Well, where to begin. So many inconsistencies within. Honestly, I doubt anyone will read all this, but it’s always fun to debunk conservative dogma (and usually pretty easy too, since all you have to do is assume they’re lying about everything, which is typically true). Let me count the ways: 1. Author claims that the Obama administration previously listed the same seven countries as posing “special risk,” citing H.R. 2029 as evidence when, in reality, H.R. 2029 only lists Iraq and Syria. More importantly, the Obama Administration didn’t write the 2016 appropriations bill, nor this one tiny section buried somewhere within the thousands of pages of the bill. Congress wrote it; 2. Mysteriously, the U.S. Customs & Border Protection website page that lists these seven countries did not do so as recently as last April. At that point, only Iraq, Syria, Iran and Sudan were listed. It appears someone changed it since then; 3. Author cites quote from conservative blogger Seth J. Frantzman, who cites H.R. 158 as additional evidence that the Obama Administration had previously discriminated against these seven countries in question. Like H.R. 2029, H.R. 158 was written by Congress, not the Obama Administration. Further, also like H.R. 2029, it only mentions Iraq and Syria. Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Lybia and Yemen are not mentioned within at any point; 4. Author cites various media sources calling out the fact that Trump’s EO did not include a single country he does business in and called them “fake news” (no shame whatsoever, the irony is palpable here). His evidence? That the Obama Administration chose those countries, not Trump. Therefore, it must have nothing to do with Trumps own business interests. This claim is particularly bold faced, as not only did the author lie about what the Obama Administration did (see above), but then he used that very lie to exonerate Trump; 5. Author erects numerous paper tigers when he argues that the EO includes exceptions to the ban and is not permanent. Those of us fighting the EO don’t take issue with whether or not it lays out enough “exceptions” that could potentially be used under extreme circumstances for maybe a handful of people worldwide. Or whether or not lawful, tax-paying American residents with green cards who get turned away from their home will perhaps be permitted to come back to their families 120 days later and hopefully find that they still have a job and a home. To be clear, those of us fighting against the EO take issue with its UNCONSTITUTIONALITY; 6. Author cites a highly flawed partisan conservative hit piece as evidence that Sec. 5(b) of the EO does not specifically discriminate against Muslims. First of all, the hit piece itself in question makes no claims and demonstrates zero evidence proving or disproving the accusation that the EO discriminates specifically against Muslims – I mean, how could it possibly have, since it was written last year? The hit piece, on the contrary, claims that Syrian Christians are somehow being discriminated against instead by the U.S. This is a widely debunked piece of garbage reporting with flimsy at best support. There are many reasons why the U.S. hasn’t processed more Christian Syrians, such as the fact that we have no idea how many Christians have fled Syria in the first place. Syrian Christians also tend to be wealthier professionals, and evidence shows many have fled to live with family in other countries without claiming refugee status. More importantly, the persecution of Christians by the U.S. is sanctimonious crap with zero basis in fact. It’s the height of arrogance for the group that is doing the persecuting to play the victim card and accuse others of persecuting them. Not to mention 35% of the Iraqi refugees currently living in the U.S. are Christian, so it makes no sense why the U.S. would suddenly start persecuting Christian Syrians. But, perhaps most importantly, even if it were somehow true that Syrian Christians had been discriminated against by the U.S. (which they haven’t), that STILL would not in any way, shape or form justify the decision to specifically discriminate against Muslim refugees. This is a very simple concept taught to most grade school children known as “two wrongs don’t make a right”; 7. Perhaps most egregious of all, author concludes his trash reporting with a sanctimonious lecture about “fake news” and accusation that opponents have made misleading statements, all after lying about the Obama Administration, using that lie to exonerate the Trump Administration, and then blaming the victim.