The Jim Acosta-CNN Fake News Award

Left-wing news outlets have been hard at work in their efforts to convince the American public that the Trump administration and the GOP are the second coming of the Nazis. Indeed, our esteemed fourth estate and their leftist compatriots have risen to new heights in their bid to demonize those malicious deplorables who dare to oppose the leftist agenda.

In their attempt to sway public opinion, they have resorted to publishing stories that are either completely false or skewed enough to lead the consumer to believe the left’s fake narratives. It is in the spirit of our respected left-wing media institutions that we have decided to issue the brand-new Jim Acosta-CNN Fake News Award.

It’s not easy to win this award.

This dubious honor will only be bestowed upon those who have a critical role in perpetuating the most egregious deception of the year. For this reason, the first annual Jim Acosta-CNN Fake News award goes to – drum roll please – Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post for perpetuating the lie that the travel ban is really a Muslim ban.

The Travel Ban Is a Muslim Ban

To be fair, most establishment media outlets argued that the travel ban was just an attempt to keep Muslims out of the United States. However, Rubin took it to another level when she wrote a piece entitled “The Muslim ban is useless, but Trump still wants it,” after the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily halted the ban. The court ruled against the executive order because the evidence created “a compelling case that EO-2’s primary purpose is religious.”

If the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals were a news organization, they would be getting this award, but unfortunately, it only applies to dishonest media outlets. The court cited Trump’s rhetoric on the campaign trail as proof that the travel ban was intended to stop Muslims from coming into the United States, and therefore unconstitutional. They may have been right about Trump’s rhetoric, but they were clearly wrong about the actual executive order, which looks nothing like the statements he made while campaigning.

Of course, Rubin concurred with the court’s decision, believing that the ban wasn’t necessary. “Trump’s attorney general vows to take the case to the Supreme Court, but to what end?” She writes. “The purpose of the ban was to give the administration time to come up with super-duper vetting procedures. Surely, they could have accomplished that in four months (longer than the suggested ban on travel to seven countries in the first ban).”

Great question! Apparently, it has taken longer than four months to develop our extreme vetting measures. It turns out that working with other nations to develop systems that allow us to probe deeper into the backgrounds of their citizenry isn’t as easy as Rubin might believe. Who knew that Rubin was an expert in the art of “making sure these folks don’t want to kill us.”

Obviously, the Trump administration knew that upgrading our vetting efforts could take longer than expected, which is why the original executive order included provisions allowing for the extension of the ban if the authorities were unable to create a viable system.

Rubin goes on to argue that Trump’s travel ban interferes with his desire to develop positive relationships with Middle Eastern nations. “He cannot on one hand commend the gathering as ‘a symbol to the world of our shared resolve and our mutual respect’ and promise that ‘the United States is eager to form closer bonds of friendship, security, culture and commerce,’ while continuing to seek to bar their citizens,” she writes.

Hmmm, so if we want to have positive relationships with the countries who are on the list, we must not impose reasonable measures designed to protect American citizens? We can’t ask these countries to help us to establish measures that can help both nations identify potential terrorists. Got it.

Later in the piece, Rubin characterized the travel ban as the “xenophobic, shiny object he can use to convince his core base that he is ‘doing something’ about foreigners, Muslims in particular.” Sure, Jennifer, anyone who thinks we should attempt to shield Americans from Islamic terrorism is nothing more than a hateful Islamophobe. The truth is that most conservatives don’t have a problem with Muslims, we have a problem with the ones who want to carry out terrorist attacks.

The Truth About the Travel Ban

Securing America gets the Trump seal of approval — Rubin’s ad hominem attacks do not.

Contrary to what the left wants us to believe, the travel ban is not a Muslim ban. The data show that the countries targeted by the ban represent only 12% of the world’s Muslim population. Trump’s executive order targets countries that have had problems with Islamic terrorism and are lacking the means to help us fully vet their citizens when they want to come to the United States.

If Trump is trying to ban the majority of the world’s Muslims, he’s not doing a very good job – most predominantly Muslim countries aren’t part of the ban. Moreover, the ban is intended to be temporary, not permanent.

Rubin’s article is an example of the tactic many leftists use when discussing a contentious issue. Many are not content to simply argue whether or not we need a travel ban. Instead, they resort to labeling their opponents as bigots. There are valid arguments for and against the travel ban, but unfortunately, our establishment media prefers to engage in name calling. Rubin’s piece is an example of using lies for political expediency, rather than focusing on the issues. For that reason alone, she is entirely deserving of this award.