Hillary: “You mean my lying about Benghazi?”

Trump: “No, the other one.”

Hillary: “You mean the massive voter fraud?”

Trump: “No, the other one.”

img_0433Hillary: “You mean the military not getting their votes counted?”

Trump: “No, the other one.”

Hillary: “Using my secret private server with classified material to hide my activities?”

Trump: “No, the other one.”

Hillary: “The NSA monitoring our phone calls, emails and everything else?”

Trump: “No, the other one.”

Hillary: “Using the Clinton Foundation as a cover for tax evasion, hiring cronies, taking bribes from foreign countries?

Trump: “No, the other one.”

Hillary: “You mean the drones being operated in our own country without the benefit of the law?”

Trump: “No, the other one.”

img_0431Hillary: “Giving 123 Technologies $300 Million, and right afterward it declared bankruptcy and was sold to the Chinese?”

Trump: “No, the other one.”

Hillary: “You mean arming the Muslim Brotherhood and hiring them in the White House?”

Trump: “No, the other one.”

Hillary: “Whitewater? Vince Foster? Commodity Deals?”

¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†Trump: “No, the other one.”

Hillary: “The funding of neo-Nazisimg_0432 in the Ukraine that led to the toppling of the democratically-elected president and to the biggest crisis that country has had since WWII?”

Trump: “No, the other one.”

Hillary: “Turning Libya into chaos?”

Trump: “No, the other one.”

Hillary: “Being the mastermind of the so-called ‚ÄúArab Spring‚ÄĚ that only brought chaos, death and destruction to the Middle East and North Africa ?

Trump: “No, the other one.”

Hillary: “Leaving four Americans, including our Ambassador, to die in Benghazi while I slept.

Trump: “No, the other one.”

img_0430Hillary: “Trashing Mubarak, one of our few Muslim friends?”

¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬† Trump: “No, the other one.”

Hillary: “The funding and arming of terrorists in Syria, the destruction and destabilization of that nation, giving the order to our lapdogs in Turkey and Saudi Arabia to give sarin gas to the “moderate” terrorists in Syria that they eventually used on civilians, and framed Assad, and had it not been for the Russians and Putin, we would have used that as a pretext to invade Syria, put a puppet in power, steal their natural resources, and leave that country in total chaos, just like we did with Libya?

Trump: “No, the other one.”

Hillary: “The creation of the biggest refugees crisis since WWII?”

Trump: “No, the other one.”

Hillary: “Leaving Iraq in total chaos?”

Trump: “No, the other one.”

img_0433Hillary: “The DOJ spying on the press?”

Trump: “No, the other one.”

Hillary: “You mean HHS Secretary Sibelius shaking down health insurance executives?”

Trump: “No, the other one.”

Hillary: “Giving our cronies in Solyndra $500 million dollars, and 3 months later they declared bankruptcy, and then the Chinese bought it?”

Trump: “No, the other one.”

Hillary: “The State Department interfering with an Inspector General Investigation on departmental sexual misconduct?”

Trump: “No, the other one.”

img_0429Hillary: “Me, The IRS, Clapper and Holder all lying to Congress?”

¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†Trump: “No, the other one.”

Hillary: “Threats to all of Bill’s former mistresses to keep them quiet”

¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬† Trump: “No, the other one.”

Hillary: “I give up! … Oh wait, you don’t mean the time when I stole $200,000 worth of White House furniture and silverware after Bill left Office?”

Trump: “THAT’S IT! I almost forgot about that one”.

(Unknown Author)


Thanks to multi-faceted collusion between the Clinton campaign and main stream media organizations, America is developing a very serious case of historical amnesia. While this could be a potentially fatal condition, the prognosis for long-term recovery is promising if treated quickly. I prescribe viewing the following documentaries, which you must take in their entirety to gain the desired effect (click on the movie posters to go to the respective YouTube videos):

hillary_the_movie_poster b2221_hillarys-america_mn asdf 14196_310x459…Followed¬†by a brisk walk in the fresh air to the local voting /¬†station near you as soon as possible to vote for “Anyone But Hillary”.

We must purge the nation of the Clintons’ toxic politics. America, It’s not too late – you CAN¬†be well again.

CCClogo-small


By Shawn J., Founding Editor
Calling Out Community
Posted October 12, 2016

We’d love to hear from you:
FacebookTwitter

Wanna Leave Islam? Prepare to DIE!

ūüϧ By Islam Rising ¬¶ A Founding Blogger of the Calling Out Community
✒ Posted April 25, 2016.  Updated May 8, 2016.
ūüź¶ Twitter: Follow Us ¬¶ ūüĎć Facebook: Like Us
‚úČ Email us with comments and ideas!


Sharia-law-in-EuropeIn April 2013, the Pew Research Center released the results of a startling global survey amongst Islamic believers. As North American media outlets specifically made sure the information was ignored, you could be excused for not having heard of it before.

