Tag Archives: Muslims

Gov. Perry now deserves ‘shame’

7C2A9793_jpg_800x1000_q100

Rick Perry has told the father of a slain U.S. Army soldier “shame on you” for speaking out against Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

Actually, governor, the shame belongs on you.

Khzir Khan offered a blistering critique of Trump at the Democratic National Convention. His son, Capt. Humayun Khan, was killed in 2004 while serving in Iraq. Khzir Khan said Trump didn’t understand the sacrifice that Gold Star parents have endured.

So, now we hear from the former Texas governor, an Air Force veteran, who said that Khzir Khan started the rhubarb with Trump and is not immune from criticism.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/08/16/perry-defends-trump-over-feud-gold-star-family/

How can I say this delicately? I can’t.

That’s pure baloney, Gov. Perry.

Trump’s response to Mr. Khan was utterly classless. That is in large part what has prompted the bipartisan criticism of Trump and his handling of that issue. Now, for Gov. Perry — who once called Trump a “cancer on conservatism” — has jumped into the fray by focusing on Khzir Khan’s remarks.

Did he miss the part when Trump said the Khans had “no right” to criticize him? Or did he ignore the crack that Trump muttered about Mrs. Khan’s silence at the DNC, suggesting she was not allowed to speak because of her — oh, yes! — Muslim faith?

He said the Khans have become “fair game” by entering the “political arena.”

Actually, Gov. Perry, political custom has elevated Gold Star parents above the kind of criticism they received from the Republican presidential nominee.

Now it’s ‘legal immigrants’ who pose a potential threat

BBvjiAw

Donald J. Trump is doubling, tripling, maybe even quadrupling down on his anti-immigrant theme as he runs for president of the United States.

Holy cow, man!

He told a rally in Portland, Maine this week that “legal immigrants” pose a potential threat to national security.

The Republican presidential nominee wasn’t satisfied just in calling for a ban on Muslims entering the country. He expanded it to include those who come from countries where terrorists are lurking (which is just about everywhere on Earth). Now he says even those who are here legally can pose a threat and, by golly, he wants to stop them before they kill somebody.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-now-says-even-legal-immigrants-are-a-security-threat/ar-BBvjdqc?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

OK. Where does he stop?

He might consider going after, oh, every single American. That’s more than 300 million of us. Sure, the immigrant population has grown significantly in this country; it’s up to about 13 million immigrants now compared to 5 million in 1970, according to the Washington Post article attached to this post.

Do they pose the so-called existential threat to our national security? Are they more likely to commit terrorist acts than, say, your run-of-the-mill home-grown, corn-fed, good ol’ red-blooded American-born terrorists, such as, say, Timothy McVeigh? Do you remember Eric Rudolph? Hey, the U.S. Army psychiatrist who killed all those folks at Fort Hood on Nov. 5, 2009? His name is Nidal Hasan, but he’s an American-born fellow, too.

Trump went bonkers about a year ago when his presidential campaign started. Now, though, he’s talking about folks like my own grandparents. They’re all gone now.

But you know, come to think of it, two of them — my mother’s parents — came here from Turkey, where most people are practicing Muslims. If they were alive today, they might be on Donald Trump’s watch list.

Does this officer deserve the Medal of Honor?

Humayun-Khan

This isn’t an original thought. Others have said this on social media, but I’m going to chime in briefly.

The late U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan has been in the news lately. He was killed in Iraq in 2004 when an enemy explosive device detonated. Capt. Khan was trying to save his men when he was killed.

His parents, Kzhir and Ghazala Khan, stood before the Democratic National Convention this past week and Mr. Khan delivered a soliloquy that opposed the candidacy of Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

The firestorm that erupted from Trump’s crass response to the Khans’ support of Hillary Rodham Clinton hasn’t yet abated. Trump said the Khans, who are Muslim, had “no right” to criticize him. Actually, of course, they had every right as proud American citizens.

The thought I’m putting forward here?

