In a remarkable and lengthy rebuke of his party’s nominee, Senator John McCain sharply criticized Donald J. Trump’s comments about the family of the fallen Muslim Army captain, saying, “While our party has bestowed upon him the nomination, it is not accompanied by unfettered license to defame those who are the best among us.”
Mr. McCain, a war hero whose service and capture in Vietnam Mr. Trump also once derided, had stayed largely silent over the weekend as Mr. Trump’s feud with the parents of Capt. Humayun Khan brewed, waiting until Monday morning to release a prepared statement.
“In recent days, Donald Trump disparaged a fallen soldier’s parents,” he wrote. “He has suggested that the likes of their son should not be allowed in the United States — to say nothing of entering its service. I cannot emphasize enough how deeply I disagree with Mr. Trump’s statement. I hope Americans understand that the remarks do not represent the views of our Republican Party, its officers, or candidates.” [...]
=====================================
NY Times Donald J. Trump belittled the parents of a slain Muslim soldier who had strongly denounced Mr. Trump during the Democratic National Convention, saying that the soldier’s father had delivered the entire speech because his mother was not “allowed” to speak.
Mr. Trump’s comments, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News that will air on Sunday, drew quick and widespread condemnation and amplified calls for Republican leaders to distance themselves from their presidential nominee. With his implication that the soldier’s mother had not spoken because of female subservience expected in some traditional strains of Islam, his comments also inflamed his hostilities with American Muslims.
Khizr Khan, the soldier’s father, lashed out at Mr. Trump in an interview on Saturday, saying his wife had not spoken at the convention because it was too painful for her to talk about her son’s death.
Mr. Trump, he said, “is devoid of feeling the pain of a mother who has sacrificed her son.”
Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, a rival of Mr. Trump’s in the Republican primaries who has refused to endorse him, castigated him on Twitter. “There’s only one way to talk about Gold Star parents: with honor and respect,” he wrote, using the term for surviving family members of those who died in war.[...]
Mr. Khan’s speech at the convention in Philadelphia was one of the most powerful given there. It was effectively the Democratic response to comments Mr. Trump has made implying many American Muslims have terrorist sympathies or stay silent when they know ones who do. Mr. Trump has called to ban Muslim immigration as a way to combat terrorism.
At the convention, Mr. Khan spoke about how his 27-year-old son, Humayun Khan, an Army captain, died in a car bombing in 2004 in Iraq as he tried to save other troops.
He criticized Mr. Trump, saying he “consistently smears the character of Muslims,” and pointedly challenged what sacrifices Mr. Trump had made. Holding a pocket-size copy of the Constitution, he asked if Mr. Trump had read it. Mr. Khan’s wife stood silently by his side.
Mr. Trump told Mr. Stephanopoulos that Mr. Khan seemed like a “nice guy” and that he wished him “the best of luck.” But, he added, “If you look at his wife, she was standing there, she had nothing to say, she probably — maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say, you tell me.”
Mr. Trump also told Maureen Dowd of The New York Times on Friday night, “I’d like to hear his wife say something.”
In a statement late Saturday, Mr. Trump called Captain Khan a “hero,” and reiterated his belief that the United States should bar Muslims from entering the country.
“While I feel deeply for the loss of his son,” he added, “Mr. Khan, who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution, (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things.”
Even given Mr. Trump’s reputation for retaliating when attacked, his remarks about the Khans were startling. They called to mind one of his earliest counterpunches of the campaign, when he responded to criticism from Senator John McCain of Arizona, once a prisoner of war in Vietnam, by saying at a forum in Iowa, “I like people that weren’t captured.”
But Mr. McCain has a long history in the public eye. The Khans, before their convention appearance, had none.
“Trump is totally void of any decency because he is unaware of how to talk to a Gold Star family and how to speak to a Gold Star mother,” Mr. Khan said on Saturday.
Ms. Khan did speak on Friday to MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell, saying she “cannot even come in the room where his pictures are.”
When she saw her son’s photograph on the screen behind her on the stage in Philadelphia, she said, “I couldn’t take it.”
“I controlled myself at that time,” she said, while choking back tears. “It is very hard.”[...]
Can we also please get a post on this? http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-overtime-hillary-clinton-tim-kaine-clips/
ReplyDeleteWhy was this unaired? What does this say about Clinton?
Why is this family above criticism if they exploited their son's death in otder to favor a political candidate? Why was it OK for them to politicize their son's death - which had nothing to do with Trump?
really don't understand your second point. In what way is the death of a Muslim soldier serving in the US Military not related to Trump's call to ban Muslim immigrants?!
ReplyDeleteDo you mean to say that because one unusual Muslim patriot should outweigh all the Muslim terrorists that come in because of the unfettered immigration? Does he outweigh the Tzarnaev brothers of Boston Marathon disgrace or the San Bernardino and Orlando killers? We are in much more danger from letting them in unvetted than whatever minimal gain is achieved from one far fetched hero.
ReplyDeleteAgreed there is a need to look at the over all picture. Regardless of whether this was a rare event or whether it was common - Trumps comments were totally uncalled for. He could have said like you did but he chose to state a gratuitous insult to the soldiers mother.
