The Democrats had Pakistani immigrant Khizr Khan give a convention speech, but it turns out that he hates white people, hates Christians, hates America, and supports importing Moslem terrorists.
Did he really think that he could spew all that hatred and not be criticized?
The more I hear people like that, the more I think that he never should have been allowed in the USA in the first place.
Please don't tell me that I should be grateful that his son died for America. That was Hillary Clinton's war, and it advanced extremist Islamist interests, not American interests. Had that soldier lived, he might be part of ISIS today, for all I know.
So who do you think said this?
“This is the time for us American Muslims to rat out any traitor who walks amongst us. This is high time for Muslims to stand firm [against terrorists] ... Among us hides the enemies of the value system of this country. And we need to defend it. And if it means ratting out the traitors who hide behind an American passport, that’s what we need to do.”That came from Khan's other son, and appears to agree with Trump. It is from the essay that caused the Clinton campaign to invite Khan.
It is true that American Muslims are permeated with traitors to America, and that there is a need for those with American values to rat them out.
Clinton and the Democrats were not interested in that message.
I heard NPR radio saying that Trump said that Khan's wife kept quiet because of her religion. He said no such thing. The news media consistently misrepresents him.
Update: I see that the news media is preoccupied with this story.
The previous week Trump's enemies were gloating that he had self-destructed because he encouraged Russian espionage. He just made a sarcastic comment that, even if taken literally, did not encourage the Russians to break into anything. It did successfully draw attention to the possibility that the Russians had already gotten Hillary Clinton's emails.
This time the Trump-haters and the cucks are hysterical about a Pakistani's argument that the US Constitution forbids a religious test on immigration, and the suggestion that his wife was not allowed to speak.
In fact, the US Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that it is legal to have a religious test on immigrants, and such tests are frequently applied. Khan's speech had to be approved by the Hillary Clinton campaign, and as far as I know, she has not said whether or not his wife was allowed to speak. So Trump is entirely correct that his proposals are constitutional, and that Mrs. Khan not being allowed to speak is a possibility.
In the larger picture, Trump has only been able to get his message out by baiting his enemies with provocative statements. This has been going on for a year now, so you would think that the pundits would be smart enuf to see a pattern by now.
Trump makes some completely reasonable statements, but phrases them in a way that surprises or upsets the leftists and cucks. They jump on the attack, either misquoting him or trying to say that he meant something other than what he said. They create a huge media firestorm, acting as if Trump will be forced to backtrack and apologize. Trump doubles down, and proves that what he actually said was correct. The news media is aghast that Trump cannot be so easily manipulated as other politicians.
I am sick of wimpy Republican politicians who are always apologizing to their sworn enemies. The Presidency requires a man with a backbone.
Update: Khan is in the business of bring Moslem immigrants in, so that was his objection. He makes money from importing Moslem terrorism.
Post a Comment