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.
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.
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.