How Trump SHOULD have answered the Khans.

Khizr M. Khan. credit:

If one judges by the continuing media reaction the one and only thing worth remembering from the Democratic National Convention was the mother and father of a deceased Muslim soldier coupled with Donald Trump’s tone-deaf, self-centred response. Did Hillary Clinton say anything, remotely memorable or even jeerable?

The bottom line is that when faced with an obvious and totally predictable gambit by the Clinton camp of producing a good Muslim the Republican didn’t have a proper reply prepared.

Let me help him. The issues and arguments brought up by the Khan’s are too ubiquitous to allow them to go unanswered.

We, and this carries beyond the upcoming US elections into general argument, seem to be presented with only two extreme alternatives for dealing with an Allah Akbar screaming Muslim who massacres a dozen innocents. Donald Trump says keep them all out. For this he is accused of racism and Islamophobia. In opposition Hillary Clinton practically somersaults to avoid any connection of terrorism with Islam. This is in line with President Obama’s campaign to remove any negative reference to Islam from all discussions of crime and terrorism.

Presenting one bereaved, and if we are honest rare, Muslim military family as if they represented all Islam is part of this policy. Mrs. Clinton seems to believe, for now, that good Muslims will somehow stop bad ‘extreme’ ‘misunderstanders’ of Islam. The European experience shows that won’t succeed although she may be correct in assuming that it will deliver the Muslim vote to the Democrats in November. That those Muslims are almost uniformly hostile to Israel doesn’t really matter as she has the Jews in the pocket of her pantsuit. She may also be correct in that assumption.

Perhaps the answer is a plan that somehow separates the minority ‘bad eggs’ from the good. Unfortunately no one seems to suggest a method or even discuss the possibility of a middle–of–the–way solution.

Donald’s reply:

I have too much respect for those serving in the US military to specifically and publicly deal with the Khan’s grief and accusations so let me answer in general.

The largely Japanese 442nd Regimental Colors displayed by First Sergeant Thomas S. Harimoto. credit: US Army Signal Corps.

During the Second World War many young men of Japanese descent served in the American forces. Some paid the ultimate sacrifice. Others were permanently injured. Did that mean we were not fighting Japan? No, it did not.

During that same war only 8% of Germans were card-carrying members of the Nazi Party. Did that mean we should have declared that we were not fighting Nazism because a majority of Germans were not active Nazis?

Some Germans actively fought Hitler and some lost their lives. So should we have declared WWII wasn’t against Germany? We can’t defeat an enemy if we are so bound by political correctness that we can’t even name him.

No one is suggesting a ban against Buddhists, or Hindus or Sikhs or even atheists. Why is that? It is because they pose no threat to us.

I am called a racist and an Islamophobe because I am realistic enough to say openly what anyone who pays attention to the news should be thinking.

Among the Muslims seeking to enter America some are jihadists whose main and acknowledged purpose is to war against us from within. The European experience has shown that many, while not necessarily Jihadists, only want to be here to live forever on our generosity. Some refuse to be bound by our laws and actually feel that breaking them is a religious obligation. One example of this is formally safe Sweden which is now the rape capital of Europe.

How many would you admit to this country?
How many is too many?

Some say the idea of excluding Muslims is unconstitutional, a claim that ultimately must be confirmed by the Supreme Court, something it hasn’t done. By my reading of the Constitution the first constitutional responsibility of the President is to defend this country against attack. I would say excluding all of a group because some will fall under the category of completely undesirable and dangerous falls right under my constitutional responsibility.

Nothing in the Constitution of the United States says we must endanger those who are already here to avoid discriminating against some who wish to come.

If Mrs. Clinton has a better solution isn’t it about time she brought it forward instead of hiding behind gold star mothers?

By the way it’s no secret I didn’t serve in the military. Neither did Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover nor Calvin Coolidge. Neither did Hillary Clinton, unless you include dodging bullets in Bosnia.

First published at Five Minutes for Israel by David Guy.
B.A./B.C.A. (Communication and Media Arts) University of Wollongong, AUSTRALIA M.A. in Government (Diplomacy and Conflict Studies) Inter Disciplinary Center, Herzliya, ISRAEL Twitter @5MFI

Check Also

MYTH As “People of the Book,” Jews and Christians are protected under Islamic law.

FACT This argument is rooted in the traditional concept of the “dhimma” (“writ of protection”), …


  1. Otto Waldmann

    Seriously disappointed by the piece on a couple of fronts.
    First, the author hits at Trump with unexplained offences such as “tone deaf” and “self-centered’ in relation to Trump’s reaction the Khan circus act.
    I looked at Trump’s two phrase answer and saw nothing but an accurate description of what we all saw. Trump only mentioned that Mrs. Khan said nothing and ventured the opinion that she could have been prevented from opening her mouth. Nothing injurious about that observation. He could have added that, when the same lady did volunteer a few words, her delivery was far worse than the main protagonist’s, our utterly pissed off Mr. Khan.
    The other reason the entire plot is proven ill inspired has to do with the persistency of essential tenets of islam being incompatible with the essentials of the American spirit.
    The novel idea of introducing a bit of war drama of the exploitative emotional kind will backfire with the inevitable muted question: WHO KILLED YOUNG OFFICER KHAN the true American hero by who’s death the very contents of the US Constitution the Pakistani American was holding up were attacked !!! A ridiculous, counterproductive notion that Khan can teach Yankee Donald how to suck eggs.

  2. OTTO, Trump/Khan was mostly a hook to to attack the much produced argument that demonstrating a ‘good’ Muslim somehow means that Islam isn’t a threat and therefore makes it politically impossible to even discuss defences against it. Although at time of writing I didn’t think of the analogy, the good Muslim argument is rather like saying (and I have definitely heard it said) that “Uncle George smoked two packs a day and he lived to hundred proving that cigarette smoking is healthy”.

    For this reason I didn’t go off on a tangent and explain the “tone deaf” and “self-centered’ in relation to Trump’s reaction the Khans. At least we both agree it was a circus act.

    Why tone-deaf? Parents of soldiers who died in battle are largely protected against public attack. Trump’s instinctive response was seen both as an attack against the military in general and an attack against Mom. It was also irrelevant as if he was avoiding the avoiding Khan’s argument by deflecting against someone who barely spoke — and gave a second bite of the cherry to the Khans. The Trump campaign took a definite hit.

    Why self-centred? Really? Comparing the sacrifices made in business, in the process of making oneself very rich with the loss of a son while honourably serving his country. No comparison.

    Thanks for taking the trouble to read and comment.

    • Otto Waldmann

      DAVID, positing war related sacrifices, particularly the ultimate, against the oft condemned pursuit of “money-making” is one of the most underhanded tactics specially when evinced by an ad hominem.

      The truth that Trump does not have a military detail on his CV can only be abused so much. There is an unacceptably exploitative non sequetur in the relativity drawn here by the Democrats in the issue of Trump’s honour versus the late Khan Jr.’s
      Trump never disputed the hero’s sacrifice, only discussed the manner in which it was abused, belittled in a political contest/context.
      Khan was a poor choice by many accounts in the Dem’s serious struggle to stay electorally afloat.
      The farcically forced matter was that , in his anti islamic terrorism rhetoric, Trump would attempt at the sacrifices made by the US military. Nobody bought it or should buy it, just in case fanatics Democrats around…………