‘Newspeak’ vs. Trump's illegal immigration executive order

We are witnessing deliberate efforts to cripple America's ability to control its borders and stop ill intended immigrants and refugees from entering its gates.  These efforts are advanced by the left-leaning, pro-Muslim media and social networks using newspeak to disseminate disinformation.  Their success is the result of years of vigorously enforced political correctness.

The weaponization of the language to distribute what President Trump calls "fake news" is nothing new.  Under Barack Hussein Obama's presidency, relentless efforts were made to increase the number of illegal immigrants with unknown backgrounds into the country, as well as advancing and expanding the Islamic agenda in the United States and elsewhere.  Claiming that Islam is the religion of peace and the Muslim Brotherhood is the political agent of "Islamic democracy" helped further confuse many Americans who knew little, if anything, about Islam, much less about "political Islam."  Since "Islamic democracy" (an oxymoron) sounds innocent enough, many Americans were led to believe that the proponents of political Islam (redundant – the religion of Islam dictates every aspect of life, including politics), would melt into the American pot, as immigrants and refugees, adherents of all other religions, have done for 241 years.

Years of deadly attacks on innocent civilians "in the name of Allah" in Europe and in the United States; tremendous increases in drug trafficking and violence by gangs of illegal immigrants from South America; growing intimidation of free expression; the meteoric rise of "Black Lives Matter," which preaches, "Ending white privilege starts with ending Jewish privilege"; and censoring and rewriting American cultural history led Americans to elect a politically incorrect president in November 2016.

President Trump was elected, in part, because he promised to fight radical Islam and stop illegal immigration.  He promised to use "extreme vetting" to screen out ill intended refugees or immigrants.  On January 27, days after taking office, he issued his first executive order, "Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals," suspending U.S. visas to Muslim refugees and travelers from seven out of fifty-odd Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia.  These had been identified by the Obama administration as Islamic terrorist-prone countries.  Trump's E.O. was blocked by the judges at the 9th Circuit Court, who oppose the Trump agenda and deny the threat of Islamic terrorism.  The government's appeal to reinstate the suspension failed.  Trump's second E.O. on March 6, "Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States," which omitted Iraq from the list and was modified to address some of the criticism of the first order, was also blocked by two federal judges, one from Hawaii and the other in Maryland, who also oppose the president and his efforts to better secure the nation, claiming, among many similarly unfounded allegations, that the president's E.O. violates the First Amendment, though that amendment applies only to American citizens.  The government has filed its appeal.

The left-leaning media have put newspeak into action.  For example, "Immigrants are going hungry so Trump won't deport them," shrieked a Washington Post headline.  Other media outlets had similarly misleading headlines, purposely using the word immigrants, which connotes legality, while omitting the adjective illegal, and alleging that the president is calling for a "ban" on Muslims in ordering suspension on travel from six Muslim radicalized countries.

The president could have avoided these confrontations by merely following his promise to institute "extreme vetting" of all visa applicants to the U.S.  Since ISIS has warned us that it is sending operatives to the U.S. under the guise of refugees, and radical Islamic terrorists could come from all destinations, every applicant should be "extremely vetted" to identify his or her intentions toward America and its people. 

Automated objective vetting systems are available on the market.  Using them abroad to screen applicants in refugee centers and American consulates where visas are issued entails no extra manpower.  Potential terrorists could be kept out with no extra spending and no unnecessary legal headache.  The president can have his cake and eat it, too – potential terrorists could be screened out with no extra spending or legal headache.