When people hear the name “Sesame Street,” they think of wholesome educational content — the kind of thing you want your kids watching. One of the most popular characters on the show is Elmo, the small red muppet that talks like a small child himself. Kids, for some reason, love Elmo.
Which may be why CNN decided to bring Elmo on for a discussion about Syrian refugees.
First, let’s take a long look at the fact that a freaking Muppet is being held up as a “spokesperson” on a foreign policy issue — and CNN is treating it seriously. If there was no other indicator of how far the network has fallen from its groundbreaking coverage during the Gulf War, this is it.
Further, it’s a pretty biased argument being presented, with no counter points even being mentioned. As the Daily Wire’s John Nolte points out:
At no time during the 15-minute segment did CNN or Elmo inform the public of the fact that Trump’s temporary ban is meant to improve vetting procedures for refugees coming from countries designated by the Obama administration as especially risky when it comes to seeding refugees with terrorists. In other words, the pause is meant to keep American children safe from the Islamic threats that have become part of daily life in Europe.
At no time did CNN or Elmo inform the public that many of the people from that part of the world would prefer to stay in that part of the world, would prefer [it if] America’s refugee plan was to stabilize the region or to create safe zones.
At no time did CNN or Elmo talk about the trauma of separating children from their family, or the terror risk involved in bringing these refugee children over with adult family members.
The segment was clearly designed to emotionally blackmail American children, to twist them into unthinking beings who will see President Trump as a monster who hates children.
I’m forced to agree.
Children aren’t equipped with the critical thinking skills to understand the nuances involved in any political situation, much less understand that good people can reach different positions on a policy issue.
The idea here is to try and make being a Trump supporter an untenable position, particularly in your own home. “Mommy,” little Suzy might say, “why did you vote for the bad man who wants to hurt children?”
How can you explain all the various reasons that the topic isn’t what they think — that perhaps you believe President Trump is trying to keep people like little Suzy safe?
Maybe the right should get a children’s icon to discuss how failing to combat ISIS has hurt far more children and will continue to hurt children for as long as the militant Muslim maniacs are permitted to run roughshod over the region. Can you imagine the wailing and lamentations of the left then?
That alone might even make the effort worth it.