The survey, entitled THE WORLD‚ÄôS MUSLIMS: RELIGION, POLITICS AND SOCIETY,¬†focused¬†on various aspects of Islamic belief, with an emphasis specifically on sharia law, politics and Islam’s relationship with society in general.

As the opening statement of their survey results revealedsharia-free-zone:

Overwhelming percentages of Muslims in many countries want Islamic law (sharia) to be the official law of the land, according to a worldwide survey by the Pew Research Center. But many supporters of sharia say it should apply only to their country’s Muslim population. (Emphasis mine)

In fact, the number of Islamic supporters who wish to bring in sharia law is staggering in some nations:

sharia-free Support for sharia law may be regional across the globe Рand mostly centered in the Middle East, North Africa and pockets of Asia.  However, within those regions an overwhelming majority of Islamists support it, which should be a huge concern to non-Muslims.

In Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia, the Pew Research Center asked whether sharia law was considered by Muslims to be the result of divine inspiration or man-made perspiration.

According to the survey findings, most Muslims believe sharia is the revealed word of God rather than a body of law developed by men based on the word of God:

Muslims also tend to believe sharia has only one true interpretation, but this opinion is far from universal; in some countries, substantial minorities of Muslims believe sharia should be open to multiple interpretations.

Apostasy_laws_in_2013.SVGThis belief in sharia law became much more foreboding, when Islamists were asked what they believe should be done with Muslim defectors Рor apostates as Muslims prefer to call those who leave the Islamic faith.

That is, if one should decide to become a Christian, a Buddhist, an atheist or (God forbid, I’m sure they’d think) a Jew, what should happen to this individual?

Be prepared to die, was the stark answer from many parts of the world:

img_7489-1

Once again, actual Islamist belief does not seem to be in keeping with the propaganda of a “Religion of Peace”, as perpetrated by¬†both¬†Western media and elected officials.

Countries like Germany, Great Britain, Sweden and others where sharia law is being propogated should therefore fully understand the implications of imposing the same.


690774366-miracle-solar-system-worship-procedure-crescent-moon

Elementary School Muslim Thugs – Part 2

ūüϧ By Islam Rising ¬¶ A Founding Blogger of the Calling Out Community
‚úí Posted April 11, 2016
ūüź¶ Twitter: Follow Us ¬¶ ūüĎć Facebook: Like Us
‚úČ Email us with comments and ideas!


Yesterday (Sunday, April 10) we brought you a very shocking story, through our partner blogger Islam Rising, that focused on the allegations of Muslim kids from Syrian families – as young as Grade 3 – that were attacking other children in a Halifax elementary schoolyard with chains, making hand gestures of decapitation and shouting pro-Islamic statements.

It was without a doubt one of the most-read stories we have ever had on the Calling Out Community site – in fact the #3 most-read story of all time out of more than 110 posts in the last year. We are particularly proud of the fact that we picked up on this story up to half a day before much bigger players did so.

The reactions were mostly favourable, minus that of one Muslim woman who had the gall to blame the reaction of the paper, after pulling the story without warning, as being the result of “poor journalism practices“:

image

You were partly correct. There is a newspaper strike into its 80+ day, and the article would have been written by a freelance author. However, that in no way affected the decisions made, nor was the writing of the article in any way the issue – it was the resulting editorial decisions (and accusations made against concerned citizens like ourselves) that we are now quite FURIOUS BEYOND WORDS ABOUT, and we are going to get even.

The paper posted a very revealing response today to the backlash created by stories like ours. What was offered was perhaps the worst piece of yellow journalism CRAP, which they considered their justification for retracting the story:


untitledCHRONICLE HERALD | PUBLISHED APRIL 8, 2016 – 8:01PM | UPDATED APRIL 11, 2016 – 9:01PM

The Chronicle Herald published a story Saturday that has drawn the wrath of many of our readers, particularly online.

It was based on two parents’ allegations of physical bullying and threatening behaviour by some of the children who recently arrived with refugee families.

The school cited in the article, Chebucto Heights Elementary, has had an influx of new students in recent weeks.

The story quoted two mothers who didn’t want their names used for fear of reprisals against them or their children. A third person, a grandparent, was interviewed and had similar concerns.

Since the article ran, another family has contacted us with a similar complaint.

Bullying is a sensitive subject. So is the integration of newcomers, particularly those who have faced challenges, even trauma, on their way here.

Our story was incomplete and insufficiently corroborated, given the serious nature of the allegations.

Readers also rightly pointed out that the headline ‚ÄėParents worried over school kids‚Äô brutality‚Äô was unfortunate. Using the word brutality to describe children, particularly of an identifiable cultural group, is problematic.

Reaction to the story was all over the map, from thoughtful to downright scary.

Many journalists called publishing the story irresponsible. Some parents weighed in on social media on the need for better discipline and more supports to help newcomers in our schools.

Appallingly, anti-Muslim groups with words like ‚Äėcrusade‚Äô and ‚Äėjihad‚Äô in their names started sharing the article.

