|
The Travel
Ban, McCain and Lindsay, the in-house opposition duo on
Trump
E. Ablorh-Odjidja
January 31, 2017
I am sure you have never seen Senator McCain make
a policy statement without Senator Lindsay Graham going
along with the measure.
But have you heard their recent reaction to
President Trump' travel ban on migrants from the seven
suspect nations?
Wonder no more.
They are predictably irate about the measure.
This is the same Senator McCain who brought the
fake news story, the Russian hotel tale about Trump that
was leaked to the press then brought to the attention of
the FBI and later found to be unvetted.
The angst of these two men against Trump is hard
to understand, given that together with Trump they
belong to the same party and profess to share same
ideology; which leads one to wonder whether the
adversarial posture often expressed by them is in the
interest of statesmanship or just an outlet for personal
animosity.
Either way, they will not be alone.
A recent poll by Rasmussen suggests that 33% of
Americans are against the immigration ban versus 57%
that support the measure.
Just as soon as the ban went into force, a series
of protests at airports resulted.
And Senators McCain and Graham, in a statement
issued by them, responded quickly in support of the
protests.
The statement said, “Our most important allies in
the fight against ISIL are the vast majority of Muslims
who reject its apocalyptic ideology of hatred. This
executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that
America does not want Muslims coming into our
country. .....”
The problem with this statement is its apparent
hypocrisy and possible lie.
Seven Muslim countries are affected by the order
as opposed to 42 who are not and already are on the side
of the fight against radical Islam.
Trump's order is also not a travel ban by
definition.
It is for "further vetting (a pause) of travelers from
affected areas for security reasons.
But more serious to the point, the effect presumed
in Senator McCain and Graham's statement does not
exactly fit the description of a "vast majority of
Muslims."
And it will be malicious to think that the order affects
the majority of Muslim countries.
Besides, Trump's order is based on an already
existing law, the "Visa Waiver Program Improvement
and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015.
H. R. 158"
As recent as February 2016, this law that targets
concerned nations was expanded to ensnarl the complete
list of countries that were subsequently affected by the
temporary Trump ban.
These are Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan,
Somalia, and Yemen.
Apart from these being targeted as harbors for
terrorist actors against the US, President Trump had
other concerns.
He explained his action by mentioning the need to
prioritize refugees from minority communities like
Christians and the Yazidis who have been affected by
extreme persecution in areas in Syria and Iraq that are
controlled by Muslim radicals.
Referring to the recent immigration policy for
acceptance of refugees into America, program to America,
"...If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you
were a Christian, it was almost impossible. .. everybody
was persecuted, in all fairness...”.
As soon as Trump spoke these words, he was taken
to task for daring to mention the word "impossible."
The media, as
they have done throughout 2016, called him a liar.
It is now apparent that Trump wasn’t the liar.
The opposition to Trump is not about policy
issues, but an attempt to blunt his success on any
policy issue; whether it is on Russia or a fight against
radical Islam.
Consider the following:
First, Trump's statement targeted "countries of
concern" already listed under US law.
Second, this law was crafted and expanded before
Trump got to the presidency.
Third, the majority of countries in the Muslim
world are already fighting radical Islam and are
considered as allies by the US - Jordan, Egypt, Morocco,
Saudi Arabia and others.
Fourth, of the 49 Muslim countries in the world
(the majority) only seven were on the concern” list
which, again, Trump didn't create.
Fifth, none of these temporary banned travelers
from the listed countries can reenter (or escape
imprisonment) in their own countries if caught with an
Israeli visa stamp on a page in their passports.
(You may plead American exceptionalism, but
remember, the concept died under Obama, by his own
definition!)
Given all the above points, there is enough reason
to suspect that the protests by McCain, Graham and
others are transparently dishonest.
President Trump in his own defense said, “My
policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011
when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six
months.'
The National Review web publication said, “The
anger at his (Trump's) new policy is seriously
misplaced....His policy may be terrible public relations
for the United States, but it is fairly narrow and well
within the recent tradition of immigration actions taken
by the Obama administration.”
So why the furor?
PolitiFact, for instance, has a fact check on
Trump's claim that it was 'impossible' for Syrian
Christians to enter U.S.”
That fact check claim, on examination, is as
ridiculous as team McCain's is on the assertion that the
order is a war on Islam.
PolitiFact, a liberal self-presumed fact checker,
never found a single convincing lie uttered by Hillary,
about her private email server, during the entire 2016
presidential campaign.
But on Trump, it asks to be considered serious and
astute fact checker!
In order for PolitiFact’s observation that “there
is no evidence” to support Trump's claim of Christian
refugee migration from Syria statement to be true, one
would have to discard the entire evidence lodged in the
statistics of the matter; which, of course, is what a
dishonest publication like PolitiFact would like you to
do when the case is about Trump.
Christians form 10% of Syria's population base. As
the most persecuted group, they qualify instantly for
refugee status.
But, evidently, only 0.05% of Christian refugees
in the mix from Syria have so far been permitted to
reach America by the Obama administration.
On the other hand, Muslims, 88% of the population
in Syria, constituted 98% of all the Syrian refugees
admitted into the US (some 10% more reflected in arrival
in the US than proportionately available at the
population base in Syria).
How could Trump's “almost impossible” statement be
wrong given the above figures?
Yet, PolitiFact, McCain, Graham and others in the
media have no trouble challenging Trump on the issues.
They spare no compassion for the persecuted and
tortured minorities in the listed concerned countries,
yet pretend to show moral outrage when Trump asks for a
pause in refugee immigration from the same countries!
With terrorist concerns exploding worldwide, they
see no need to allow Trump to even start his project and
complete his promise to keep America safe.
They have no interest in his success and more
bent on his destruction, even if the result would hurt
the rest of America.
They are part of a political class that is bent on
making us believe it has the noblest of minds and the
best morals among us; all which for this writer goes to
show how far political hypocrisy or personal animosity
can sometimes reach and be hidden in actions of some
men!
The pattern is becoming clearer by the day.
These actions and reactions by the "Never
Trumpers" lead to one conclusion.
They don't want Trump to succeed, even if they
have to break all conventions and traditions to ruin his
chances!
E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Publisher www.ghanadot.com,
Washington, DC, January 31, 2017.
Permission to publish: Please feel free to
publish or reproduce, with credits, unedited. If posted
at a website, email a copy of the web page to
publisher@ghanadot.com. Or don't publish at all
|