Humayun Khan, from what I’ve heard acted with extreme heroism on the battlefield in Iraq. As one of my social media friends noted today, Khan’s action was tantamount to throwing his body on a hand grenade, which is the kind of action that has produced Medal of Honor recipients.

Therefore, it seems fair and reasonable to wonder whether Humayun Khan deserves consideration for the Medal of Honor.

Well … ?

Gov. Abbott weighs in on Khan kerfuffle

Abbott-2_jpg_312x1000_q100

Now it’s Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s turn to speak out against remarks aimed at the parents of a slain U.S. Army hero.

Abbott, the state’s Republican chief executive who’s now backing GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump after backing Ted Cruz initially in the party’s presidential primary, said this, according to the Texas Tribune:

“The service and devotion of Gold Star families to America cannot be questioned,” Abbott said in a statement provided Monday to The Texas Tribune. “Captain [Humayun] Khan, like many heroes who paid the ultimate sacrifice, will be forever remembered for their service in protecting the freedoms we cherish in America.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/08/01/trump-attacks-greg-abbott-muslim-soldier/

OK, governor. Good words. But like so many Republican political leaders who now are backing Trump — who’s been battling Capt. Khan’s parents, Kzhir and Ghazala Khan, over their statements against the GOP nominee — he declined to say the rest of what needed to be said.

If he would have asked me to write his statement, I would have added: “Therefore, it is disgraceful that our party’s nominee, Donald Trump, would soil Capt. Khan’s service in such a manner by criticizing his parents for exercising their constitutional rights — as U.S. citizens — to speak out in a public political forum.”

Capt. Khan, a U.S. Army officer who happened to be Muslim, died in Iraq in 2004 while protecting soldiers under his command from the enemy. His parents spoke out at the Democratic convention against Trump’s candidacy.

Trump has said Kzhir Khan had “no right” to criticize him.

Actually, as a U.S. citizen, Mr. Khan had every right.

Profiling Muslims a possibility … seriously?

don trump

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, thinks profiling Muslims is something that U.S. law enforcement should consider.

Yes, that’s right. The nation that proclaims itself to be the champion of religious freedom, where the government doesn’t care which faith you worship … or even whether you worship at all, should consider singling out Muslims, according to Trump.

But wait a second! Hasn’t Trump proposed banning Muslims from entering the United States? Who, then, is he suggesting we profile?

Oh, I get it. That would be Americans!

I’ll set aside the obvious — in my view — un-American aspect of such a proposal.

How does one identify a Muslim? Would it be the scarves that women often wear? Would it be the names of the individuals being profiled? How does law enforcement discern who deserves profiling and who doesn’t?

I ask these questions because Muslims come from all ethnic backgrounds. What about the red-headed and freckle-faced Irish man or woman who converts to Islam? Or the blue-eyed blond from Scandinavia?

Oh, and then you have, say, the Palestinian who happens to be Christian. I have a bit of experience with meeting someone of that ilk. In 2009, my wife and I toured Bethlehem on the West Bank. Our tour guide? A young Palestinian who proclaimed his love of Jesus Christ as “our Lord and Savior.”

Trump told CBS’s “Face the Nation” host John Dickerson this morning that we ought to follow the model set by Israel, which he said profiles Muslims.

I’ll just add one more bit of personal privilege here. Having traveled to Israel and endured the grilling by security officers at David Ben-Gurion International Airport, I can state without reservation that the Israelis profile everyone who leaves the country through the Tel Aviv airport.

Take my word for it, you haven’t lived until you’ve been interrogated by an Israeli airport security guard.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-muslims-profiling-224529

Trump told Dickerson he hates “the concept of profiling.”

Fine. So do I. So should all Americans.

‘Sic federal regulators on his critics’

trust-1

A single line jumped out at me as I looked at the New York Times article on Donald J. Trump’s view of the U.S. Constitution.

Adam Liptak’s story goes through a litany of concerns that constitutional scholars — across the political spectrum — have expressed about the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s views.