ReplyDeleteGet some facts, Mr. Facts of Life. Neither the man in the San Bernadino shooting nor the Orlando killer was not an immigrant. And you realize (or sadly do not realize) that your question should be directed back to you: Do you mean to say that several unusual Muslim terrorists should outweigh all the tens of thousands of Muslims that come in because of the extremely vetted immigration?
ReplyDeleteWhat in the world are you talking about? Where does she "refuse to even say that she wasn't involved"? She said she did not know anything about it and did not read any of the emails. She explained exactly why she thinks it is wrong; because she is "against bringing anyone's religion into the political process." She called it "absolutely wrong and unacceptable." What, are you hoping that no one will actually watch the clip you linked to?
ReplyDeleteIn a way we can say that Trump is putting America to a test. Trump doesn't speak diplomatically, to put it mildly. He doesn't think before he speaks. But we all know what his positions are, basically. The rest he will have to learn on the job, but even so, we know the basic directions he wants to take. They basically go along with a more sensible approach to things. He doesn't really hate Muslims and we all know that. He just makes thoughtless comments in retaliation. Hillary, on the other hand speaks very diplomatically. She thinks very much before she speaks. But we also know the directions she wants to take. Those directions are leading to very bad places. It's all about the most radical left ideas. It's all about putting the real good of the country last or probably even worse, going against the good of America. So we are being tested. Do we want a slick radical left diplomatic speaking villain, or do we want a non diplomatic person who speaks carelessly and without thought, but who has some good ideas and basically means well.
ReplyDeleteMr. Khan's commenting about Donald Trump were uncalled for! Who was Khan to say that Donald Trump never read the Constitution? The sole purpose of the DNC to parade the Khans in front of the convention was to belittle Trump's call to prevent others like those of the background who murdered in Ft Hood, in San Benardino, in Orlando, etc. from entering the country until such time as the scourge of Radical Islam is eliminated. Do you know that during the Holocaust refuge Jews were interned with other Germans in Canada because they did not see the difference? How much more so when there is no difference between the refugees' religion from the radicals they flee from. Trump is a reasonable man. Yes he is a boor but at least he is an honest boor and not a lying, crooked witch.
ReplyDeleteHow about straightening out your own facts. Tashfeen Malik was an immigrant. However, you are right that screening the immigrants is not enough.
ReplyDeleteThere is no question that the highest incidence of radical attacks of all sizes originate in the Moslem community. There should be a much higher level of surveillance and monitoring of the Moslem communities to detect the rise of jihadist activities. The Somali community in Minnesota has sent many conscripts to Isis among others.
Why do you think there is such a great rise of immigration from France to Israel? It's because as the size of the Muslim community grows, the intensity of their imposing of their views and anti Semitic and anti Western approach on the hosting population grows. They do not assimilate with the population in general.
It is highly likely that those coming in as immigrants are more radicalized than those already here so extra care is in order to prevent the danger of terrorists from threatening the American public.
However, what is the need of importing a population that will not integrate and will impose dangerous and uncomfortable views on the population at large?
https://heavenawaits.wordpress.com/muslim-behavior-with-population-increase/
In case your English is not so good, I will repeat what I said: Neither the man in the San Bernadino shooting nor the Orlando killer was an immigrant.
ReplyDeleteIt is very cute how you state your opinions disguised as facts that "we can say." Speak for yourself, not for anyone else. The only thing you wrote that I agree with is that Trump doesn't think before he speaks.
ReplyDeleteObviously, he can apologize and probably for the most part agree with the positive commentors here, being a loose cannon is THE problem and if the dems put Mr. Khizr to illicit a response from Trump, then the Republicans need to upgrade their strategies. ..
ReplyDeleteTry to come to terms with it: Trump purposely does not say the PC thing. He is changing the face of politics as we speak.
ReplyDeleteAnd given his success to date, it seems that he's tapped into an enormous reservoir of people in the nation that are sick and tired of being lied to by mealy-mouthed, pandering politicians.
He is the precise opposite of his opponent, who blows with the wind at every turn. And he's going to remain her polar opposite through the election.
And let's see who wins.
First of all, Mr. Khan did not assert that Trump never read the constitution, he asked if he did. Considering that the one who wrote his first book for him stated that he doubts Trump has read any book in his adult life, it is a pretty fair question.
ReplyDeleteSecond, The shooter in Orlando, as well as the male shooter in San Bernadino, were born in the United States, so your comment about preventing people like that from entering the country makes absolutely no sense.
Third of all, although Hillary Clinton has lied several times, her truth to lying ratio is far far better than that of your favorite boor. Calling him honest is preposterous. See the linked articles, where 70% of Trump's statements are rated as "mostly false, false, or "pants on fire," As opposed to just 28% for Clinton.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/
Khan through the first punch by taunting Trump, stating that he never sacrificed anything. Who is he to make those judgments. It is disingenuous for Dems to act so horrified when this is exactly the reaction they were shooting for
ReplyDeleteThere is another thing we agree with. That I have a cute way about me.
ReplyDeleteGets some facts.
ReplyDeleteIn case your English is not so good I will repeat it.
She refused to say that she was not involved in having the DNC tip the scales in her favor. That is the topic. Yes, she says that she is against using religion to tip the scales; however, she refuses to say that tipping the scales was wrong! She also refuses to say that she wasn't involved in tipping the scales.