We pulled it from our website.

Since then, some readers have contacted us to object to the article’s removal.

Our concern is about more than reaction.

Social media is not a great place for the cautious, well-considered examination of problems. A newspaper ought to be. We should have done better and we will.

We’ll start by asking more questions and getting more answers.

We will also run letters and commentary. Please email us at letters@herald.ca.


Unbelievable.

Here’s our thoughts – 6 things to take away from this piece:

confidentialApparently, in order for a source to be considered valid to this paper, they have to be publicly named? Is that a joke? One secret informant in 1972 brought down a sitting President (Nixon), sent several to jail, and earned the journalists a Pulitzer Prize after the Watergate scandal. Yet, apparently this paper thinks abused kids, terrified by little Islamic thugs already, need to also be exposed publicly for the audacity of criticizing the Muslim community.

 

images821ROVCJThe little Islamic thugs remain free and clear. There even seems to be some justification for their behavior. Notice the soft language used to describe them: they are called ‘newcomers’, ‘some of the children who recently arrived with refugee families’, ‘those who have faced challenges, even trauma, on their way here.’ Oh BOO HOO, poor little Mohamed. Don’t be upset that he choked your kid with a chain around his neck – cause he’s had a rough go. Right, and there are no abused kids in Halifax homes already? They should just shut up and take it?

 

childabuseApparently two different families can complain about the same thing and it’s still not enough. WHOA!  Wait a minute – but isn’t the paper now admitting that parents or grandparents have come forward now from four different families with the same story? How many kids have to come forward before its considered a story? What’s your child abuse minimum, Halifax Chronicle Herald?  (Oh yes, by the way Herald Chronicle,  ignoring or worse, even justifying child on child attacks is a form of abuse too).

 

These kids are ISIS soldiers - brutality can be a learned behaviour at any age.
These kids are ISIS soldiers – brutality can be a learned behaviour at any age.

“Using the word ‘brutality’ to describe children, particularly of an identifiable cultural group, is problematic.”  Wow, I guess the cultural elite in Halifax don’t get out much.  Perhaps it’s best we don’t tell the sensitive little darlings at this paper that there are videos on YouTube of Palestinian 3 year olds singing “death to Israel” songs (yes, there actually are songs) while brandishing knives.  Little ISIS soldiers under 10 years of age are slicing people’s heads off in other video horrors.  Kids can be brutal if they are taught to be.   But apparently in Halifax, it’s not considered ‘brutality’ when kids choke other kids in Grade 3 with chains. An autistic kid is threatened with decapitation but that’s not brutal? Children are even told that “Muslims will conquer the world”.  And yet you believe that the only truly problematic part of this story is the fact that some thinking people called it “brutality”?

thought-police-e1369141340932“Appallingly, anti-Muslim groups with words like ‚Äėcrusade‚Äô and ‚Äėjihad‚Äô in their names started sharing the article.” And that is the reason, dear friends, why a newspaper deleted its own stories from its own site.  Because someone was sharing it.  Sorry, is that not a newspaper’s actual REASON FOR EXISTENCE?  And is it in fact not the ULTIMATE MARKETING PLAN of most news media outlets today to boldly share controversial stories without compromise, and to have people you don’t even like or agree with share that story with others?

We used to call that “promotion“.  Are left-wing media outlets today so insecure about their messages that they now try to decide who gets to even read them One wonders what the editors of this paper would do if they knew that people actually use their newspaper to dry newly-washed windows, soak up any urine the new puppy might dribble out, cover the bottom of the bird cage, or to use as lightweight packing material for boxing up shiome nuts.  My God, the Halifax paper would fold in a week (pardon the pun).  Let’s keep these revelations our little secret – the poor ‘journalistic’ darlings are apparently dealing with enough.

Protecting parents and their kids with warnings about a real threat to their safety is not relevant, I guess – nor apparently is it the lack of this protection on an elementary school playground  the fact that the editors found to be most appalling.

Protecting Muslim reputations is paramount, no matter what the cost to  journalistic integrity or credibility. Clearly Muslims forced them to take the story down – otherwise this newspaper just provided us with a copy of their suicide note.

So, on behalf of the people of Halifax who have depended on you for generations to tell the truth, the whole truth (the W-5 who, what, when, where, why and how), we ask this question of the editors:

Herald Chronicle,  you bluntly stopped readers from being able to access a controversial story on your site, simply because some folks had the audacity to share it.  Therefore, can you now define for us going forward – what the hell is your REASON FOR CONTINUED EXISTENCE? 

This is an truly and incredibly bad example of total CENSORSHIP – from a newspaper of all places.  And we call “B.S.” on this nonsense about an identified “anti-Islamic’ group who would have the word Jihad in their name.  AND SO WHAT IF THEY DO? They have every right to free speech in this country, which one would have thought a newspaper would defend loudly and long.  The Herald-Chronicle has lost their way in this 80 day journalist’s strike I guess, as now they believe they are our den mother or hall monitor, not the provider of the news?

