When did speaking the truth become fearmongering?

In addition to reading the transcript of Donald Trump’s speech at St. Anselm College yesterday, I read through the news reports about the speech. The thing that struck me is how the Enslaved Press is spinning speaking the truth as fearmongering.

speaking the truth

Politico accused Trump of employing the politics of fear. I find that all manner of hilarious when you consider Hillary’s scathing attack on Trump just a couple weeks ago. To hear Hillary speak, Donald Trump would start a nuclear war if somebody insults him, drive women into back alley abortions, and lead us into a global economic crisis. Apparently that isn’t the “politics of fear.”

Said the Politico piece:

Trump’s speech followed Clinton’s on Monday, answering the presumptive Democratic nominee’s attempt to be unifying and calming with remarks that, at best, characterized her approach as timid and weak and, at worst, stoked Americans’ fears of their Muslim neighbors with visions of immigrants who “share the values” of the Orlando shooter and other legal residents who have carried out attacks on U.S. soil out of loyalty to ISIL and other terrorist groups.

Since when is speaking the truth “stoking fears?”

Listen, I read the transcript of the speech myself. The reason this writer at Politico is all aflutter is because Donald Trump is not jumping on the “Nothing to see here, folks; Islam has nothing to do with this” bandwagon that the Enslaved Press and idiots like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been riding on for years.

What is more dangerous? Admitting the truth that a large number of Muslims migrants and refugees in America support Sharia Law or continuing to stick your head in the sand while more Americans die?

Here’s part of what Trump said:

Immigration from Afghanistan into the United States has increased nearly five fold — five fold in just one year. According to Pew Research, 99 percent of the people in Afghanistan support oppressive sharia law. We admit many more, and that’s just the way it is. We admit many more from other countries in the region.
And I’ll tell you what: They share these oppressive views and values. We want to remain a free and open society. Then, and if we do, then we have to control our borders. We have to control, and we have to control them now, not later. Right now.

How is that fearmongering?

We are not just importing people; we are importing a culture. And this culture is in direct conflict with our own. Trump is right, if we are to remain a free and open society, the people who come to live here must adapt to our culture. And if they don’t want to, if they want to bring their closed, oppressive culture to America and force us to adapt to them, then they don’t belong here.

Trump, in describing his temporary ban of Muslim immigration from terrorist strongholds, also had the audacity to point out this salient fact:

After a full and partial and long — really long overdue — security assessment we will develop a responsible immigration policy that serves the interests and values of America. [Underline emphasis mine]

Immigration should be determined by what is in the best interests of the United States. It is the Left that believes the US Immigration policy should be what is in the best interests of the immigrant. That is back-asswards.

The question should be, is it in the best interests of the United States to increase the number of student visas granted to Saudi Arabia? Is it in the best interests of the United States to let tens of thousands of poor, uneducated, illiterate people from Central and South America into the country? Is it in the best interests of the United States to bring in thousands of “refugees” when our enemy has already declared that they would secrete among them their own fighters?

But for the Left, we’re not supposed to put our interests ahead of citizens of other countries who want to come here. It’s not compassionate. It’s not showing tolerance. So what if they put a drain our welfare system, our healthcare system, our public schools, or our communities? So what if they bring with them a culture that is intolerant of gays, women, Jews, or the American culture? So what if they have allegiance to ISIS and are coming to wage jihad against us on our shores?

The people who have been lying to us are the Enslaved Press, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and the rest of the assorted malcontents who don’t give a rip about the best interests or national security interests of the United States. They are the ones using fearmongering, by hectoring us endlessly about how speaking the truth about radical Islam only plays into the hands of the terrorists. What rot.

CNN‘s reporting of the speech was absolutely ridiculous, I don’t know where to begin. But here were a few of the more moronic things they said:

Trump refused to name Omar Mateen, the killer who went on the rampage in an LGBT nightclub in Orlando, during his speech. But, adding a line not found in his prepared remarks, he said that he was born “an Afghan, of Afghan parents, who immigrated to the United States.” But the perpetrator of the Orlando massacre was born in New York to parents from Afghanistan.

This is an example CNN gave of one of the ways Trump’s speech “showed little regard for facts.”

But Trump didn’t say the Orlando terrorist was born in Afghanistan; he said he was born an Afghan, of Afghan parents. You can be born an Afghan in New York, you know. Especially if both your parents are from Afghanistan. They certainly didn’t give birth to a Jamaican, for heaven’s sake.

But wait! There’s more hard-hitting insight from the Clinton News Network:

In a speech pulsating with tough talk that will likely please his supporters, the presumptive Republican nominee also renewed his call for a ban on Muslim migration into the United States — and extended it to cover all nations with a history of terrorism. Hinting at a huge expansion of presidential power, he vowed to impose such a system by using executive orders.

Okay, first, let’s talk about back-asswards. He didn’t “extend” the ban on Muslim immigration into the US; he did just the opposite. He went from his initial statement in December of banning all Muslim immigration regardless of where the specific Muslim is from to limiting the ban to cover countries with a history of terrorism. That’s not extending, you dumbasses. It’s limiting it.

In fact, this is exactly the policy Ted Cruz articulated. And, if I may toot my own horn, the one I argued for in response to Trump’s initial statement.