Oh, she did offer a meek substitute of being proud of her campaign and not having read the emails. Big deal.
If it is so obvious that Trump was being baited then why was he so stupid to take the bait?
ReplyDeleteAnother one of Clinton's huge lies. Does she ever stop?
ReplyDeletehttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w8PZn4oJxCM
And another...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EBT4kNr1neY&time_continue=56
I explained in my previous reply that new immigrants are more likely to be dangerous since they are not examined for terrorist characteristics and/or history. There were as yet few incidents but they are increasing and how many times can we ignore death counts of 49 and 53 injured.? Since the immigrants are basically coming in without any inspection, the likelihood is that these attacks will increase as they have across the world.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why you're not interested in the example that France is providing and in the link which graphically indicates the impact of Muslim population growth on their mother countries.
Because he's not smart in this way.
ReplyDeleteSource about Politifact bias
ReplyDeletehttp://www.politifactbias.com/p/about-politifact-bias.html
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans
http://www.newsmax.com/Reagan/PolitiFact-Fact-Checkers-Bias/2015/03/20/id/631565/
Ann Coulter writes about the predilection of Liberals to pick spokesmen that you're not allowed to argue against
ReplyDelete"Finally, the Democrats hit on an ingenious strategy: They would choose only messengers whom we’re not allowed to reply to. That’s why all Democratic spokesmen these days are sobbing, hysterical women. You can’t respond to them because that would be questioning the authenticity of their suffering. Liberals haven’t changed the message, just the messenger. All the most prominent liberal spokesmen are people with “absolute moral authority” — Democrats with a dead husband, a dead child, a wife who works at the CIA, a war record, terminal illness, or as a last resort, being on a first-name basis with Nelson Mandela. Like Oprah during Sweeps Week, liberals have come to rely exclusively on people with sad stories to improve their Q rating. They’ve become the “Lifetime” TV Network of political parties. Liberals prey on people at a time of extreme emotional vulnerability and offer them fame and fortune to be that month’s purveyor of hate. Victory goes to the most hysterical".
Hillary Clinton calling a good star mother a liar. Do not expext the media that was exposed in the email scandal to take directions and instructions from the DNC to report this one.
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/bOjX-o9axmw
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XjoDyiayaZo
The Ignoramus-in-Chief:
ReplyDeleteSTEPHANOPOULOS: Then why did you soften the GOP platform on Ukraine?
TRUMP: I wasn't involved in that. Honestly, I was not involved.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Your people were.
TRUMP: Yes. I was not involved in that. I'd like to -- I'd have to take a look at it. But I was not involved in that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you know what they did?
TRUMP: They softened it, I heard, but I was not involved.
Not only does he disavow any involvement in what his campaign people did with the republican platform (sadly enough, probably true), when asked if he even knows what the change was all he could do was parrot back the same verb (soften) that the interviewer used.
Please cite the words where she "refused to say that she was not involved in having the DNC tip the scales in her favor," or where she "refuses to say that tipping the scales was wrong."
ReplyDeleteand cannot help himself.
ReplyDeleteThe last person who should be criticizing Trump's abrasive form of speech is a person who continuously throws out abrasive and personal attacks at anyone who defends Trump or questions Clinton. Very cute? Speak for yourself? How about practicing what you shout!
ReplyDeleteBy the same token, you had Major Nidal Hasan who ruthlessly murdered 13 soldiers in cold-blooded Islamic style (Cherev HaYishmaeli). All while shouting that his idol is great. Politicizing an exception to the rule does not exempt these parents from criticism. Besides, how do we know what would have happened had he survived? Was he another potential Major Hasan?
ReplyDeleteLol
ReplyDeleteCite the words she - the ignoramus-in-chief - refuses to say??? She didn't say it, genius.
At this point I will stop any meaningful dialogue with you until you begin communicating calmly.
nonsense. Trump could have replied civilly that the parents have a son that they are righlty proud of and that the country greatly appreciates his sacrifice. BUT that doesn't change his overall analysis and that he respectfully views them as a clear exception.
ReplyDeleteThere was no reason why Trump had to boorishly disparage the couple to get his point across
Oy, how dare you confuse Yehoshua with the facts! His mind is made up.
ReplyDeleteFrom an emotional perspective, once he validates the parents, then people stop listening. They have already concluded, emotionally, that these parents are heroes and therefore everything they said about Trump is right. There were many politicians who took the moral high ground, but they have all lost. Be it Romney or McCain. President George W. Bush will be remembered as person with a low IQ, despite that being very false. He always took the high ground, and therefore all the lies thrown at him stuck. They don't stick due to the people analyzing the merits of the arguments; they stick because they've been accepted from an emotional perspective.
ReplyDeleteIn todays politics, it's primarily emotional. I think that the leaked DNC emails make that clear.
You are really something. When you say that someone "refuses to state x" one would expect that that means that they said "I will not state x," or something along those lines. That is what "refuses" means. But you are right. Apparently, you use something other than standard English in your posts, where "refuses"means something other than "refuses," so "meaningful dialogue" with you is kind of rough.
ReplyDeleteThe statement that "they are not examined for terrorist characteristics and/or history" is flat-out false. It takes almost two years for people from Muslim countries to get clearance to immigrate to America.