How people use the information a newspaper provides is quite frankly not a journalist’s main concern nor actually any of their business – telling the true story is their only task.

Since when does this paper suddenly feel the need to protect Islamic groups over all others?  How did Muslims suddenly manage to become the victims in this story – or in general?  We’re pre-supposing that anti-Israeli or pro-BDS groups can share this newspaper’s articles to their hearts content, and such actions won’t trigger story retractions from this site, because the stories themselves are often anti-Israel or pro-BDS.

 

Spect_Revolt_Elites_Anton-EmdinIt was hard to pick a winner, but in the end, we chose this sentence as our ultimate lame-ass  favorite: “Social media is not a great place for the cautious, well-considered examination of problems. A newspaper ought to be. We should have done better and we will”.

Well guess what ladies and gentleman? Apparently you’re too stupid to figure this stuff out yourself. Don’t be talking around the water cooler or your Twitter feed about thinge. The cultural elite will tell you exactly how to think.

Here’s our message to the Chronicle Herald – SCREW OFF. No one asked the you to give a “cautious well-considered examination” of anything. Tell the damn story – who, what, when, where and why. We can figure out what it means for us, thanks just the same.

FINAL WORD

imageFolks, forget what these idiots have to say. They gave up their right to be heard when they deleted their story.

If you want to know what’s really going on with this story, checkout the Rebel Media video. They have boots on the ground in Halifax and they have uncovered a shocking story that the cultural elite – and the Liberals – don’t want you to know. What else is new.

690774366-miracle-solar-system-worship-procedure-crescent-moon

Media Protects Syrian Child Attackers

ūüϧ By Islam Rising ¬¶ A Founding Blogger of the Calling Out Community
✒ Posted April 10, 2016
ūüź¶ Twitter: Follow Us ¬¶ ūüĎć Facebook: Like Us
‚úČ Email us with comments and ideas!


On Saturday, April 9, the Halifax Chronicle Herald¬†published a very provocative story with the title “Parents worried over school kids‚Äô brutality at Chebucto Heights Elementary School.”. The story, along with the rest of the Saturday paper, was distributed¬†to 72,000 homes that morning, according to 2014 circulation stats.

But today, just one day later, you will find the following, when you attempt to view the story on their website:

If you didn’t or couldn’t read the retraction statement, we’ve taken the liberty to reprint it:

This story has been removed. ¬†Bullying is a sensitive subject. ¬†So is the integration of newcomers, particularly those who have faced challenges, even trauma, on their way here. ¬†Our story was incomplete. ¬†More work needs to be done and will be done before the story is republished. ¬†We should have done better and we will.”

If I were this reporter, I would sue. ¬†This is lamest thing we have ever read. ¬†“Bullying is a sensitive subject” – yah WE KNOW. ¬†That’s why we need to actually read about it – especially when the article alleged that¬†it’s happening on¬†elementary school property, at the hands of¬†Grade¬†3¬†Islamic thugs using chains to choke other kids, utilizing hand signals to signify cutting off their heads and announcing that Muslims are gonna conquer the world.

img_7082We especially need to read about it when it’s perpetrated by these so-called¬†Syrian “refugees” that our Prime Minister is paying a fortune from our national piggy bank to ram down our throats. Seemingly almost desperate to swamp us with these¬†Third World backwater-and-rape-culture suspects, Trudeau even ordered the selling off our remaining gold reserve¬†to pay for¬†their golden tickets to Canada, and our abundant social welfare programs.

We at Islam Rising (as well our hosts the Calling out Community) don’t care what their reasons were – the Chronicle Herald has demonstrated a gross lack of journalistic integrity with this story, and we’re all about shaming them for it today.¬†¬†If¬†the facts were wrong or the story was made up, then simply state that to the readers. ¬†Don’t papers fact-check stories, especially ones that are this explosive, before¬†they go to print?

This “incomplete story” nonsense, framed with references to “bullying” and “integration of newcomers”, says to us that they in fact¬†were also¬†bullied by¬†possibly the same Muslim community to shut up.

img_7080Staff at the Charlie Hebdo newspaper in Paris criticized Islam and were brutally slaughtered for it. Therefore, excuse us if we refuse to tolerate the bullying of our Canadian media by these Islamic hordes.

To be sure, there won’t be a republished story. ¬†They hope in 2 days you’ll forget all about it. ¬†We’re gonna make sure that doesn’t happen. So here now is the original story in its entirety.¬† The editors at the Chronicle Herald may have been scared into silence. The same knee jerk reaction/retraction after bullying will not be duplicated here. ¬†Enjoy.


img_7078HALIFAX ‚ÄĒ Concerned parents are reporting incidents of violence by refugee students at Chebucto Heights Elementary School.

Reports of students choking, pushing, slapping and verbally abusing their fellow classmates are causing parents to worry about the school’s disciplinary action.

