Clearing the misunderstanding on Trump’s “Muslim Ban”

Many Americans are confused about President Donald Trump’s new Executive order on Extreme Vetting. The mainstream media is having a field day defaming Trump as a xenophobe and a racist. There was definitely some dishonest reporting from the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, and such. I’ll be highlighting ABC’s report on the ban.

President Trump’s Executive Order to Protect the Nation from Foreign Terrorist entry, is a temporary ban on visas issued to individuals in countries sponsoring terrorism. Quote:

Section 5:

(c)  Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.

     (d)  Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.

     (e)  Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest — including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship — and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.

(underlining mine)

The order focuses on restricting entry to those who hold terrorist values, as well as radical ideas against the Constitution, with the intent on committing violence against people of different religions, gender, and sexual orientation. Quote:

Section 1: Purpose (Paragraph 3)

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.  The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.  In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

President Trump’s main concern is our nation’s safety. Despite his critics, Trump demonstrates his concern for refugees, with his plan to vet them and provide entry into the U.S. In response to his opponents, President Trump said:

“America is a proud nation of immigrants and we will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border. America has always been the land of the free and home of the brave. We will keep it free and keep it safe, as the media knows, but refuses to say. My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror. To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion – this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order. We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days. I have tremendous feeling for the people involved in this horrific humanitarian crisis in Syria. My first priority will always be to protect and serve our country, but as President I will find ways to help all those who are suffering.”

ABC had the audacity to report the following on the order; I quote:

On Monday, President Donald Trump defended his executive order that puts an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees, a 120-day ban on all other refugees, and a 90-day ban on visitors from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.

His actions are coming under attack from thousands of protestors around the nation, as well as lawmakers from both parties.

(underline mine)

“Indefinite”??? NOWHERE in the EO is written that Syrian migration is “indefinite”. Perhaps they mean there is no indicated time when the ban will be lifted, but ABC lacked the grace to clear the air. There’s more; I quote:

The White House says the travel ban is needed to keep America safe, but some national security experts say it bolsters terrorist propaganda that America is waging a war against Islam.

Nonetheless, it will prevent terrorists from simply entering our country.

Trump says his controversial executive order is similar to one signed by former President Obama in 2011 targeting Iraqi refugees. Trump also says that Obama later singled out the same seven nations as “countries of concern.”

The latter claim is true, but there are major differences in both content and context between the two executive orders.

How? Obama’s temporary ban occurred after a terrorist attack. We had the Orlando gay club attack, San Bernardino, and the Somali terrorist in Ohio. So how is Trump’s ban different again, in context?

Obama’s order involved re-vetting 58,000 Iraqi refugees already living in the United States and creating tougher screening procedures.

ABC inquired Dr. David Branham on his insight about Trump’s EO; I quote:

“There’s never been anything similar to this with immigration,” said Dr. David Branham, Associate Professor of Political Science with UH-Downtown.

Branham says since President Franklin D. Roosevelt, U.S. presidents have increasingly used the executive order to advance their political agendas.

Pointing fingers eh? Don’t act like you don’t have any agendas of your own, especially with your idiotic comments.

Branham says unlike President Trump’s executive order, Obama’s 2011 executive order was passed after a specific threat involving two Iraqi refugees accused of making bombs during the Iraq War that targeted American soldiers.

San Bernardino?? Orlando?? Trump’s ban came after 50 plus Americans were KILLED by Muslim terrorists! You freaking moron!

“We were in a war with Iraq,” said Dr. Branham, adding that in the current fight against extremists, “it’s very difficult to narrow boundaries on these people.”

If they support ISIS, hate gays, women, Christians, Americans, and want to kill you, then I’d say it’s pretty easy to narrow them down.

“With the Obama executive order, people could see the logic behind that,” said Branham. “It’s harder for people to see the logic behind this. We’re not seeing terrorists coming in from these countries.”

The stupidest comment yet. We had the Boston bombing, San Bernardino, Orlando, hundreds of women raped in Germany, and many Muslims in America getting radicalized through the internet. How can you say such stupid crap with a straight face, unless you have a political agenda, you moron.

Further in the report; I quote:

Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell appeared on CBS This Morning on Monday and called Trump’s executive order “a recruitment boon for ISIS”.

Another Obama pawn I bet.

“I think the order is going to make the threat worse,” said Morell.

Definitely a pawn.