ReplyDeleteSpeak for yourself. Yep, really something. No one agrees with your insane interpretations of refusal. You crookeedly fail to acknowledge that repeatedly refusing to answer a straight-forward question is a refusal. Good luck in your continuous attacks at people, instead of dealing with the actual subject matter. A real "gem" of guy that you think you are.
ReplyDeleteHer analysis is true and the hysteria surrounding Trump's boorish comments about them is in line with this.
ReplyDeleteWhat, as opposed to the Republican convention, which also featured speakers with dead children (Smith, Mendoza, Vaughn, Shaw) and siblings (Terry); people who work for the military (Flynn); people with war records (Ernst); and, as a last resort, reality television stars (Robertson)? And that is all from the first night. Suggesting that finding speakers that will raise the sympathies of the listeners is a tactic unique to the liberals is one of the odder things I have read in a while.
ReplyDeleteWhat "straight-forward question" did she "repeatedly refuse to answer"? The one you posted on this blog?
ReplyDeleteWhich fact-checking organization would you recommend?
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said. Well spoken.
ReplyDeleteHere is an article from a conservative columnist about Trump's lies.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/08/01/lies-lies-and-more-lies/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
John McCain is the lowest of the low. He gets credit for being a prisoner of war. He should also get censure for his near destruction of the Forrestal. He has been a total Rino and has backstabbed legitimate Republicans with many Leftist moves. His word means less than nothing.
ReplyDelete“Trump's foot in mouth problem - Donald Trump Criticizes Muslim Family of Slain U.S. Soldier, Drawing Ire”
ReplyDeleteThe USA State Department also has a foot-in-mouth problem, e.g.:
Press Statement
John Kirby
Assistant Secretary and Department Spokesperson, Bureau of Public Affairs
Washington, DC
July 27, 2016
“…As the recent Quartet Report highlighted, this is part of an ongoing process of land seizures, settlement expansion, legalizations of outposts, and denial of Palestinian development that risk entrenching a one-state reality of perpetual occupation and conflict. We remain troubled that Israel continues this pattern of provocative and counterproductive action, which raises serious questions about Israel's ultimate commitment to a peaceful, negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.”
If they weren't immigrants, they were the children of immigrants, but most importantly, they have an ideology of hate, murder, violence....and conquest.....with a plan on how to carry it out. You don't find an Omar Mateen, a San Bernardino massacre, a Faisal Shazad or a Ft. Hood shooter in any other religion
ReplyDelete..today, for sure not (definitely, not all of them together!). We don't find any other religion anywhere near in such an ideology today. We also continuously hear in the news of terrorist attacks and murder in the name of Islam. The fact that most Muslims don't actually perpetrate the crime doesn't give a solution...neither does their cover up. ....
"You don't find an Omar Mateen, a San Bernardino massacre, a Faisal Shazad or a Ft. Hood shooter in any other religion."
ReplyDeleteReally? Have you ever heard of Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer, Dylan Roof, Allen Alexis, Adam Lanza, James Homes, Jared Loughner, Jiverly Wong, Seung-hui Cho, etc. etc. etc.?
Every life is precious, and every murder is horrific, but in the larger scheme of things, domestic terrorism is a relatively minor issue which is being blown way out of proportion to engender fear and panic among the populace.
Orders of magnitude more people have been killed by in mass shootings by white people than by Muslims. Yet, nobody is talking of banning white people from the U.S.
People looking to immigrate from Muslim countries undergo extremely strict scrutiny, and this has been extremely effective. I do not think there has been even one terror attack on U.S. soil in the past ten years that has been perpetrated by a non-U.S. citizen.
Islam is a *culture* of supremacy and jihad that produces movements like al-Qaeda and ISIS, they have no support base as nearly as powerful as those, if they have one. and even if there are such incidents, they do not reflect and ideology. Why not take a read on Robert Spencer's books, "Islam Unveiled ", "The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran", "Stealth Jihad" and more. ...
ReplyDeleteI am not sure what your point is. In practical terms, whoever is in charge of law enforcement needs to stop anyone from murdering others, regardless if they have a support base or not, and regardless of whether they reflect an ideology or not.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that the Muslims are a much greater threat, therefore the more measures taken to stop them would be more appropriate. ...and only one character has so far the guts to do so....
ReplyDeleteSome interesting information from Drudge:
ReplyDeleteKhizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father that Democrats and their allies media wide have been using to hammer GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump, has deleted his law firm’s website from the Internet.
This development is significant, as his website proved—that he FINANCIALLY BENEFITS from unfettered pay-to-play Muslim migration into America.
What’s perhaps interesting is that also on this website that he has now deleted, Khan revealed that he spent nearly a decade working for the mega-D.C. law firm Hogan & Hartson—now Hogan Lovells LLP—which connects him directly with the government of Saudi Arabia and the Clintons themselves. Saudi Arabia, which has retained the firm that Khan worked at for years, has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation. Hillary Clinton, at the repeated urging of Trump, has refused to return the Clinton Cash money to the Saudis. What’s more, Hogan Lovells also did Hillary Clinton’s taxes.
