Of Heroes And Whores

     Once again, the old media have elevated a minor contretemps over a Republican’s comments to the status of a world-shaking cataclysm, the sort of horror that would have the entire human race locking, loading, and manning the barricades. The occasion, of course, is Donald Trump’s arguably ill-advised statement about the Democrats’ use of Khizr Khan family’s loss of its son in Iraq, twelve years ago.

     Here’s the story according to ABC News:

     On the last night of the Democratic National Convention on Thursday, Gold Star father Khizr Khan, his wife Ghazala by his side, recounted to the crowd how his son was killed in 2004 by a car bomb in Iraq.

     Khan also chastised Trump for seeking to ban Muslims from entering the country, saying that his son, U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan, would not have been able to serve under a Trump presidency.

     “Go look at the graves of brave patriots who died defending the United States of America,” Khan said, addressing Trump. “You will see all faiths, genders and ethnicities. You have sacrificed nothing and no one.”

     Trump appeared to try to brush the speech aside, saying that Khan “was, you know, very emotional and probably looked like a nice guy to me.”

     Trump also said, "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."

     Frankly, I would have advised Trump not to say what he said...but I would have advised the Democrats’ program directors not to make the Khans part of their gala, either.

     American Muslims are an increasingly restive bunch. They’ve slowly elevated their demands on their communities and this country, such that today serious public figures are actually questioning whether the criticism of Islam and Muslims should be protected under freedom of expression. The DNC’s program directors might not have been under pressure to include the Khans in the convention lineup, but no doubt it occurred to them that their story might be politically useful against Trump.

---

     The collectivist fallacy rears its ugly head once again. As usual, it’s the Left that hopes to get away with palming that card. Have a few words from our beloved Emperor:

     The Khans had a son who died in The Long War 12 years ago. The Khans are muslim. Therefore Trump is a horribly racist bigot because he’s concerned about muslim terrorists since obviously, their son gave his life for this country and, therefore, all muslims are American Patriots who can do absolutely no wrong.

     Did we get that just about right?

     Sounds an awful lot like Saint Cindy of the Ditch. You know, the hag who lost a son in Iraq and, as a result (according to the DNC, the MSM (but we repeat ourself) and the Cucks), she could say or do no wrong, and if she declared that water ran uphill, that trouts live in trees or that if she buys kippers, it will not rain anymore, then that was received, immutable, incontrovertible truth....

     Let’s take malaria. We know that it’s spread by mosquitoes, right? Please tell us that everybody knows that or we’ll just have to give up entirely on the human species.

     We also know that it’s a very small proportion of mosquitoes that actually carry malaria. The vast majority of them are quite harmless and, at worst, a minor annoyance. Those bites damn well itch.

     So, Cucks and Prozis, we want you to reflect very carefully on the last time you used Raid or slapped one of those most likely completely innocent little bugs. You horrible, murderous, generalizing, speciesist HITLER you!!!!

     Let’s add to the above that some speakers at major political conventions are paid for their appearances. Some; not all. Were the Khans paid to emit their slurs against Trump? If so, how much? And if not, why not? Open the books, Democrats. Show us the figures in black and white. Or explain why this “gold star family” wasn’t paid for whoring for the most deceitful, corrupt individual ever to get a major party’s presidential nomination.

---

     I’m not a major Trump fan. In my estimation he’s the lesser of two evils. I’m still waffling over whether I can vote for him in good conscience. But on the subject of immigration control, especially Muslim immigration control, not only do I endorse his position, I’d like to see him stiffen it.

     David Solway has the prescription I favor:

• Islamic immigration must be drastically curtailed if not completely stopped....
• Since large Muslim populations are already settled within our borders, surveillance must be intensive, methodical and ongoing. No-Go Zones must be pacified by whatever means, and must be made Go Zones. Self-regulated ghettoes have to be opened up and rigorously policed. Islamic law must be ruled in contravention of common law and legally prohibited....
• All mosques, which are effectively command centers, must be stringently investigated and many must be closed down.
• Every imam in the country should be thoroughly vetted and many should be de-licensed and restricted from preaching.
• Jihadi suspects clearly and unequivocally known to law enforcement agencies should not be so readily allowed, as is far too often the case, to mix freely among the people....
• Muslims and non-Muslims who leave the country to fight alongside terrorist entities must not be repatriated, even if they are passport-holding citizens. They are accessories to those who would destroy us and are therefore enemy combatants.
• Muslim organizations with ties to terror-sponsoring organizations or that lobby for Sharia or for cultural and political influence must be disbanded and outlawed, no matter how powerful and widespread.
• No less important, indeed, perhaps the most crucial of the measures I am proposing, has to do with terminology and the concepts it signifies. We keep hearing that the enemy we are facing is “Islamic extremism” or “radical Islam.” Nothing can be further from the truth. This is the most serious in its consequences of the evasions we practice and one that ensures our eventual destruction. The enemy is not radical Islam but Islam pure and simple. The terrorists, their enablers and the “entry” cohort take their warrant from their holy scriptures—the Koran, the Hadith, the Sira, the schools of jurisprudence, and centuries of political and religious commentary.

     Trump would be well advised to study the above. Islam declared itself the enemy of the United States shortly after this country was born:

     In March 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). When they enquired "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

     "It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once." [source]

     Nor has any armistice been signed since then.

---

     These days, it seems that no politician can be found who won’t bend the knee to an identifiable interest group with a substantial membership. Muslims in America number between three and four million. That would be a substantial voting bloc by the usual standards...if there were any prospect of getting Muslims to vote for a candidate who favors limiting immigration and strengthening our borders. That a Republican, who rose to prominence specifically on this subject, should be expected to do so is the rankest lunacy. Whether Trump might have been wiser to say something else, or perhaps nothing at all, when approached about Khizr Khan’s act of political cunnilingus, is a separate subject.

     I’m not concerned about my Gentle Readers’ attitudes; no one who regularly reads Liberty’s Torch would be unclear on what a threat to America Islam and its allegiants represent. But it would surely be pleasant to see a few “moderates” and “unaligned voters” ask whether the Khans’ loss of their son amounts to an argument over immigration policy or just the cheapest, crudest sort of political theater.