Morell also responded to President Trump’s comments about the seven countries being on Obama’s list.

“This was actually part of a program to enhance the security of the visa waiver program from European countries,” said Morell. “So they enhanced it, and there’s no evidence that there’s any weaknesses to it. That’s really important context here.”

How is that and Trump’s ban the same? Europe OPEN their borders. Trump is building his borders.

Raul Ramos, Associate Professor of History at the University of Houston, says another key difference between the two executive orders concerns the way they were implemented.

Ramos says while Obama spent weeks working with government agencies and lawmakers to make sure his order was workable, Trump’s quick rollout has caused a lot of confusion for customs agents.

Trump is working tirelessly with his team to execute his plan for safer borders. This plan was in the works during his time as president-elect. And the confusion is from you, not Trump. It is you and other liars like you that deliberately twist the truth to fit you political agenda. I mean, the executive order is available FOR FREE to read, yet you decide to deceive your gullible audience anyway!

Ramos also says the closest historic parallel to this law is the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 that banned Chinese laborers from coming to the U.S. That law was repealed in 1943.

Yes, Trump is an evil xenophobic, islamaphobic, intolerant, racist, ignorant, white supremacist dictator.

President Trump has only been in office for a week, and already he’s been attacked and marginalized by the main stream media. The media has yet to learn that their tactics are not working, and we can see through their deception.





Video: Intro to Book Review of God and Cosmos

God and Cosmos was written by Christian philosophers David Baggett and Jerry L. Walls. The book addresses traditional and contemporary arguments for an atheistic foundation of morality. Baggett and Walls demonstrate how these arguments are insufficient in providing a solid foundation for a traditional objective morality in an atheistic world.
The way the book works is it starts with a formal presentation of each atheistic argument, then it’s followed by criticism.
I applaud Baggett and Walls for being insightful with their counter arguments, and honest with their presentation of the opposing view.

The book review will be posted soon. In the meantime, please like and subscribe to my channel. Please check out my other videos. And visit my blog at

Have a questions/comments? You can leave them in the comments’ section, or send me an email at

Thanks for watching!

The New Ghostbusters is a political statement

Originally written on May 20th, 2016

Many fans of the classic 1984 Ghostbusters have a strong disdain for the 2016 reboot with the same name. Why is this? James Rolfe of Cinemassacre (also known as the Angry Video Game Nerd), explains in a recent “non-review” of the film, that the new Ghostbusters has hardly anything to do with the first one. One of his dissents is how the new Ghostbusters uses the name in order to cash in on its predeccesor. He says:

“Calling it Ghostbusters but without having any connection to the original story or characters, is a shameless attempt to bank on the name to get fans to see it, based on the title alone. At the same time, it takes advantage of the younger generation who might have not seen the original. They’ll see it without feeling like their is any prerequisite having seen the other movies. And now whenever you look up the original movie, you’re always gonna see Ghostbusters 1984 and Ghostbusters 2016. Its piggy-backing the name.”

None of his remarks about the film addressed the all female cast. However, this does not stop critics favorable of the movie to bash Rolfe’s comments as nothing more than misogyny and sexism. HeatStreet wrote an article addressing James’ critics, which I recommend you read.

I don’t understand how anyone can deny that there is an enormous bias for feminism in Hollywood. There is an outcry on Hollywood’s part against the “male patriarchy”, yet it is women in our society, that has received a special privilege to be over-represented in the media. Women have been given a victim state status by the political Left. Consequentially, this has cause many people to hate the new feminist movement. Many people hate how fathers are disadvantaged from gaining custody for their children, how men in general are cast as idiots and buffoons on TV, and how many of them are forced to listen to feminist rhetoric, yet can’t criticize it. Many people are sick of having their hands tied, many people are sick of being marginalized as sexist and racist, for being critical of feminist ideas.

I am glad however, that many individuals are coming against the new feminism in America.

Thought Control in LGBT Language

I made this video not too long ago. I discuss how LGBT language, most particularly their use of the words “love”, “hate”, “hate speech” and “bigot”, have become buzzwords, and how they are used to control peoples’ thoughts on LGBT issues, ideas and actions.

I will be posting more information about thought control. It is important not to misuse the term “thought control”for every suspicious situation. The recent race dramas, along with the current “Social Justice Warrior” movement happening in college campuses, can be understood more fully when we study what consists of good propaganda, mainly thought control.