So tell me what Trump said about Mrs. Khan not being able to speak that was any different than Mr. Khan's implication about him not reading the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteSecond the female shooter in San Bernadino, whom it is believed radicalized her husband, came from outside the United States. So at least that massacre may have been mitigated even if the Orlando murders took place. So 14 people may have remained alive.
As far as honesty, Trump is as careless when he speaks as Hillary is with what she stored on her email server. So if she gets a pass on that, he gets an one too.
The san betnardino shooter (wife) was a saudi immigrant, and the instigator. As are many of the imams of these other killers.
ReplyDeleteshe is "against bringing anyone's religion into the political process."
ReplyDeleteThe "anyone's" religion that she is referring to - just happens to be the Most High - she is clearly on the wrong side of Eden.
Christ slays the dragon - whoever it is - He won't pander to the vanity of this bunch of narcissistic wannabe god's.
Send them all packing - God has abandoned His flock - don't be surprised - He gave us enough warnings. Live and die for love of God - the TRUE one !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P45BHDRA7pU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaIp8iAccLs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npN8mtSXVo0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2Wcgc-Rj1M
http://www.communityofhopeinc.org/Prayer%20Pages/Saints/marie%20julie.html
Listen, it is very easy to have a zero-incidence rate of terrorism. We can just impose a mass curfew forbidding anyone from leaving their homes and saying that anyone who violates it will be shot on sight. But we are not going to do that, because as a society, we understand that there is a need to balance security against other values. That is why the speed limit is not 25 mph, even though it would greater lower traffic deaths; there are other interests to take into account. The "policy" of Trump to ban Muslims from entering America has been roundly condemned by people on both sides of the political spectrum as being antithetical to American ideals. In addition, many in the military and security establishment are of the opinion that it would reduce U.S. security overall due to A: The increase in terrorism as a result of backlash to the ban, and B: A reduction in intelligence-sharing and cooperation from Muslim countries as a result. Again, if you are looking for a zero incidence rate and expecting someone to implement policies to bring that about, you are going to be disappointed. In Israel, the government is not "soft on terror," or whatever other slogan you want, and there are still terror attacks from time to time.
ReplyDelete1: If you don't think that someone running for president should be held to a higher standard in their speech than the bereaved parents of a soldier killed in battle who are speaking out of pain, I have a better understanding of why you are a Trump supporter.
ReplyDelete2: As pointed out elsewhere, we are never going to have a zero-incidence rate. Hoping for that is unrealistic. See my response above to "Politically Correct" about this specific point.
3: Clinton is not "getting a pass." Much of her struggles in the primary are due to Democratic voters having issues with her trustworthiness, and the major liberal media have criticized her greatly for it. Again, I will not claim that Clinton is particularly honest. I am saying that the claim that she is dishonest while Trump is somehow the honest candidate runs counter to the facts.
The wife in San Bernardino was an immigrant. The husband was the son of immigrants. Had the parents not been allowed in, the son would not have been here either. Ditto for the Orlando killer. So it's not always the first generation immigrant that turns terrorist. Sometimes it's the second generation. No difference. Either way, it's the result of allowing in Muslim immigrants.
ReplyDeleteThe bereaved Muslim father spouted a load of opportunistic, politicized BS. Only a sucker would fall for this carefully managed bit of political theater. Or for the phony, ginned-up outrage at Trump's remarks. The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.
ReplyDeleteI must say, I am loving this campaign. The juiciest ever.
Well Yehoshua, that is why I suggested you read those books on Islam and its history to see if their teachings are a source of inspiration for terror, as Robert Spencer does point out that they are. From reading up on this subject, you can get to know that there are by now over 20,000 jihad incidents since 9/ 11 and the teachings and their implementation are not merely associated with them - but the *cause* of them.
ReplyDeleteIt is worthwhile to point out that countries like Turkey that were secular for the past 100 years are being radicalized in the name of jihad. Lebanon, a predominantly Christian country in the 1970s, at 60% Christian, was overtaken, again, in the name of religion.
But truthfully, anybody with some forethought, who listens to the news knows of the imminent threat, be it taking over large distances of sidewalk for midday prayer, having enclaves which are unofficially off limits to the kufar (us,) should have anybody not just smell the coffee, but more so smell the house burning. ...
None of what you wrote has any relevance to the points I made in the previous comment. Everyone agrees that there is a problem of Islamic terror. The question is what the most effective way of dealing with it is. I claim that the strategies of the Bush and Obama administrations, post 9-11, have been extremely successful in preventing domestic terror incidents. I believe that only one with an unreasonable definition of what is called "successful" would disagree with that, as zero attacks is not a reasonable expectation. I also believe, as does basically all knowledgeable people who have discussed it, that Trump's "policy" of banning all Muslims from entering the U.S. will be counterproductive, in addition to being antithetical to U.S. values.
ReplyDeleteOh come on. What the heck do think Khan was doing speaking at the convention? We was there NOT as a bereaved parent but to be the clever lawyer to trap Trump. And he did! See http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/02/khizr-khan-deletes-law-firm-website-proving-financially-benefits-pay-play-muslim-migration/
ReplyDeleteI don't care for Trump but one thing anyone who looks at his businesses knows is that he is very good at selecting the right people to do the job. Hillary surrounds herself with the same crooks she is. So while Trump is a boor, Newt Gingrich is not, Rudy Giuliani is not, etc. These are the type of people who will be in his administration. That's who I'm voting for, the men and women who will be his Administration.
