1) The ideology between the mainstream media and the Trump administration is genuinely divided.
2) "Religious vetting" needs to be looked at more carefully by ideological progressives.
To the first point, we know that "mainstream media" (as currently defined, media sources that reach the largest number of people, presumably having the greatest impact) is owned and controlled by powerful interests which are driving such things as political correctness, open borders, free trade, the Soros cartel of NGO's and the party line rhetoric of "spreading democracy" whenever regime change is in order.
The so called progressive ideology behind years of mainstream media propaganda is clearly at odds with the forces behind the growing populist movement. And this populist movement is powered by much more than a disorganized gaggle of middle class reactionary conservatives. There is power behind the movement of the sort that would never get behind the populist uprising against Wall Street, and without that power Trump would not have gotten elected, nor would his ("their") cabinet choices ever been appointed.
I do not know which power elites back Trump, or whether certain former progressive elites defected to a more conservative position, but the divide seems genuine. The left-leaning ABC even orchestrated a clearly scripted interview yesterday with House Rep. Seth Moulton, who is obviously reading his "response" from a teleprompter.
This is not just Moulton "reading his pre-interview notes", this is a presentation with two actors playing their parts. It may not be the first time a supposed live interview was scripted, but it does show the lengths at which the progressive camp will substitute news with theatrics. I do not believe we are witnessing "fake opposition for ratings" a la Jerry Springer. I believe we are witnessing real ideological opposition from increasingly "evenly matched" opponents. And that is noteworthy.
Since the topic of the Moulton presentation was Trump's "Muslim ban", let's move to the second point, which is the expected outrage against "religious freedom" in Trump's immigration order. I have seen many self-righteous progressives respond negatively to Trump's assault on Muslims, so let us examine the religious freedom of Sharia law, as taken from the Muslim religion. Though I have written about this before, it bears repeating that Muslim states in 2013 rejected a UN ban on violence against women as violating Islamic law:
How can it continue to be maintained that Islam is peaceful and “good for women?” Not only does the Koran sanction discrimination and bigotry against women, as well as wife-beating, but Islamic or sharia law also includes the right to marry females of any age and to have sex with girls as young as nine years old. Women are considered worth one-half of men, if that, and female sexuality is viewed as so perilous that women in fundamentalist areas and families must wear oppressive clothing. Moreover, around 140 million women and girls worldwide have their genitals hacked off or otherwise mutilated, the bulk of which female genital mutilation is justified in the name of Islam.I would hope that my female Facebook friends who consider Donald Trump an anti-Muslim misogynist will reconsider their position on religious vetting, considering that Sharia law is taken from the Quran. These are the same type of fundamentalists responsible for the Charlie Hebdo massacre, resulting from animations of Allah thought to be heretical - how's that for religious tolerance?
Yet these same ideologues rush to the conclusion that Vladimir Putin is now set to decriminalize domestic violence. I would be cautious to jump to any conclusions here until the actual language of the law is reviewed. True, there will no doubt be some reaction to a world where one legally separated parent can list the other on a national abuse registry, for any reason, with the click of a mouse. But that reaction cannot be a slap across the cheek. Nor can it be the simple acceptance of a clearly unjust and unreasonable sentence of communal humiliation for life. There is an obvious middle ground. But no reasonable person should approve violence as an acceptable means of social conduct, including those practicing strict Sharia law at barbaric extremes (which no amount of "religious freedom" can justify).
It is always interesting to view and clarify the opposing rhetoric of social ideologies, and the measures their proponents will take to make their cases. But in the end, these are distractions which are meant to hold our attention long enough to consider buying Plavix or Lunesta.
You seldom hear real news via mainstream outlets, like the powers behind the Trump movement pivoting toward Russia to break their alignment with China. It would certainly sell a lot of Big Pharma product, but it's as "off limits" to both ideologies as the "Occupy Wall Street" movement.
These are our daily TIDbits, growing like weeds among the Flower of Understanding.