‚ÄúThere has always been some fighting and bickering going on at the school but never to this degree,‚ÄĚ said Missy, the mother of two children who attend Chebucto Heights. She asked to be referred to by her nickname for this story.

Missy said her daughter, who is in Grade 3, was choked on Monday and Thursday last week by two refugee boys. A chain was used on both occasions, but she cannot confirm the size or strength of the chain. She said one boy yelled ‚ÄúMuslims rule the world‚ÄĚ while choking her daughter. School staff intervened, but to her knowledge, the students were not disciplined further.

According to the Halifax Regional School Board, refugees began registering at Chebucto Heights, located in the Cowie Hill neighbourhood of Halifax, in mid-February.

School board spokesman Doug Hadley said, as of last week, there are currently 252 refugee students enrolled in the region, with another 71 waiting on settlement of permanent housing.

Missy’s son, who is in Grade 5, has also been the subject of rough play on the soccer field. During games, refugee students reportedly take their thumb and slide it across their neck from left to right while staring into the eyes of their competitor; imitating the slicing of the throat.

Missy said the school’s response to this and other on-field violence was to cancel intramurals and soccer. But cancelling of recreational activity is not beneficial to students like Missy’s son who has ADHD and relies heavily on physical activity.

‚ÄúSoccer is what gets my son through the day,‚ÄĚ she said.

When asked about the violence at Chebucto Heights, Hadley said he couldn’t confirm whether an individual student had been involved in any behaviour that broke the board’s code of conduct.

He said there‚Äôs no connection between the cancellation of extracurricular activities and any violent behaviour. ‚ÄúThere‚Äôs a term teacher at Chebucto Heights that is finished their term in the next week or so, and they just finished the unit on soccer,‚ÄĚ he said. Intramurals will resume in May when the next term teacher begins.

Another mother, who asked not to be named, said her daughter was slapped after she and a classmate disagreed in the schoolyard. Her daughter reported the incident to her teacher.

‚ÄúThe school didn‚Äôt even call me to let me know.‚ÄĚ

She called and left a message, but said no one has returned her call. She said her daughter begs not to go to school because of the persistent bullying.

A language barrier could be a factor. Many refugee families do not speak English and integrating students into a primarily English speaking environment is bound to cause a few problems.

Missy suggests having an interpreter on staff to help new students understand curriculum or the reason for disciplinary action. ‚ÄúI‚Äôm all for the transition,‚ÄĚ said Missy.

‚ÄúI just think there should be people in the school to help and guide them.‚ÄĚ

The school board says there are currently 19.5 English as a second language teachers working in regional schools. ‚ÄúWe have a long history of welcoming newcomers all over the world to Nova Scotia,‚ÄĚ said Hadley. He encourages an open stream of communication between the school staff, students and parents.

‚ÄúIt doesn‚Äôt matter if the student is new to Canada or if they have been in school for many years in our system,‚ÄĚ said Hadley. ‚ÄúSchools would address it no matter who the child is the same way.”

img_7076

img_7077-1

 

 

 

 

 

 


So media tells a shocker that could bring a very real warning about danger to our kids Рand then just deletes it- most likely after pressure from the Islamic community.  Now, greater pressure from Canadians should be levelled on these editors for making this cowardly decision to pull this story.  This relates to real children in a real Canadian schools who have been attacked and whose very lives have been threatened by real Islamic thugs.

'Oddly enough, I feel offended...'
‘Oddly enough, I feel offended…’

A question to ponder:  if the grade 3 children in this family so easily perpetrate these crimes, imagine what the parents who raised them are like?

Our take on it? Round up the families of every child who instigated this violence and send them all back where they came from.

Don’t give us the “civil society / light shining on a hill” crap either. ¬†This is not redeemable behaviour – and if we allow it to continue we won’t have a civil society anymore. ¬†

These kids are¬†programmed to hate from birth, and their parents may be here to cause us harm. Kids that age don’t pick up “Muslims will rule the world” on Sesame Street.

To¬†our Prime Minister @Justintrudeau: At least for one day in your tumultuous reign and trust-fund-privileged life, can you cut the crap, drop the drama lessons, put the politics aside, grab some balls (maybe your “wife” will let you borrow hers) and do what’s right for Canada.

At least for one day.

690774366-miracle-solar-system-worship-procedure-crescent-moon

Trump Terrifies the Left (and the Right)… and I’m Glad!

By Calling Out Community, posted February 26, 2016.

William Bennett speaking at the Values Voter Summit in Washington D.C. on October 8, 2011 (Credit: Gage Skidmore)
William Bennett speaking at the Values Voter Summit in Washington D.C. on October 8, 2011 (Credit: Gage Skidmore)
William John “Bill” Bennett is an American conservative pundit, politician, and political theorist who was actually a Democrat when President Ronald Reagan named him Secretary of Education in 1985. He formally changed from the Democratic Party to the Republicans in 1986, and continued as Secretary until 1988.