What words did say that were disparaging? The media spun it as disparaging. But if anyone but Trump would have said it it would not have been characterized as "disparaging".
ReplyDeleteIn war, there is many times what is euphemistically called "collateral damage". Civilians get killed. In the war against "terror", Mr. Trump is calling for a reevaluation of immigration rules. So, yeah, some decent, good people will be kept out of the U.S. if Mr. Trump is elected and implements his policy. Maybe the U.S. military will lose out on some dedicated soldiers like Captain Khan. But ultimately Mr. Trump holds that the country will be safer by having kept out some terrorists, too.
ReplyDeleteKish calls the brouhaha a tempest in a teapot. I think there is a more fundamental basis to this debate. In my words, can we fight a war on terror and also simultaneously protect everyone's "rights"? My answer is "no", and I think a vote for Mr. Trump underscores that "no".
I am not sure if you are aware, but you actually don't vote for the people in the administration, you vote for the president. And what makes you think he selects good people to work in his businesses? Hasn't he gone bankrupt multiple times? And what makes you think that even granting that he does have some sense in terms of selecting people to work in his businesses, that this would translate into the knowledge of selecting people who would know how to run a country? And even granting that he has the ability to select people who would know how to run a country, what indication has he given that he is willing to take guidance from anyone? This is a man who, when asked who he consults with about foreign policy issues, said: "Myself. I have a very good brain." This is a man who in a 1 hour meeting with a foreign policy guru (I would guess Henry Kissenger) asked three times why we can't just use nuclear weapons to solve conflicts that we find ourselves in. You trust him with his finger on the button? I do not, not for a second, and that should outweigh whatever concerns one may have about a Clinton presidency.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that basically every Republican out there (Ryan, McCain, Christie, Ayotte, and others) disagree with you.
ReplyDeleteA bit hesitant about that approach, since the more common a risk is (staring one in the face)and imminent, the more the need for safeguards. For example, Trump did illustrate the profiling done in Israel (although Politically Incorrect,) with profiling Arabs, with much safer results than the current method used by the TSA...
ReplyDeleteDo you understand English? Did you watch the internet video? No, no, I mean this particular video where she is asked about the DNC having their thumb on the scale for her. Did she answer that question? No! She spewed nonsense about being proud of her crooked campaign.
ReplyDeleteThe mention of the religion email has nothing to do with straightforward follow-up question.
JO -- you response just illustrates what a total nincompoop Trump is. Your response gives full respect to the Khan family, without conceding the policy point about immigration. Had Trump done the same thing, no one would react. But he is not capable of making a nuanced statement like you did.
ReplyDeleteMuch safer results? Can you quantify that please? Much safer in what way? How many incidents have there been where the TSA failed over the past ten years? And please note, the TSA probably deals with at least 1,000 times as many passengers daily as Israel does. Once again, the idea that America is under some serious threat from domestic terrorism is a total fiction peddled by people who want to scare the public into voting for a strong-handed leader. It seems, at least among some who frequent these parts, that it is working.
ReplyDeleteWell, if that is the best you got for your multiple refusals, I don't think it even warrants a response.
ReplyDeleteYou are really something. When you are proven to be completely wrong, you do not have the integrity to admit the truth. Instead, you will wright up a whole response of how you will not to respond. What a "gem" of a guy you must think of yourself. Are you taking this one for your team?
ReplyDeleteFrom the Boston Herald:
ReplyDeleteHey, Obama! It takes one to know one
Howie Carr for Boston Herald
Now Obama is accusing Donald Trump of being “unfit” to be president. Of
being “woefully unprepared” and lacking “basic knowledge.”
Fill in your own schoolyard cliche. “I know you are but what am I?” People in
glass houses shouldn’t throw stones — Obama once said that he read that
in the Bible.
And he puts the blast on someone else for lacking “basic knowledge.”
Brave talk from a guy who thinks there are 57 states, that they speak
Austrian in Austria, that they speak Arabic in Afghanistan, who
pronounced the state he lived in for three years as “Mass-a-tu-setts,”
who pronounced corpsman as “corpseman.” Who thinks the Transcontinental Railroad was “intercontinental.”
He described Eric Holder’s wife, a physician, as a “nationally renowned ohbee-gynee.” He misspelled “Syracus” on his NCAA brackets sheet. He is utterly tongue-tied without a teleprompter. He makes “recess” appointments when the Senate is not in recess.
If he had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin. His grandmother was a typical white person. The Cambridge Police Department acted stupidly.
It never ends with this buffoon. Yesterday, in Singapore, he mangled the name of the country’s founding father. He can’t be bothered acting like an adult. He chews gum in public. Remember how he took selfies of himself with the Danish hottie at Nelson Mandela’s funeral?
The media were all over Trump like white on rice yesterday because he was goofing around with a baby at a rally. But Obama gets a base on balls on absolutely everything. If his middle name weren’t “Hussein,” it would be “Entitlement.”
“If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. … If you like your health care plan you can keep your health care plan. … You’ll save $2,500 on your premiums.”