Then he writes of Trump: “He has threatened to sic federal regulators on his critics.”

That sentence stopped me cold. I froze.

Do you remember what happened to the last president who decided to “sic federal regulators on his critics”?

If you don’t, I’ll remind you.

President Richard Nixon did that very thing, we learned during the congressional investigation of the Watergate constitutional crisis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/donald-trump-constitution-power.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

That revelation — along with many others — led the House Judiciary Committee to approve articles of impeachment against the president, who then resigned his office on Aug. 9, 1974, thus ending, in the words of his successor, President Gerald Ford, “our long national nightmare.”

Trump wants to make it easier to sue the media for libel; he wants to ban Muslims from entering the United States; he attacked a federal judge solely on the basis of his ethnicity, calling the American-born jurist “a Mexican” who, according to Trump, “hates me.”

Any one of those occurrences would be a recipe for a top-of-the-line constitutional crisis. I’m trying to imagine what could happen if more than one of those things ever were to occur if a President Trump were to settle in behind that big desk in the Oval Office.

Here’s a comment from a conservative thinker, taken from Liptak’s article: “David Post, a retired law professor who now writes for the Volokh Conspiracy, a conservative-leaning law blog, said those comments had crossed a line.

“’This is how authoritarianism starts, with a president who does not respect the judiciary,’ Mr. Post said. ‘You can criticize the judicial system, you can criticize individual cases, you can criticize individual judges. But the president has to be clear that the law is the law and that he enforces the law. That is his constitutional obligation.’”

I believe this is a major part of what Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday when she described Trump as being “temperamentally unfit” to become president of the United States.

Media simply ‘afflicting the comfortable’

donald-trump

Journalism has its share of clichés that seek to define its mission.

One of them is to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”

It doesn’t betray a bias, per se. It simply defines one of the tenets that drives journalists to do their job with thoroughness, while being fair to those they are examining.

Thus, a group of journalists sat before Donald J. Trump on Tuesday and grilled the presumptive Republican presidential nomination on donations he said he made to veterans organizations.

Trump’s response was to throw a tantrum.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/01/opinions/donald-trump-tantrum-media-role-louis/index.html

The issue at hand dealt with whether Trump actually donated the amount of money he said he had donated to veterans organizations.

Washington Post reporters had detected a discrepancy in what Trump had said, that the money went to the organizations many months after he said he made the donation. So, media representatives questioned him about that discrepancy, only to have Trump respond with another round of name-calling and insults.

Trump seems to demonstrate a casual disregard for the facts. He said after the 9/11 attacks that he witnessed “thousands and thousands of Muslims” cheering the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

He didn’t witness anything of the sort.

Some pundits have accused Trump of being a “pathological liar,” defining it as a case in which the candidate tells a lie knowing it to be a lie and understanding full well that others who hear it also know it to be a lie.

It’s the media’s responsibility to ensure that candidates be held accountable for statements they make.

That’s what happened at the news conference Tuesday as the media grilled the candidate on what he said he’d done on behalf of veterans organizations.

Sure, they have “afflicted the comfortable.” It’s their job.

 

Senator wanted simply to say he is sorry

bobbennett_606af7bda32915fc21b748ce42baedc2.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000

The media today are reporting an extraordinary event involving a dying former U.S. senator.

Robert Bennett was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. As he lay in his hospital bed, knowing he was going to die, the former Utah Republican senator wanted to issue an apology.

To whom did he want to apologize?

He wanted to say how sorry was to any Muslim hospital staffer who was working in the facility where he was a patient. Bennett’s son, Jim, has talked today on MSNBC about how his father had asked him if there were any Muslims employed there.

Sen. Bennett — who died on May 4 — said he wanted to apologize on behalf of the Republican Party because of the hateful anti-Muslim views expressed by presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

Bennett was among the first senators targeted by the TEA Party wing of the GOP. He was defeated in the 2010 Utah Republican Party primary by Mike Lee, who would go on to win election to the U.S. Senate.