By 1989, Mr. Bennett had garnered such bipartisan respect that, when President George H.W. Bush nominated him as the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, he was confirmed by the Senate by a vote… of  97-2

In 2000, he co-founded K12, a publicly traded online education company.  Today, as Host of Bill Bennett’s Morning in America Show, he is one of America’s most important, influential, and respected voices on cultural, political, and education issues, and has one of the strongest Christian worldviews of any writer in modern times.

Mr. Bennett has a unique background that allows him to perceive Donald Trump for who he really is, and what he could become… which is likely why his name was attached to this November 30, 2015 open letter to America:

What I See Happening In a Trump Presidency
By Bill Bennett

They will kill him, before they let him be president. It could be a Republican or a Democrat that instigates the shutting up of Trump.

Don‚Äôt be surprised if untitledTrump has an accident. Some people are getting very nervous: Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Jon Corzine, to name just a few. It’s about the unholy dynamics between big government, big business, and big media. They all benefit by the billions of dollars from this partnership, and it’s in all of their interests to protect one another. It’s one for all and all for one.

It’s a heck of a filthy relationship that makes everyone filthy rich, everyone except the American people. We get ripped off. We’re the patsies. But for once, the powerful socialist cabal and the corrupt crony capitalists are scared. The over-the-top reaction to Trump by politicians of both parties, the media, and the biggest corporations of America has been so swift and insanely angry that it suggests they are all threatened and frightened.

trump_haulDonald Trump can self-fund. No matter how much they say to the contrary, the media, business, and political elite understand that Trump is no joke. He could actually win and upset their nice cozy apple cart.

It’s no coincidence that everyone has gotten together to destroy The Donald. It’s because most of the other politicians are part of the a good old boys club. They talk big, but they won‚Äôt change a thing. They are all beholden to big-money donors.

They are all owned by lobbyists, unions, lawyers, gigantic environmental organizations, and multinational corporations ‚Äď like Big Pharmacy or Big Oil. Or they are owned lock, stock, and barrel by foreigners like George Soros owns Obama or foreign governments own Hillary and their Clinton Foundation donations.

These run-of-the-mill establishment politicians are all puppets owned by big money. But there’s one man who isn’t beholden to anyone.

There’s one man who doesn’t need foreigners, or foreign governments, or George Soros, or the United Auto Workers, or the teacher’s union, or the Service Employees International Union, or the Bar Association to fund his campaign.
Billionaire tycoon and maverick Donald Trump doesn’t need anyone’s help. That means he doesn’t care what the media says. He doesn’t care what the corporate elites think. That makes him very dangerous to the entrenched interests. That makes Trump a huge threat to those people. Trump can ruin everything for the bribed politicians and their spoiled slave masters.

imagesQJLO4X2ADon’t you ever wonder why the GOP has never tried to impeach Obama? Don’t you wonder why John Boehner and Mitch McConnell talk a big game, but never actually try to stop Obama?

Don’t you wonder why Congress holds the purse strings, yet has never tried to defund Obamacare or Obama’s clearly illegal executive action on amnesty for illegal aliens? Bizarre, right? It defies logic, right?

First, I’d guess many key Republicans are being bribed. Secondly, I believe many key Republicans are being blackmailed. Whether they are having affairs, or secretly gay, or stealing taxpayer money, the National Security Agency knows everything.

GettyImages-77930346.0__1_.0former House Speaker Dennis Hastert about that. The government even knew he was withdrawing large sums of his own money from his own bank account. The NSA, the SEC, the IRS, and all the other three-letter government agencies are watching every Republican political leader. They surveil everything.

Thirdly, many Republicans are petrified of being called racists, so they are scared to ever criticize Obama or call out his crimes, let alone demand his impeachment.

Fourth , why rock the boat? After defeat or retirement, if you’re a good old boy, you’ve got a $5 million-per-year lobbying job waiting. The big-money interests have the system gamed. Win or lose, they win.

But Trump doesn’t play by any of these rules. Trump breaks up this nice, cozy relationship between big government, big media, and big business. All the rules are out the window if Trump wins the Presidency. The other politicians will protect Obama and his aides but not Trump.

t1larg.obama.live.birth.whRemember: Trump is the guy who publicly questioned Obama’s birth certificate. He questioned Obama’s college records and how a mediocre student got into an Ivy League university. Now, he’s doing something no Republican has the chutzpah to do. He’s questioning our relationship with Mexico; he’s questioning why the border is wide open; he’s questioning why no wall has been built across the border; he’s questioning if allowing millions of illegal aliens into America is in our best interests; he’s questioning why so many illegal aliens commit violent crimes, yet are not deported; and he’s questioning why our trade deals with Mexico, Russia and China are so bad.

Trump has the audacity to ask out loud why American workers always get the short end of the stick. Good question!

I’m certain Trump will question what happened to the almost billion dollars given in a rigged no-bid contract to college friends of Michelle Obama at foreign companies to build the defective Obamacare website. By the way, that tab is now up to $5 billion.

