The Travel Ban, McCain and Lindsay, the
in-house opposition duo on Trump
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 concerned nations?
Wonder no more. They are predictably irate about the
This is the same Senator
McCain who brought the fake, unvetted and later debunked Russian
hotel story about Trump that was leaked to the press to the attention of the FBI.
The angst of these two men are 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 against the
measure and 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 the statement is its apparent hypocrisy.
Seven Muslim countries are affected by the order as opposed to
42 who are not and are on the side of the fight against radical
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
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 fit the complete list of countries
affected by the temporary ban: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia,
President Trump, explaining his action, mentioned 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 dangerous radicals.
He said, referring to the recent refugee migration 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...”.
Trump spoke these words, he was taken to task for daring to
mention "impossible." The media, as they have done
throughout 2016, called him a liar..
It is now apparent that the opposition to Trump is not about
policy issues, but an attempt to blunt his success on the same policy issues; whether it is on
Russia or fight against radical Islam.
Consider the following:
First, Trump's statement
had "countries of concern" as targets; listed under
Second, the law was crafted and
expanded before Trump got to the presidency.
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 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.
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
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, 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
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?
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 for a pause in refugee immigration from the
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 false stances, even if the result would hurt
the rest of us.
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 forming and becoming clearer by the day.
These actions and reactions by the "never Trumpers" lead
to one conclusion. They don't want to give him a chance to
succeed, even if they have to break all conventions and
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 email@example.com . Or don't publish at all