I have a question, watching all the protesters, Democrats, and commentators in an uproar about Trump’s immigration order: Where were they when the US sent back the Cubans?

That’s the Cuban refugees who, on January 12, 2017, eight days before Trump took office, were denied entry to the US because Obama would no longer grant them asylum. This includes the ninety-one refugees Mexico sent back to the waiting arms of Raul Castro. Where were the protesters, the celebrities, the howls of anger?

Where were they for the Iraqis in 2011, when Obama blocked their entry for six months? Where was the outrage, the George Soros funded groups sending lawyers to help them, the reporters moaning it was such a terrible thing?

Where were they in 1995, when President Clinton ended asylum for Cuban refugees found in US territorial waters? When we began sending them back to Castro, where were the Democrats?

Where were they in 1975, when Vietnamese refugees, fleeing the communist takeover of their country, came to the US? Oh, sorry: We know where some of them were: fighting to deny them entry. Jerry Brown was in that crowd. Yep, the same Jerry Brown who wants to make California a sanctuary state. At least, that’s what he says now.

Where were they, these who smite their chest and claim to be so moral, so compassionate? Did they have a road to Damascus experience since January 12? Why didn’t they speak out for them? They say they care about those affected by Trump’s executive order; why didn’t they care about all refugees?

Right or wrong, my gut feeling is they don’t care about refugees at all. Judging by their selective outrage, they likely see this as a way to advance their party, a cynical use of the plight of others to manipulate public opinion. If they really cared about these refugees, they would have stood up for others with the same fervor.

This is known as hypocrisy. In another day and age, when men and women had more backbone, it would have been called such. I doubt we’ll hear much of that now, what with most of the news leading the parade.

A result, the news has very little hard information as to what Trump’s executive order actually says. Instead, most of the reporting is spin sprinkled with “Where did they get that from?” Such as the claim that it’s a ban on Muslims. Uh – uh. Read the executive order for yourself; you’ll find no mention of the word Muslim. Or that it prevents Iraqi general Talib al-Kenani from coming here to meet with members of US Central Command. Uh-uh. Section 3 (c) allows for foreign officials to come to the US, and Section 3 (g) allows the Secretary of State and Director of Homeland Security to issue visas on a case-by-case basis “. . . and when in national interest . . .” I doubt the general would have any problem coming to the US.

Of course, someone relying on newspapers and the networks probably wouldn’t know that because traditional sources aren’t telling them. It’s clear that if we want to know what Trump’s executive order actually says, we’re going to have to read it for ourselves.

Fortunately, that’s trivial in our age of the Internet. All we have to do is go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions for a list of presidential actions, or to http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states for the executive order in question.

Since executive orders often reference portions of the US Code, the federal laws of the United States of America, it’s good to have a reference handy. You can find one here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text

That’s all there is to it. It’s so simple a reporter could do it – if they would.

As to those supposedly upset by this order, but not at Obama’s just fifteen days earlier, they’re going to have to show the Cubans the same level of concern before I take them seriously.

Somehow, I don’t think they will.