I hope you enjoy the video. Comments are disabled to avoid trolls. However, if you have any comments, please send me an email. Thanks!


Is LSD a great drug to use for depression and exploring your mind?

I am a fan of Black Pigeon Speaks videos on YouTube. Unfortunately I was disappointed when he was (kind of) encouraging the use of LSD in his video “LSD: Microdosing & the Supernatural.”

I’m going to answer the question in a philosophical matter.

Scientists are always discovering new ways to treat psychological disorders such as depression, bipolar and more. In my personal experience with depression, I never saw positive effects of psychiatric medicine in my struggle. I eventually overcame depression when I determined in my mind and heart that I wanted to be happy. Thus, I was able to gather the strength I needed to overcome my depression.

I find this inner strength more valuable than the use of any drug. I can understand the temporary relief LSD can provide, but it is not permanent. And is it truly a solution if the problem is only suppressed but not resolved? Black Pigeon Speaks mean well with his notion of relief. However, I disagree with his idea to use drugs as a solution.

I posted my thoughts on the video’s comment section. Here’s a snapshot of it. Please let me know what you think.

catlyana13: “I’m sorry Black Pigeon, but I have to disagree with using LSD as a way to explore your conscienceness. LSD from what I have learn in the video, sets your mind free like a child. Having a drug produce thoughts, images and ideas we have no control over can not be a good thing. We can not gain a full understanding of complex issues simply by taking a drug. It takes a willful act of our mind and our intellect to explore, learn and solve the mysteries of our nature. And it is not granted that the same experience one time will happen again. There is no consistency in psychedelic episodes, like dreams. How can we determine if they are a vision of another dimension? It’s only an experience in the mind caused by a drug that can manipulate the mind. I personally don’t need LSD. The best weapon against depression is my will to be happy. I faced my personal demons willfully and knowingly with my own strength. LSD is a temporal relief. However, when someone gathers the strength to overcome their problems, the solution becomes permanent, and triumph is sure. And what follows is longer days of happiness that are meaningful.”

Screen Shot 2016-05-15 at 1.47.26 PM


Rebuking a Leftist Feminist on Target’s Bathroom Policy

I recently made a video rebuking a feminist for her unwarranted attack against people who were concerned about Target’s new bathroom policy. The policy allows transgender individuals to use which ever bathroom they please no questions asked. The no questions asked part worries a lot of folks, because it can open a big door for sex offenders to commit crime including rape, child molestation and pedophilia.

Gretchen Kelly is her name. And the post I refuted may be found here:

This is not a personal attack to Ms. Kelly, but a stern rebuttal to her method of thinking. She is quick to reduce people’s concern to mere fear-mongering, in order to justify what she believes is social justice, and that is inconsiderate of her.

I must admit that I was upset. I did my best to keep myself collective. I couldn’t help but make fun of her hyper-feminist ideas of a rampant rape culture and a society objectifying women, seeing how these ideas are nothing but exaggerations (and real fear-mongering I may add). At the very least, the western world has become a better place for women.

Nevertheless, I made this video primarily to expose a very sinister argument against a legitimate concern for bathroom safety. Please let me know what you think!


The 2016 Writing Contest Result

Well….I lost. But that is okay. It only challenges me to improve on my writing, especially on executing my arguments articulately. A good argument is consistent. I feel like I have maintained consistency in my essay (if you haven’t yet read my piece, please see The Benefits Factor Argument in Secular Ethics). I think what it ultimately came down to was content. What content was the most interesting or the most challenging?

I first discovered Moral Apologetics after reading Baggett and Wall’s book Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality.


I instantly became fond of their work. I appreciate so much their candid demeanor. They present secular objections in a sincere manner, and their overall argument for theistic ethics is very strong. I have learned a lot from their book. After searching for David Baggett online, I found his website, Moral Apologetics. I am not a professional philosopher, but I do love to think about my faith, and how God is relevant to everything in the world. I recently purchased their (Baggett and Walls) new book, God and Cosmos: Moral Truth and Human Meaning.


The first book established their own argument for theistic ethics. Their new book focuses primarily in analyzing secular ethics and demonstrating its insufficiency to maintain a sound moral foundation.

I highly recommend their first book, I have not fully read the other one. I’ll let you know if it’s good though. Congratulations to whomever won the contest! If you have any recommendations for future subjects (it could be anything), please email me at