Why the Media's Got It All Wrong

Amidst the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the media in reaction to the president using a comparison between Norway and Haiti to ask a question as to the left's motive for immigration, the N.Y. Times article, by Thomas Kaplan and Sheryl Gay Stolberg covering the most recent activity, posed the situation in a unique way on Wednesday, Jan. 10th. True to the history of this "big dog" newspaper, it's apparent from the way these two reporter's refer to what's going on. They have no clue as to the actual process they describe is going on. Here, let me illustrate what I mean with the following satirical image:

So tell me... do you think Pres. Trump was referring to this person in the picture, or what she is living amidst? Honestly!
 
With the looming deadline to fund the federal government only a week away on Friday, Jan. 19th, the pressure is mounting for congressional leaders on both sides of the isle to present to the president a bill he says he will sign, but only if it meets specific criteria he has laid out. Of course, the media is emphasizing a bipartisan deal. One, no doubt, it hopes will favor retaining much, if not all, of the existing laws on immigration, as was demonstrated when the first proposal was presented earlier in the week and rejected by Pres. Trump.

For those of us who have been paying attention to the background regarding the make-up of the congressional circumstance, we know there are three factions; Democrats who will do and say anything to destroy any attempts to make good on Trump's campaign promises, Never-Trumpers who will do and say almost anything to accomplish the same, and the minority of conservatives who support Trump's agenda. Thus, greatly outnumbered, Trump is working his negotiation skills using what many have often referred to as "3-D chess".

This article focuses on Rep. Labrador's (R - Idaho) bill which he claims, "... is the only bill that’s going to unify the conference, and it’s going to get us to a majority of the conference". On the other hand, Goodlatte of Virginia in partnership with McCaul of Texas, have presented a broader proposal. The most interesting paragraph in the whole article states:

The new House Republicans’ stand underscored the uncertainty about immigration. Mr. Trump’s positions vacillate daily. And members of both parties are divided. Some Democrats are pressing for confrontation, while others seem to fear a political backlash. Some Republicans are searching for compromise against a conservative tide of anti-immigrant fervor.

However, the article engages in focusing on Trump as the adversary, or antagonist, in this situation by using his name when explaining what's holding up progress. If Pres. Trump is "vacillating" at all, it's because he is the master at negotiations and understands how to maneuver through the situation. This is where these reporters, from a well known liberally biased newspaper, reveal what most liberals are unwilling to admit when it comes to why Trump won the election in the first place.

His campaign promises struck a chord with the middle-class, "fly-over" country, and those who, for the last 8 years, felt totally ignored during the Obama administration. With his clear and unwavering promise to fix the massive holes in the immigration issue, the people voted across the country to put him into office. They wanted their country back!

It is this reality which the N.Y. Times journalists fail, and are unwilling, to admit. It is not Trump who is holding the line on immigration fixes; he's representing the country's majority who put him in the oval office; to represent their interests. Yet, the reporter's verbiage attempts to make it out as though Pres. Trump alone is the problem for the left in the country. Only when it's their president in office, do they claim any reference to the vote of the majority. 

The press always does it's best to move the focus away from the beauty of a representative republic where the power resides in "We the People" who've spoken loud and clear.

P.S. When it comes to the looming "government shutdown", should a budget not be in place by the deadline... what most of the people don't know - because the press is unwilling to admit - as well, is that only about 16% of the federal government is actually shut down - the lower priority agencies like national parks - when a budget has not been voted on and passed by Congress. That leaves 84% still funded! So, should we enter into another - and there have been many shut downs in our nation's past - don't believe the press when it goes into "crisis" mode in working the public falsely into a frenzy that the world is going to come crashing down.