Subsequent to President Trump issuing an executive order regarding a temporary ban on travel from the countries of Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Somalia, Libya and Yemen, Sen. Elizabeth Warren addressed a small crowd at Boston Logan Airport. She addressed Trump's executive order; Click Here for a video of her statements.
We've heard an awful lot recently about fake news and alternate facts. This is a prime example of these; AND, I'll give details below.
But first, I do realize that her gathering was small and her speech, as it were, was a small protest against Trump's executive order. And, she has every right to protest anything she desires.
However, to many she is an influential member of Congress and many take her words to heart. My offering here is to focus on making certain that what we hear from our politicians represents facts and not ill intentioned propaganda.
Too many people these days do not (or do not take the time to) research what the media offers as "facts". I'll make more of this at the end.
Now, to the point of this article.
The crowd she addressed all seemed to accept her statements as being truthful. And, why wouldn't they? She is a United States Senator, after all. Therefore, she must know of what she speaks. Right?
Well, let's see.
On the "order" (her word) President Trump gave, Sen. Warren offered, in part, these denouncements and pronouncements:
1. "It is illegal."
2. "It is unconstitutional"
3. "It will be overturned."
4. "An attack on anyone for their religious beliefs is an attack on the very foundation of democracy."
5. "We will not turn away children."
6. "We will not turn away families."
7. "We will not turn away people who tried to help Americans."
8. "We will not turn away anyone because of their religion."
Let's look at each statement as compared to reality and especially to the actual executive order by Trump.
First, the name of the executive order is: “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” Click Here to read the text of the executive order.
Now, to her statements.
1. "It is illegal."
Well, that statement is actually false. There are (at least) 2 laws on the books which the executive order, itself, references that demonstrate the legality of the executive order. (1) 8 U.S. Code § 1182 and (2) 8 U.S. Code § 1187.
2. "It is unconstitutional"
This statement is also false.
8 U.S. Code § 1182 was enacted in 1952 by a Democrat House & Senate and signed by the president. 8 U.S. Code § 1187 was enacted many years later. Neither law has been challenged as to their constitutionality. Therefore, until the Supreme Court opinions otherwise, both laws are, in fact, constitutional; therefore, any "order" following these laws is, by definition, constitutional.
3. "It will be overturned."
This, also, is a false statement; or, at the very best an unlikely event.
In order for this executive order to be overturned, both of the above-stated laws would have to be deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Such action, of course, would take years to accomplish, if even such a challenge were to be made. Otherwise, being overturned is not in the cards.
4 & 8. These two are strongly related - (i.e., "4. An attack on anyone for their religious beliefs is an attack on the very foundation of democracy." and "8. We will not turn away anyone because of their religion.").
Not one single line in Trump's executive order mentions religion. I can only assume she was referring to people of the Islam faith; i.e., Muslims.
Whatever one may think of Muslims, good or bad, it would be illegal to bar someone because of their religion. And, pretty much impossible to enforce. For example, if asked "Are you a Muslim?", no matter what you responded there would be virtually no way to prove your answer. Go ahead, prove it to yourself. Prove you are not a Muslim.
Now, if you are a devout Muslim you would be familiar with the words TAQIYYA, KITMAN, TAWRIYA, and MURUNA. Knowing that these words are part of Islam makes it difficult to verify if a Muslim has good intentions for our country or not - not impossible, but difficult. Combine this with the fact that our country is ill equipped to "vet" people from the countries identified in the executive order.
Now, consider that the majority of Muslims in the world live in countries other than those the executive order stipulates.
As only the countries of Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Somalia, Libya or Yemen are affected by this ban, clearly Muslims were not the "target". Yes, the vast majority of these countries' people are Muslim - but, remember, some are not. Well then, why, exactly were these specific countries' people banned from travel to the US?
In the middle of the last century there was a bank robber, Willie Sutton. When asked why he robbed banks, it was reported that his answer was "..because that's where the money is."
So why was travel banned from the above-listed countries? "Because that's where the terrorists are." Now, clearly, this is an oversimplification. Islamic terrorists are located in many more parts of the world than just these 7 countries - they even exist here in the US.
But, these countries represent the foci of terrorist funding, sponsorship, training, and promulgation.
Remember what this executive order is about. Look above and re-read its title. It has only to do with trying to keep our country safe.
5 & 6. (i.e., "5. We will not turn away children." and "6. We will not turn away families.")
Of course the ban is on all travel from the above-listed countries will, by definition, exclude families and children. That's what "ALL" means, including Muslims, Christians, Jews, and anyone else. Remember, the ban is only temporary until proper vetting is possible.
Sen. Warren's statements, however, seem to imply that this president is heartless towards this same group of peoples. It's a deflection from the purpose of the executive order and somewhat inflammatory to say the least.
7. "We will not turn away people who tried to help Americans.".
I can but assume she is referring to persons from these countries who have helped our military, such as translators and the like. Whereas her uses of "We will not" are but protestations, her point here is valid. When push-comes-to-shove I can envision some accommodations by the Trump administration being made on this issue. We will just have to wait and see.
To my final points.
Politicians have a responsibility to their constituents - to help the people they represent become better informed with actual facts, to actually represent what their constituents want, and, as they have sworn to do, uphold the laws of our land - including the US Constitution.
Sen. Warren's statements clearly violated the first of these responsibilities. It seems to be that, in this case, she was trying to promote a political ideology/agenda of which the facts of this executive order didn't fit. This doesn't seem to be representation in its finest form.
I do have a question or two. Where were the cries from Sen. Warren (and others like her) of "illegal" and "unconstitutional" when Democrat President Obama curtailed Iraqi refugees from entering the US back in 2011 and when Democrat President Jimmy Cater banned entry to Iranians? No such cries were heard. And, where was the outrage when President Clinton spoke almost the same words as President Trump as to illegal immigration? Oh, that's right, there was no outrage. It would be more palatable if certain politicians were just a tad bit less hypocritical in their messages to their constituents.
If the American people don't, for whatever reason, like a particular law, executive order, person in office, etc., such can be changed - legally. To ignore laws or refuse to follow such leads to anarchy. One doesn't have to like what is going on, but one should follow the law.
Sen. Warren should know better. The American people deserve better.
Statements such as Sen. Warren offered, not being factual statements, go far to sell the narrative of the politically progressive left. Such is nothing more than using the adage offered by Vladimir Lenin: "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." In fact, if one looks at Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals", especially #11, one can see the playbook of the progressive left pretty much to a tee.
In this specific case the "lie" is that Trump's ban applies to all Muslims. Just take a look at the contents of random news articles on this very subject:
Influential, progressive politicians, along with a complicit media, help to instantiate Lenin's quote. Just look at the crowds reiterating the false claims. The people in these crowds didn't get their messages from reading the actual executive order.
As I've mentioned in other articles about the news we see and hear these days, President Reagan's coined "Trust but verify." should be changed to "Verify, never trust."