Donald Trump has spoken out about Khizr Khan, the father of a soldier killed in Iraq who issued a devastating critique of Trump at the Democratic convention.
Khan, his wife, Ghazala, at his side, demanded that Trump read the Constitution when considering his proposal to bar Muslims from the country, pulling a copy of the document of his pocket and offering to lend it to the Republican nominee. Had Trump's policies been in place, he said, his family wouldn't have been in the country, and his son Humayun Khan would not have served in Iraq, giving his life to save his men. "You have sacrificed nothing and no one," Khan said to Trump.
"I saw him," Trump said of the speech. "He was very emotional and probably looked like a nice guy to me. His wife … 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," Trump continued. "But a plenty of people have written that. She was extremely quiet, and it looked like she had nothing to say. A lot of people have said that."
The Khans' son, Cpt. Humayun Khan, was an American hero. He died defending our country. His parents, who came to this country with nothing but worked hard to create a life in the U.S. for their three sons, exemplify American values (Khizr Khan is now a prominent immigration lawyer). How could Trump do anything but laud this family for their shining example of what America is supposed to be while also mourning with them in the loss of their son?
But you know what angers me most about Trump's candidacy? I'm forced to acknowledge that criticisms of Trump levied by President Barack Obama and Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton are spot on.
- With a win over the Chicago White Sox on Sunday, my Minnesota Twins notched their 40th win of the season (against 64 losses). While my favorite MLB squad is still on pace to lose exactly 100 games, I can rest easy that the all time record for futility (40-120 by the 1962 New York Mets) is now safely out of reach.
The fact that is my main takeaway from this 2016 season shows what a plummet it has been from a fringe playoff season just last year.
- It's been a little more than one week since
Whenever there is a perceived rift in any kind of conservative circles, leftist media types will often swoop in with their own take. Check out the headline of a recent City Pages post:
Angry white guy radio's Jack Tomczak a host no more at AM 1130.
Well if indeed it were true that "angry white guys" were the primary target audience of the KTLK morning show, they definitely were under-served with Jack as the main host. Jack's forte (albeit from a right-of-center viewpoint) was more employing a dry sense of humor while possessing the perspective of having worked as a staffer in politics (most notably in the administrations of Sen. Rod Grams and Rep. Michele Bachmann). And whenever leftists appeared on the show, Jack never (at least not from what I have ever heard) shouted down his guests and was always respectful in disagreements.
Yes, it seems to me that this CP headline falls directly into the category of Berg's Seventh Law of Liberal Projection, which reads "When a Liberal issues a group defamation or assault on conservatives’ ethics, character, humanity or respect for liberty or the truth, they are at best projecting, and at worst drawing attention away from their own misdeeds."
You know which radio hosts can best serve an audience of angry white guys? Angry white guys (and leftists) like Ed Schultz, Mike Malloy and Al Franken.
------------------------------------------------------------
5 comments:
What do you mean, criticisms of Trump are "spot on"? Do you think Democrats are above distorting, lying, quoting out of context, imputing motivation, or double standards? I'm still waiting for someone to compare Trump's ACTUAL words on the subject with what is being widely criticized. And comparing that to the criticisms levelled at him at the DNC. One or the other must be over the top.
I'm referring to specific criticisms that Obama and Hillary conveyed in their respective DNC speeches.
-Obama referred to Trump's declaration that "I alone" can fix these problems (Trump said that in his RNC speech. I heard it). I agreed with POTUS when he said no, Trump cannot. Besides, Article I of the Constitution precludes a President having the ability to do so.
-Hillary pointed out that it's hard to trust Trump's temperament to be Commander in Chief if he can be so easily baited with a Tweet. Again, I agreed.
Thank you for the explanation, but I would hope those are mere "nits" added to flavor your opinion that Hillary Clinton should never again be allowed within a mile of the White House.
I prefer a different take. When Trump says "he alone," I highly suspect he means "not Hillary" and he is absolutely right. POTUS, who is an expert on "unqualified and unfit," never read Article I, or has been doing his darnedest to forget it. Regardless of what you think of Trump, he would be an improvement over His Majesty.
It's also surprising to hear "her of the flying crockery" talk about temperament. I would be a bit more concerned about the person "baiting" him than I am about the man defending himself against scurrilous lies in the only free and immediate forum he has. I do not suffer fools lightly, and neither does Trump. That's his strength and what voters like about him. Now whether he can sustain that truth-telling against an all-out assault by the establishment of both parties remains to be seen. I sure hope to God he can.
Jerry, I'm absolutely with you in that Obama and Hillary were, to a certain extent, projecting. However, that didn't mean their criticisms of Trump were totally inaccurate.
I've read a fair number of conservatives who are legitimately concerned over how Trump will react to verbal attacks from world leaders. It's safe to say said attacks would be orders of magnitude more harsh than what he's been getting from U.S. leaders. I'm not saying I necessarily agree or disagree with those concerns, just stating that such worries are apparent.
Well, that makes sense, and I won't even say it isn't a valid concern. But when you tell me foreign leaders will be less respectful of a US President than the Democrats are of a Republican candidate for any office, I simply cannot imagine it. I mean the lies these Dems have fostered and spread are just outrageous, are they not?
Besides, I think the US needs a Prez, like Reagan, that is seen as "a little bit crazy."
Post a Comment