Trump will ask if Obamacare’s architects can be charged with fraud for selling it by lying. Trump will investigate Obama’s widespread IRS conspiracy, not to mention Obama’s college records. Trump will prosecute Clinton and Obama for fraud committed to cover up Benghazi before the election. How about the fraud committed by employees of the Labor Department when they made up dramatic job numbers in the last jobs report before the 2012 election?

trump-obama-christiansObama, the multinational corporations and the media need to stop Trump. They recognize this could get out of control. If left unchecked, telling the raw truth and asking questions everyone else is afraid to ask, Trump could wake a sleeping giant.

Trump’s election would be a nightmare. Obama has committed many crimes. No one else but Trump would dare to prosecute. He will not hesitate. Once Trump gets in and gets a look at the cooked books and Obama’s records, the game is over.

The jig is up. The goose is cooked. Holder could wind up in prison. Jarrett could wind up in prison. Obama bundler Corzine could wind up in prison for losing $1.5 billion of customer money.

hillary-clinton-sunglasses-blackberrry-Kevin-Lamarque-AP-640x480Clinton could wind up in jail for deleting 32,000 emails or for accepting bribes from foreign governments while Secretary of State, or for misplacing $6 billion as the head of the State Department, or for lying about Benghazi. The entire upper level management of the IRS could wind up in prison.

Obamacare will be de-funded and dismantled. Obama himself could wind up ruined, his legacy in tatters. Trump will investigate. Trump will prosecute. Trump will go after everyone involved. That’s why the dogs of hell have been unleashed on Donald Trump.

Yes, it’s become open season on Donald Trump.

The left and the right are determined to attack his policies, harm his businesses and if possible, even keep him out of the coming debates. But they can’t silence him. And they sure can’t intimidate him.

The more they try, the more the public will realize that he’s the one telling the truth.

Cheers, John

Wow right?  Excellent points and they may have actually sold me on Trump for 2016.  but when you forward this powerful treatise to undecided friends and loved ones, please do one thing first…

Take Bill Bennett’s name off, because he has nothing to do with this letter.  

The above-quoted essay was not written by Bill Bennett. According to snopes.com,  it was originally posted on the web site Reality News Media on September 17, 2015 and circulated for several weeks with no attribution attached to it. It wasn’t until mid-November 2015 that Bill Bennett’s named started to appear alongside the title in an apparent attempt to lend credibility to the essay.

untitledBennett’s views on Donald Trump are not in line with those expressed in the essay. While the unknown author writes that Trump would make a good President since he is self-funded and does not play by the rules, Bennett said in an interview with Sean Hannity that he was not okay with a Trump presidency:

Because I look at a man and the totality of his acts and his record and the things he has and stood for. And I think, probably, he’s not very principled in terms of his convictions anyway, except he, you know, is a businessman who does things his way, his own idiosyncratic way.

I do understand the appeal. People are angry, mad. And he seems big enough to kind of encompass that anger …

… Here’s Trump with a record, you know, longer than your arm, wrong on all these things, getting all this support. That’s what makes me a little angry and makes me think there’s a lot of irrationality on it…

… Look, if Trump’s the nominee, Sean, I will support him because I won’t support Hillary.

Friends, the Presidency is still the most-wanted career in the world today.  Some will say and do anything to get your vote.  Be well informed and avoid gullibility – you are in the 7th year of a disastrous Presidency now because so many people drank the Kookaid they were handed.

We won’t let you down or tell you something that isn’t true. So help us God.
CCClogo-small

CNN Wipes Israel Off the Map – Literally

IsraelIsrael Is Forever: Special feature to the Calling Out Community, Posted November 25, 2015.

The Media Party. Big Media. The “news media”. Network news. We all have a ¬†favorite moniker for these bastions of global information, these titans of “journalistic excellence”, these… quacks at times who couldn’t tell the truth or get the story right if there was a gun to their collective heads.

No matter whether you are Left or Right wing politically – or one of those rare breed who have successfully clipped those wings in favor of true independent thought – you have likely noted either with joy or frustration one simple fact. Almost down to a station-by-station confirmation…

Nearly all of them despise Israel.

There are notable exceptions of course – Fox News Network in the United States and The Rebel Media in Canada tend to have a more balanced and dare I say even progressive view of Israel.

As for the remaining¬†motley crew of media hacks, they aren’t actually going to tell you that they can’t stand Israel, as they still have to show a measure of political correctness (though even PC thought favours Antisemitism hands-down). ¬†Often they speak with passive-aggressive finger-shaking¬†disdain for Israel and the Jews.¬† And sometimes, they show their disgust¬†as much by what they don’t say as what they do.

