Today the world is experiencing “the largest migration of displaced people in the history of the world.” How big of a forced migration? The number is approximately 65 million. A sickening commentary when one thinks back to the horrors of WWII.
This catastrophe, which has been ongoing for years now, sees persecuted people moving across homeland borders due to violence, starvation, bigotry, genocide (something Obama ignored) and a host of other evils. Each night when Americans tuck their families into bed, millions are traveling or sleeping in a new location having no permanent residence to call home – they are refugees.
While this tragedy did not commence or accelerate the past two weeks, a funny thing happened (and not a “Ha Ha” funny) when Donald Trump was elected – U.S. liberals became emotionally overwhelmed with the plight of these destitute souls.
This brings us to liberal selective rage. All it took was Trump and a Seven Country 90-Day Temporary Immigration Ban to ignite liberal self-righteous judgment and solutions.
So on social media, “talk-the-talk” crusaders post the graciousness of Starbucks plan to counter Trump’s cold heart. The pious, yet always politically involved, Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, swooped in like some benevolent angel to announce 10,000 jobs to refugees. Sounds great. Problem is, many online saints do not realize these 10,000 jobs are not being provided entirely in the United States – wish it were that simple and bold.
No, Starbucks’ PR stunt is providing the world’s 65 million refugees 10,000 barista jobs over five years, in 75 countries at 25,734 coffee shops. So with a current 238,000 employees that promises to one per store: a total of 4 percent of Starbucks company population. Which doesn’t really help those coming to our shores, but it gives Starbucks a perceived moral edge with customers.
No new job should be dismissed. That is why Democrats mocking Trump for getting involved and helping to save “just” 800 jobs at a Carrier furnace plant was ludicrous. Jobs provide hope and self worth. But make no mistake, Starbucks’ stunt is based on selective rage. Does anyone think Starbucks would have done this if Clinton had been elected? Did Starbucks provide this life line to refugees during the Obama years when we saw millions flee Middle East violence?
There are sixteen Muslim countries where Jews are prohibited entering. Of the seven countries that have a Trump 90-day “ban,” six currently ban Israeli Jews. If Mr. Schultz is truly incensed about the plight of the persecuted and unencumbered travel, why does Starbucks have stores that prohibit Israeli Jews in Brunei (5 stores), or Lebanon (40+ stores), or Kuwait (50+ stores)?
Where was Starbucks and self-proclaimed voices of empathy on social media when the Clinton Foundation took millions from some of these Jewish hating countries? These same countries that punish LBGT people by death or imprisonment yet, Starbucks and Hollywood remains silent on this crime.
It took a President Trump to get them to stand up and be counted. So now they start playing the propaganda game. Trump did what he said he would during the campaign. Why is anyone shocked? The seven countries named were identified by Obama and previous administrations as countries with one form or another of restriction — then Selective Rage kicked in, with newfound concern for these refugees by protestors, sudden alarm by former Obama Administration officials, and dishonest hash tags like #MuslimBan shared.
And to think, this move by Mr. Schultz, a stalwart Hillary supporter, was motivated not in any call by Obama asking corporate America to do its part in offering any incentive upon arrival in the United States to, say, help refugees put a car in every garage and chicken in the pot — but came instead with the sweep of the pen by a Republican president signing a newly crafted Seven Country Temporary Ban Executive Order to review vetting so non-terrorist refugees can enter the U.S. Never let a GOP Administration get in the way of cocktail circuit love.
This selective rage and national press as an accomplice would have made Hearst and Pulitzer proud. A practical suggestion: let’s all “stay in” a couple of nights in February and donate those proceeds to relief agencies that have been doing something for longer than a week. Better yet, cut back your visits to Starbucks and donate that extra money to these 65 million souls.