Fake News, Fake Journalists.

The Trump Presidency has become a watershed for the BBC.

First they called Brexit wrong and despite biased reporting in an attempt to preserve the elite status quo, the voting public, those people forced by the risk of prosecution to bankroll the BBC voted to leave the EU.

The apoplexy at that decision and the almost immediate hyping of horror stories (the election program hadn't ended before BBC reporters were gloriously slavering over the news that the pound had started to drop (down to pre-Brexit hype levels, but don't let that get in the way of a good story). Almost in a told you so, naughty children kind of way.

Well, the BBC begin to surpass themselves to express the apoplexy at the population again making themselves heard and installing their President in the Whitehouse.

The first was the over-hype of the pointless women's marches around the World, just as over-hyped as the pointless protests after Brexit. Not only that but the drooling commentary over the lack of attendees at Trump's inauguration echoed the slide of the pound on the morning of Brexit.

Then we got the cringeworthy effort of Larua Kuenssberg to ridicule both our Prime Minister and the American President at their joint press conference. An effort so full of bias and bile that all attempts to hide behind "Balanced reporting" seem to have been put aside. No such calling out of Hillary Clinton about how she could not only live with serial womaniser but actively vilify the women he cheated on her with.

Not only Laura; the BBC has released a full pack of "journalist" attack dogs on the Trump presidency and anything else that smacks of their new hate-word "Populism" (AKA: Democracy).

In truth the BBC has the knife out for anything and anyone that fails to agree with their skewed view of the world. Farage, Trump, Brexit, all are considered a joke by the BBC, they are dismissive of the majority view of the population, inventing the term "Populism" on their output to decry and ridicule anything that doesn't fit their globalist, anti-democratic agenda.

The number of so-called journalists that the BBC have put forward to sing the party song and trash Trump has been beyond the pale. I think the only person giving him a fair-ish crack of the whip is Andrew Neil. Someone who remembers what balanced and unbiased reporting is all about. I'm surprised the BBC still employ him. He must have some info on the top brass. I've long expected him to be cast out and to pop up on some online TV channel promoting proper reporting.

All the other coverage is bias, bile and bilge. It's not News.It's an attack on America, American ddemocracy and the American public. It's like watching the BTN Network on V for Vendetta. It's like the BBC attempting to out-Sky Sky, or out-do Fox News. News is drama, truth is the reporter's own viewpoint.

It is fake news, issued by fake reporters who are nothing more than media mouthpieces put in front of the camera or microphone to promote propaganda.

They're not even covering it up any more, or holding back with their victims. They are so sure of their position that it scares me. Just what is going on? They're not even hiding it any more.

When is the Trump Ban not a Ban?

When It's a temporary hiatus, that's when.

Much is being said in the News about the Trump "Ban", but it is nothing of the sort, It is a 90 or 120 day halt to immigration from "countries of concern". Those countries not being selected by Trump, but by the State Department many months ago. Trump is acting on information that has not been sufficiently acted upon previously. i.e. having enhanced vetting of people from areas considered as high risk.

The indefinite ban on people from Syria acknowledges the issues that accepting people from an ISIS hotbed contains. The fact that there is no way to easily confirm who is a friend of the US, happy to accept safe haven there or who is an agent of terror. The fact that the majority of refugees are men of fighting age and not women or children (where's the equality in that, by the way?) tends to suggest that ISIS is exporting their fighters as refugees or at the very least hiding their fighters amongst a lot of young male refugees where it's hard to tell the difference.

It's not a racist order either, as many in the media have reported, because it doesn't discriminate against race. By it's definition a ban on people from a country is not a ban on race, nor is a ban on one particular religious group racist.

The ethics of such a ban is for others to argue about, but when one is at war (as we all are with ISIS) but morals tend to be flexible and is something where the UK cannot claim to be squeaky clean on. For instance the firebombing of German civilians in cities by the RAF, or the death of innocent civilians caused by the invasion of Iraq, which was at best based on flaky intelligence or at worst just a political publicity stunt.

But it's not like temporary halts on immigration haven't been implemented by the US government before. Other administrations have had temporary bans on accepting people from countries deemed a security risk.

Many News stories have quoted Emma Lazarus' poem on the base of the Statue Of Liberty.. "Give me your tired, your poor..."etc. as a way of stating America's change of heart regarding immigrants. But in the times that poem was written, all the people arriving in America did so to better themselves, to strive for a better life than they could have at home, to make the most of the opportunities afforded by their new home.

Today it is a different story. Yes, there are many arriving in the USA that do genuinely want to take advantage of the same opportunities and freedoms granted to it's citizens. 

But there is a significant number of people arriving in the USA, just as there are in Europe and other free countries around the world, that intent harm, destruction and chaos. 

Those are the reasons for the temporary halt, to take stock and work harder to identify those that mean harm. Those that present a clear and present danger to the USA and the freedoms it holds dear.

However, I will say against it, in it's implementation, Trump's executive order was immature, not understanding the chaos that was caused at airports as immigration officers had to abide by an ill-thought-out order. An easier option would have been to specify implementation on new flights into the USA and to allow those in the air to land an be processed. Unless (and we will probably never know the answer to this) there was an immediate threat to the US identified by the intelligence agencies.

I will also say I'm appalled at the amount of negative publicity given to Trump's order by the mainstream media. It's almost as if they're being paid to push the agenda. What is it with the very forceful pro-immigration sentiment in the media today? So much so they're clouded to the very obvious failings in their own arguments. Should we really take in millions of unvetted refugees? Would the reporters forcing the pro-immigration agenda be happy if (for instance) an unvetted refugee who turned out to be an ISIS member killed a member of their family? Are they happy undermining the security of their own country? If the answer is yes, then why? 

It always amuses me when you get people on news reports getting emotional about the "refugees" in Calais trying to get to the UK, saying the UK must do something to help, we should take in those poor people. But those "poor people" are again young men of fighting age, who just happen to be in France, a very safe country. They are France's problem, not ours. We have no obligation to accept economic migrants (or fake refugees) at all. We do have UN obligations to accept real refugees which the UK and we do abide by our obligations by taking families and children from camps in Jordan, close to Syria where it's easier to confirm the true identity of the refugee and their true status). Families who are in genuine need and who will be thankful for our help and grateful for the sanctuary we give them.

They will not be some angry young Ethiopian who has had to survive the crossing of two continents having been promised streets of gold by people smugglers only to illegally arrive in the UK. An angry young man made even angrier by being exploited by the dark economy. Unable to work because he has no legal status in the UK, denied that pot of gold he was promised in exchange for his life savings. A young man who needs to be saved by making it plain that there is no pot of gold here before he makes the perilous journey, who needs to be encouraged to stay at home and increase the prosperity of his homeland. A homeland free from religious zealots forcing the slaughter of milions in the name of Jihad. A homeland that can trade freely on the world market and is not hampered by huge tariffs on any goods he makes when shipped to the western world and especially the EU. A homeland that educates it's people out of poverty and religious exploitation. A homeland that has the opportunities of prosperity and freedom, free from corruption he would otherwise seek out in the West. 

The real inequality, the real racism the Western Media should be reporting is not the Trump "Ban", nor the plight of refugees in Calais, but the corruption, religious exploitation and inequalities of world trade and global corporate politics that provide the push factor for refugees in the first place..