[Post revised. Read full text of Trump’s executive order here. I have reconsidered some of my initial appraisal of it after giving it further thought.]

RON PAUL says sensible things about foreign policy. From Paul’s Institute of Peace and Prosperity:

President Trump’s recent Executive Order banning entry to citizens of seven mostly-Muslim countries for 90 days has sparked protest and outrage. Lost in the din created by the protests is the fact that these seven countries have something in common: they have been targeted by the US for bombs or regime change. Where Iraq and Syria are now considered terrorist threats, for example, before US regime change and invasion there was no terrorist problem. Iran has never attacked or threatened the United States, but it is on the list of banned countries. Saudi Arabia was [allegedly] complicit in the 9/11 attacks on the US and 15 of the 19 attackers were Saudi citizens, however somehow the Saudis escaped President Trump’s notice. Is this really about protecting us from terrorism, or is it about politics? We discuss today in the Liberty Report.

[Note: Paul embraces the official version of 9/11 and it would be political suicide if he did not.]

I would add to what Paul says in the recommended video interview below that Americans in some small towns and cities have swamped with refugees who have unleashed crime waves in some places and who were never given comparable help to settle near their homes in Muslim countries. See Ann Corcoran’s website Refugee Resettlement Watch for documentation. Americans need relief from the refugee resettlement racket, in which so-called humanitarian organizations profit from cultural chaos and dislocation. The executive order does begin to address that problem. Communities should have a say in any influx of large numbers of refugees.

At the same time, I am concerned about the political motives behind this order and the conjuring of an Islamic bogeyman around every corner. Again, I recommend the Ron Paul interview. There is no need to embrace the idea of false flag attacks, as I do, to accept his argument for non-intervention.

[Update]

Brandon Martnez writes at Non-Aligned Media:

Trump’s ban on refugees and migrants from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen is incontestably rational when considering that most of these countries have been consumed by civil wars and militancies. Why would any country want to import people from conflict zones not knowing who they are or what they intend to do once they arrive?

Should we just ignore the deadly lessons from Europe, which has witnessed a horrid spate of migrant sexual assaults and terror attacks – in cafes, on subways, concert halls, Christmas markets, etc. – since its borders were thrust open during the migrant crisis? Mentally unstable and traumatized migrants cannot be viewed entirely as victims of war who need our tender love and care. They’ve shown a propensity to pay back generosity with bloody murder on innocent civilians. Not all migrants are terrorists, certainly, but even one rotten apple can spoil the whole batch.

Many who depicted Trump’s travel ban from Muslim countries as an act of cruelty toward Muslims who did not decry Obama’s bombing of Muslim countries.  As Mike King at The Anti-New York Times put it:

Speaking of cruelty towards Arabs and Muslims, it is interesting to note that it didn’t seem to trouble the Obamunists at all when their Marxist Messiah took or ruined the lives of countless innocent men, women and children in Libya and Syria, not to mention his notorious Predator Drone strikes on wedding parties and funeral processions. To date, Orange Man has neither killed nor injured any Arabs or Muslims.

To date. Stay tuned. (Actually, Americans have killed Muslims under Trump.)

Speaking of hypocrites, here are 16 countries that ban Israelis from entering.

Please follow and like us: