Sun Muslim Ban Lies BUSTED

Whatever the more nuanced tone struck by his more upmarket Times, Rupert Murdoch is clearly allowing none of this wishy-washy shade of grey nonsense to affect the hectoring and ranting tone of the Super Soaraway Current Bun, especially when it comes to covering the actions of his new pal, Combover Crybaby Donald Trump, whose Executive Order banning visitors from seven mainly Muslim countries is encountering difficulties.

There have been demonstrations against The Donald all over the UK and USA, he’s sacked the Attorney General in a fit of rage because she, unlike all too many in Trump’s past, has said “No” to him, the petition requesting the British Government to cancel his forthcoming Royal visit has passed 1.6 million signatures, and the USA is rapidly becoming a cross between Pariah nation and an international laughing stock.

None of this is allowed to deflect the Sun’s editorial, which tells readers the Muslim Ban was not in fact Trump’s doing. Wait, what? We saw him signing the Executive Order. But no, the Murdoch goons want their readers to know “We should remember it was not Donald Trump who first inflicted the ‘Muslim ban’, but his predecessor Obama”.

Note that Barack Obama does not merit mention of his Christian name. But do go on: “WHEN the US President first targeted seven Muslim-majority countries in an anti-terror crackdown, no one protested … Why? Because it was President Barack Obama, darling of the liberal left [mention of the mythical “liberal left” - CHECK!] … It was his regime that singled out Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Somalia, Yemen and Libya and made certain travellers pass an interview to get a visa to the States … We must have missed the anti-racism marches that day”. That’s because this is bullshit.

We know this because the claim has already been comprehensively debunked by the Washington Post - that would be one of those boring US newspapers that deals in real facts, rather than the “alternative” variety peddled by the Sun - whose staff began by asking the obvious question “So what’s the difference with Trump’s action?”

These were their conclusions.

First, Obama responded to an actual threat - the discovery that two Iraqi refugees had been implicated in bomb-making in Iraq that had targeted U.S. troops … Trump, by contrast, issued his executive order without any known triggering threat.

Second, Obama did not announce there was a ban on visa applications … There was certainly a lot of news reporting that visa applications had been slowed to a trickle. But the Obama administration never said it was their policy to halt all applications.

Third, Obama’s policy did not prevent all citizens of that country, including green-card holders, from traveling to the United States. Trump’s policy is much more sweeping.

The WaPo concluded that “this is worthy of at least Two Pinocchios”. In other words, the Murdoch goons’ pants are on fire.

And it gets worse: the Sun’s editorial also howls “the hysteria in Britain is still off the chart. A million-plus petition to scrap his state visit. An ‘emergency’ Commons debate demanded by Ed Miliband, ­loving another moment in the spotlight … With every daft rant the student union politicians on the Labour benches show why they are unfit to govern … The Commons should waste no time debating a US President’s immigration policy”. Fortunately, the Commons is not run by the inmates of the Baby Shard bunker.

As Mil The Younger Tweeted last night, “House unanimously passes emergency motion finding Trump Muslim ban discriminatory, divisive and counterproductive and calling for repeal”. In other words, Murdoch mafiosi, shove your rant.

The Sun’s editorial this morning is headlined by a pack of lies. No change there, then.