Media bias toward Israel
Media bias toward Israel

An excellent article on this subject was published in the November 30,¬†2014 issue of The Atlantic, entitled “What the Media Gets Wrong About Israel“.¬† I strongly encourage every thinking person, and every supporter of Israel, to read this article.¬†¬†In it,¬†journalist Matti Friedman¬†opens with a powerful observation:

During the Gaza war this summer, it became clear that one of the most important aspects of the media-saturated conflict between Jews and Arabs is also the least covered: the press itself. The Western press has become less an observer of this conflict than an actor in it, a role with consequences for the millions of people trying to comprehend current events, including policymakers who depend on journalistic accounts to understand a region where they consistently seek, and fail, to productively intervene.

One dictionary states that “journalism” is:

The activity or profession of writing for newspapers or magazines or of broadcasting news on radio or television.

Perhaps journalists have gone astray by the definition of what constitutes “news”. ¬†Walter Cronkite would not have done a piece about Beyonc√© and Jay-Z’s baby – it just wouldn’t have happened. ¬†And when reporting the news from the battlefront, his calibre of reporter would not have felt it necessary to tell us how his vehicle was shot at by armed militants in the conflict, when nothing was further from the truth. ¬†The story itself was captivating enough – we don’t need our journalists to actually be actors on the stage. ¬†Thanks for that punch in our trust gut, Brian Williams.

There are times, however, when Big Media steps so¬†over the line into the Twilight Zone that everyone, no matter their political persuasion, is left saying “what the _____?”

cnn251115Such is the case with mighty CNN, the self-described on their current advertising sales sheet “World’s News Leader”, who this week visibly and legibly manifested proof of a deep-seated hostility toward Israel. ¬†Quite simply, in a nutshell – they removed Israel from the map (above).¬† Literally.

In a recent article about airstrikes being carried out over Syria today in the conflict there, a map of the region was published, showing the major cities the area.¬† All of the other nations in the region show the name of a city and it’s capital (Beirut, Lebanon; Amman, Jordan, etc.) and Jerusalem is shown representing Israel (though Tel Aviv is the capital).¬† No problem – many of us believe Jerusalem is the true capital of Israel.

But wait, what’s this?¬† The nation of modern Israel, now nearly 7 decades old with further 3,000 years of continuous Jewish presence in the region, is not mentioned on the map.¬† What does appear, however, is some place called “Palestina” – a Spanish or Portuguese variation of “Palestine”.

That is the only name on the map that doesn’t seem to be in English, so it completely out of place – not to mention the fact that “Palestine” hasn’t actually appeared on a map in, oh…..67 years.¬† Last time I checked, Palestina was real as Narnia, Mordor and Neverland.

Cair Paravel, the royal palace of Narnia - which like Palestina is also imaginary
Cair Paravel, the royal palace of Narnia – which like Palestina is also imaginary

Now, this was not just some printing error or a mistaken use of an old map. ¬†THERE ARE NO DIGITAL MAPS that would have the name of a fictional country named Palestina on them. ¬†Like ZERO out there.¬†¬†And let’s not forget, this is the world’s news leader, according to their own press – with 45 news bureaus around the world.

Their self-hosted Inside CNN webpage, designed for teachers and students, has a very revealing FAQ:

Q: What kinds of checks and balances does CNN use to make sure the stories are accurate? 

A: An average story is said to go through nine sets of eyes before making air. It is also the job of copy editors to proofread stories for grammatical and factual errors. News is verified three times from three different sources before it is broadcast on our air. (Emphasis mine)

So one must therefore conclude that Israel was deleted and Palestina was added in its place – on purpose?

Outrageous right? ¬†Well, HonestReporting reporters contacted CNN about the error, as did likely thousands of people.¬† Their response? ¬†No “oops sorry”. ¬†They just removed the map and put up a photo of airstrikes in Syria in its place – which is actually what the story was about in the first place.

In relation to the story on the Syrian Civil War, no political spin about Israel was necessary – they are not even militarily present in Syria in the battle against ISIS.

This is just bizarre.  It reminds me of three things:

Disney really wants you to remember who makes this movie, and get that logo embedded in your mind as much as possible.
Disney really wants you to remember who makes this movie, and get that logo embedded in your mind as much as possible.

Advertisers have used images for years that subliminally catch your mind but not necessarily consciously – the message might be received, but you wouldn’t even realize it at the time

Perhaps you’ve played a video game or DVD that had a hidden bit of information that could only be accessed if you did certain things with the remote control or played a certain level a¬†certain way.¬† Usually it was the signature of the game designer – like video graffiti¬†– called an Easter eggs?¬† Was that what this was?

GermaniaI watched a documentary recently about Adolf Hitler and his architect Albert Speer who had grand plans for a world empire with its headquarters in the old city of Berlin, which would be redeveloped and renamed¬†Germania.¬† Their plans were both genius and insane (and even architecturally impossible), but they definitely thought that a new can of paint and a new name would somehow take away the international disdain for Berlin as a world capital.¬† They were pretty much dead wrong.¬† Now they’re just dead, and their plans along with them.

Some ideas, like blatant Antisemitism and the groups propagating it, just never die.

israel_is_forever_by_thetechnotoast-d6kuz12