When I parsed Trump’s Muslim Immigration Statement, in response to his call for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on,” I wrote:

Okay, this is problematic. There is a difference between not permitting anyone who is Muslim from emigrating to the US and suspending immigration from areas of the world infested with radical Islamic psychopaths — like Syria, Somalia, Iraq and the like.

CNN is completely wrong here. Trump isn’t extending his ban, he is narrowing it in just the way I suggested.

Okay, enough of me tooting my own horn.

Look at the second idiotic thing they claim here:

Hinting at a huge expansion of presidential power, he vowed to impose such a system by using executive orders.

First of all, in his entire speech, Trump never once uses the phrase “executive orders.” So how could he have “vowed” to use executive orders, when he never freaking used the phrase?

But more than that, CNN is lying when they say he is “hinting at a huge expansion of presidential powers.” Under current US code (8 USC §1182), Trump is correct when he says in his speech that the President can determine who can and cannot come into the US:

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

This isn’t a “huge expansion;” it is following current US code.

Oy, vey.

Back to CNN’s absurd piece:

The real estate magnate also appeared to equate all Muslims who seek to come to the United States with the perpetrators of recent terror attacks — another claim that seems to fly in the face of the evidence about a community that has been present in the U.S. for decades.
“We cannot continue to allow thousands upon thousands of people to pour into our country many of whom have the same thought process as this savage killer,” Trump said. [underline emphasis mine]

So, he “appeared” to equate “all” Muslims when he said, “many of whom?” “Many” and “all” are not synonymous, CNN, you idiots. Trump’s quote that you choose doesn’t even support your premise. How stupid are you to not notice that?!

Here was another howler from CNN:

And he repeated an unsubstantiated claim that Clinton wants to deny Americans’ 2nd Amendment rights.
“She wants to take away Americans’ guns and then admit the very people who want to slaughter us,” Trump said.
Clinton has called for universal background checks and stricter controls on firearms, but has never called for the abolition of the 2nd Amendment.

Right, CNN. And if Hillary Clinton says something, we can trust her to tell the truth, right? Yup. We can take that to the bank. Because Hillary would never lie to the American people. Never ever.

Odd that CNN didn’t refer to Hillary’s claim that Donald Trump would start a nuclear war if someone gets under his very thin skin as being “unsubstantiated.”

And finally, this moronic statement:

In each instance, Trump sought to project both strength and a lack of concern for the reaction to his provocative rhetoric, calculating that both would help him rise in the polls during the Republican primary. Indeed, a majority of Republican voters agreed with Trump’s call to temporarily ban all foreign Muslims from entering the United States.

A “lack of concern for the reaction?” You see, you should not speak the truth for fear that the reaction to the “provocative rhetoric” (AKA “the truth”) might upset some people (like the dingbats at CNN). So, you must speak only if you are ever mindful of the reaction to what you say.

And how do they know what Trump was “calculating?” Something tells me, Donald Trump didn’t tell CNN, “I’m calculating that by projecting strength and a lack of concern for the reaction to my provocative rhetoric will help me rise in the polls.”

Two can play at the game. What CNN and Politico are both “calculating” is that voters will only read their skewed and often dishonest reporting of Trump’s speech rather than take the time to read it themselves.

I encourage you to do what I did. Read the transcript of the speech or watch it yourself. Both the video and transcript can be found HERE.

Is it a perfect speech? No. Personally, I don’t like when someone says “Thank you” every time the audience applauds. And I’m not a fan of Trump bragging about being right all the time (but hey, we all do that, even me [see above]). But if those are the only objections I have to it, I’d say it was a pretty good speech.

The objections the Enslaved Press have to Trump’s speech is he dares to utter the truth. For the last nearly fifteen years, the American press and our politicians have tiptoed around the reality of the threat of radical Islam coming to our shores. Even after the horrific terror attack of 9/11, the Enslaved Press and our politicians were quick to jump on the “Dear God! Let’s not look like we’re Islamophobic!!!” bandwagon.

Their objection to the speech had far more to do with Trump’s unwillingness to play their game.

In fact, CNN all but admits that when they wrote:

Trump’s rhetoric — which was heavy on toughness but often short on policy details — contrasted sharply with the more nuanced and conventional response to the attack delivered earlier by Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee.

Ah, yes. The horrible, unforgivable sin of not being “nuanced.”

We are at war and CNN is fretting over a lack of “nuance.”

When I read the speech, my first thought was, “It’s about damn time a candidate for President is willing to speak the truth about the threat of radical Islam.” And that’s the problem these morons have. When it comes to radical Islam and the threat it poses to the West, speaking the truth is not allowed.

In fact, it’s “fearmongering.”

Help keep PatriotRetort.com Ad-Free!

Hit the tip jar DONATE button in the side bar. Even a few bucks can make a world of difference!

Books by Dianny:

RANT 2.0: Even More Politics & Snark in the Age of Obama,
Liberals Gone WILD!!! The Not-So-Silent Conquering of America,
RANT: Politics & Snark in the Age of Obama,
and two novels: Sliding Home Feet First and Under the Cloud

You can find my e-books at all of these fine stores: smashwords.com, Amazon Kindle Store, Apple iTunes, and Barnes & Noble Nook Store.

Check out DiannyTees.com

— my Conservative & Christian T-shirt Store.

Share, share, share

One thought on “When did speaking the truth become fearmongering?

  • June 14, 2016 at 3:13 pm


    if I didn’t know better, i would think you are warming up to Trump. Get onboard! GO Trump!

Comments are closed.