The Red Line in Syria. Shovel-ready jobs that he later had to admit (while
chuckling) weren’t really shovel-ready. Making jokes about the Special
Olympics. Dismissing ISIS as “the JV team.”
For a guy who is always prattling about “teachable moments,” he doesn’t seem to have learned much in all his foolish years, as Sinatra would say. (I can hear Obama asking now, “Who?”)
But he says Trump is the one who “doesn’t appear to have basic knowledge.”
He traded five Gitmo terrorists to get back a deserter (Bowe Bergdahl).
Fast and Furious. Brooming the New Black Panther voter-intimidation
cases in Philadelphia. Referring to the Constitution as “that paper.”
Dismissing the Muslim terror murder of 13 U.S. servicemen at Fort Hood
as “workplace violence.” Lois Lerner of the IRS.
Unfit to be president?
“Trump gets grief for eating KFC on his 757 with a knife and a fork. But Obama admits eating dogs, and no one mentions it, although that may be
because he copped to it in one of his narcissistic unread “books” that
everybody bought and then left on their coffee tables, unread, to
assuage their white guilt.
Unfit? Woefully unprepared? Lacking basic knowledge?
Hey Obama, it takes one to know one.
To call you naive, Pollyanna, would be a vast understatement.
ReplyDeleteThat's assuming you are sincere in the nonsense you spout, about which I have serious doubt.
If your insulting me somehow helps you to get you through your day, I am glad to provide that service. Better me than those who actually have to deal with you in real life.
ReplyDeleteShe said: “I didn’t know anything about it. I have not read any of those.”
ReplyDeleteAnd “I don’t know anything about those emails.”
Now, you can claim that she is lying, and I have no way of knowing if she is, but to say that she refused to answer the question is just not true.
Saint Khizr Khan has turned into the pig that he always was
ReplyDeletehttp://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/01/just-joking-media-apoplectic-khizr-khan-attack-donald-trump-goes-flames/
missed how this shows that Trump was justified in his clumsy handling of the issues?
ReplyDeleteBecause right-wing conspiracies. And Hillary is a crook. And don't forget Vincent Foster. And Whitewater.
ReplyDeleteDon't you realize that Khan worked in a law firm with more than 2,500 employees, and someone in that law firm did the work on Hillary Clinton's taxes, so, so, I am not sure what exactly, but Crooked Hillary!
That wasn't my intent. What I wanted to show was that Khan is not at all worthy of praise and having sanctimonious defamation thrown at someone who criticizes him although clumsily. The bandwagon of Republicans who excoriated Trump while ignoring this failed individual is a disgrace and just points out their obsequiousness to the Democrat point of view.
ReplyDeletelooks like those Republicans got it right. Are you denying that his son was killed during Army duty? why does what his law firm does change the significance of his son's sacrifice?
ReplyDeleteThis is ridiculous. His son's sacrifice was wonderful. Khan is not wonderful saying that Sharia should override everything.among other dirty things that he was involved in. He doesn't get a free Coulter pass of the liberal sacred victim in which it's forbidden to analyze any evil that they've done. What's so terrible about saying his wife wasn't allowed to speak in front of him after all? Where did Trump denigrate the son's sacrifice?
ReplyDeleteAll of the Leftist leaning Republicans jumping on him is stupid and hurtful rather than attacking the grossly evil and corrupt Hillary.
That was the original answer. What was her answer to the followup question of the DNC having their thumb on the scale, and favoring her candidacy. She just started blabbering about how "proud" she is of her crooked campaign.
ReplyDeleteyou don't get it. Only a person who believes in Trump would say such a thing. What he did was stupid and insensitive.
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly do you claim that he did?
ReplyDeleteAw, an insult. Poor little guy.
ReplyDeleteI guess your mealy-mouthed response helps you feel righteous about the progressive foolishness you constantly spout, but it doesn't change the fact that you've got your eyes closed and your progressive head planted deep in the sand. Either that or you're pretending to believe the nonsense you post.
what everyone else has been saying - it is fairly consistent in most accounts
ReplyDeleteWe'll just have to disagree. The only negative thing that Trump did was to say a slightly out of line statement about his wife's silence which was probably true.Mr. Khan has Muslim Brotherhood connections, want sharia over anything else and has many other failings that make him ripe for criticism. His son's sacrifice is not like a seh lazazel. The Rino crew that is criticizing Trump are the same scared rabbits that have dramatically let down the Republican base to this point. This is great example of what Coulter described in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteMost of the criticism of Trump with all his failings from the right is simply ignoring the far larger failings of Hillary and is aiding to help her become the replacement for Obama. Venezuela should serve as a good example of the disastrous results of such a course.
Once again, let out your steam here. Have a good Shabbos, and glad to be of service.
ReplyDeleteThe first quote was from her response to the first question. The second quote was from her response to the follow-up.
ReplyDeleteNow, to help you through it: 1: She was asked about the DNC having its thumb on the scales. 2: The evidence that they did so is from the emails. 3: She said she does not know anything about the emails. 4: Accordingly, she does not know anything about them having their thumb on the scales.
Clear enough?
Do you mean the Rino crew like Christie, Gingrich, and Giuliani, all of whom have criticized Trump for his mishandling of this matter?