It’s not that Sen. Bennett wasn’t a conservative politician. His record as a senator from one of the most conservative states in the nation is certifiably conservative. According to TEA Party activists, though, he wasn’t conservative enough.

So now the media are reporting that Bennett felt compelled to apologize to a group of fellow Americans who happen to worship as devoted Muslims.

It was an amazing deathbed gesture in response to an equally amazing — and disgraceful — public posture against people of a certain religious faith.

Trump dispatches main rival … who knew?

03-080745-donald_trump_wins_indiana_primary_bernie_sanders_shocks_hillary_clinton

I’m going to need some more time to ponder what has just happened.

Donald J. Trump has won the Indiana Republican presidential primary. That wasn’t the big surprise of the night. Pre-primary polls pointed toward a big Trump win.

Oh, no. The surprise came from U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who cried “Uncle!” He ended his campaign.

Technically, the GOP campaign continues to be a two-man race. The other contestant is Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who continues to adhere to the myth that he’s going to the GOP convention in Cleveland with hopes of peeling off delegates who cannot support Trump.

A part of me wishes that would happen. The bigger part of me says it won’t. I happen to think highly of Gov. Kasich, who actually has a record of accomplishment that in any other election cycle would have been enough to win. Not this time.

Trump will be nominated by the Republican Party to run for the presidency of the United States.

Which makes me wonder: What in the world has happened to this once-great political party?

They are about to nominate a glitzy reality TV star who made a fortune building shiny hotels and who has demonstrated more times than I can remember the astonishing ability to win on the basis of insult and innuendo. His insult targets have included women, illegal immigrants, Muslims, veterans, physically disabled individuals … who have I left out?

He hasn’t formulated any form of philosophical foundation. Trump hasn’t laid out a formula for anything other than he’s going to “build a beautiful wall” along our southern border and will cut the “best deals you’ve ever seen” to get other world leaders to do business on his terms.

This, folks, is the basis for running for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016.

Holy smokes, man!

Which religious liberties have we lost?

liberty religion

My wife and I are going to start our day tomorrow the way we usually start every Sunday.

We’ll get up. Have our morning coffee. We’ll eat a light breakfast. Read the newspaper. We’ll get cleaned up. Get dressed. Then we’ll go to church … more than likely.

We’ll pray. Sing a few hymns. Listen to the preacher deliver his message from Scripture. Pray some more. Then we’ll leave the church and go through the rest of our day.

I keep wondering in the context of this hyper-heated presidential campaign: Which religious liberties have my wife and I — as red-blooded, taxpaying, patriotic Americans — lost?

One of the remaining Republican candidates for president keeps insisting that our “religious liberties” are being peeled away.

Texas U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz keeps harping on the notion that “we are one liberal justice away from having our religious liberties” stripped away. That’s what he says. The crowds to whom he speaks eat it up. He says he won’t “compromise away our religious liberties.”

Thanks, Ted. From where I sit, young man, we’re still quite free in this country to worship as we see fit. Or not worship. The Constitution that Cruz and others say they revere spells it out quite clearly: Government shall make no law that establishes a state religion. That means, as most of us understand it, that we are free to adhere to any deity of our choice.

You want a real threat to religious liberty? How about banning individuals from entering this country solely because they happen to be Muslims? Yes, I know that Cruz opposes the idea put forward by his fellow Republican candidate for president, Donald J. Trump. But if he’s going to raise hell from the campaign stump, he ought to take his best shot at that patently idiotic and unconstitutional idea.

My family has made our religious choice. We did so all on our own. Our religious liberties are quite intact and I am quite certain they are as strong as they’ve ever been.

I thank God every day for those liberties.

So let’s quit dangling those dubious threats, Sen. Cruz, to the liberties that our Constitution’s very First Amendment guarantees for all of us.

Cruz and others suffering from some form of political paranoia might perceive those threats to be real.

I don’t.