ReplyDeleteHere is another inexplicable bald-faced lie from your "honest" candidate. My emuna in Chazal is suffering, as he is calling to into question their assertion that:
ReplyDeleteכל מילתא דעבידא לאגלויי לא משקרי בה אינשי
"I'll never forget the scene this morning," Trump told a crowd Wednesday in Daytona, Florida, just after describing his opponent, Hillary Clinton, as a liar. "Iran — I don't think you've heard this anywhere but here — Iran provided all of that footage, the tape of taking that money off that airplane, right? $400 million in cash."
He continued, "Now here's the amazing thing. Over there, where that plane landed, top secret, they don't have a lot of paparazzi. You know, the paparazzi doesn't do so well over there, right? And they have a perfect tape done by obviously a government camera, and the tape is of the people taking the money off the plane, right? That means that in order to embarrass us further, Iran sent us the tapes, right? It's a military tape. It's a tape that was a perfect angle, nice and steady. Nobody getting nervous because they're going to be shot because they're shooting a picture of money pouring off a plane."
Trump's campaign told ABC News today that Trump was referring to a video he saw on Fox News of the American prisoners released in Geneva. However, a campaign spokesman could not explain why the images Trump described did not match the Fox News video.
Isn't it common knowledge? Spencer points it out in jihadwatch.com .........
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, these are just some articles that testify to that:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-airport-security-breaches-chicago-20160526-story.html
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4494308
Their criticism was very mild and just indicated that he could have been more gentle and not to focus on them but on Hillary.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the very valid criticism of Hillary who lied, endangered Americans and opened our most guarded secrets to our enemies? The whole focus on Trump is a totally distorted fabrication of the corrupt Leftist press. The ones that are the most to blame are the traitorous Republican Rinos and useless fools like McCain, Ryan, McConnel and the rest of the slave crew that are looking to undermine Trump.
I have a serious question for you: If the Republican Senate majority leader, the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, the previous two Republican candidates for President, as well as the previous two Republicans to serve as President, are all, in your terms, "Rinos (Republicans in Name Only)," then who in fact constitutes the "real" Republican party, and why do you consider the latter group to be more "real" Republicans than the first group?
ReplyDeleteThe Huffpost article is not an article, it is an advertisement for an Israeli company that does consulting for airport security trying to drum up business. The first article does not address terrorist threats specifically. Once again, how many terrorist attacks have the TSA allowed in the past ten years? Was there even one? In any event, there have not been enough that any other approach can be labeled as "much safer."
ReplyDeleteYou mean to tell me you never mixed up what you saw on one newscast with another? A bald-face lie? No. Hillary saying she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia or telling grieving parents of those who died in Benghazi a video caused the attack that killed their sons, now those are LIES. Trump too often speaks off the cuff but he does not prevaricate and obfuscate like Crooked Hillary Rotten Clinton does.
ReplyDeleteAnd others like Rudy Giuliani and Clint Eastwood agree with me
ReplyDelete1: The point is not what newscast it was. The point is that he described in detail seeing crates of money being unloaded from the plane, when he saw no such thing. He claimed it was a clip shot by the Iranian military. It was not. He simply made up the description of the video because that is what he felt suited his narrative.
ReplyDelete2: Please stop referencing Clinton. The point of this thread is not that I am claiming that she doesn't lie (I agree that she does). The point is that you claimed that unlike Clinton, Trump is honest. I have shown time and time again that he is at the very least as bad as she is in this category, if not worse.
Well, as long as you have Clint Eastwood on your side.
ReplyDeleteThis is actually a very good question. The Republican party as currently constituted and functioning does not provide any resistance to even the most radical Democratic programs such as unlimited abortions and unlimited immigration. Ryan and McConnell fully support the Democratic activities and have not offered any resistance even where they could such as by not providing the funding.
ReplyDeleteIn an unfortunate sense, the war may be over and my opinion, it does not bode well for America.
Do you know what the term "unlimited" means? I question that because immigration is extremely limited, and states have imposed many limitations on abortion.
ReplyDeleteEither way, you are basically conceding that those people are not "Rinos," as you had asserted, but are Republicans. It just happens to be that you don't agree with the Republican party anymore.
The Republicans have become Democrats in all but some fictional pose and the Democrats have become full fledged socialists and communists as was very evident at the Democratic convention with the illegal usurping of the Socialist votes for Bernie.
ReplyDeleteIf the Democrats take full control, they will do to America what they have done to Detroit, Baltimore, Camden and are in the process of destroying California.
They are the most intolerant and violent ideology. ...no one to compare to ....and their ideology mandates subversion of all nonbelievers. ...
ReplyDeleteAgain, agreed. Again, irrelevant. See above. You claim that other security methods would be much more effective than those used until now. I claim (and am supported by the facts) that post-9/11, the security establishment has been extremely effective in preventing domestic terror.
ReplyDeleteTechnology is not enough. They are ideologically motivated - common knowledge for those who are willing to talk about and face their jihadist th r eat to subvert America either politically, legally or ultimately militarily, which is why w hear of them propping up again and again. Of they are kept out, because we face their ideology and squarely tell them, 'We refuse to tolerate your intolerance' and keep them out from even confronting us, then we will have a far better edge in this war...
ReplyDelete