I've said in another place and all over the internet that if Donald Trump's alleged racism and white supremacist nationalism is proved by his unwanted support from David Duke and the KKK then what does his support by black Moslem nationalist Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam mean? It's true that Farrakhan hasn't joined Duke in endorsing Trump for president. But it's also true that he has endorsed no one to date, and that Trump is the only candidate that he's actually praised, and in no small, insignificant way.
Indeed, Farrakhan (a realist on Islamic terrorism) shares Trump's national security fears of jihadist infiltration of Moslem refugee flows, and backs as "wise" his call for a temporary ban on Moslem immigrants. In his interview with Alex Jones Farrakhan strongly noted what Obama and Clinton choose to perilously ignore: that despite Obama's seven years of Moslem outreach, hatred of America in the Moslem world is stronger and more virulent than ever before. Astonishingly and frighteningly, we know from a survey done by Pew Research last year that over 100 million Moslems worldwide (a conservative estimate) are pro-ISIS (with 19 million supporters in Pakistan alone); and that's just ISIS folks. The survey says nothing about support for al Qaida, Hezbollah, the Iranian mullahs, Hamas, Boko Haram, the Moslem Brotherhood and other anti-Western, America hating Islamofascist groups (see).
Farrakhan also praises Trump's contempt for and relentless assault on political correctness; his pounding away at the self-serving elitist Washington-Wall Street establishment and his non-interventionist approach to foreign policy. And joining Farrakhan in praising Trump is former Nation of Islam member and New Black Panther Party leader (in Houston) Quanell X. Indeed, no sooner did QX hear Trump's speech blasting Clinton and the Democrat Party for self-servingly using blacks as political pawns to get votes than he said this:
" It is a fact that for 54 years we have been voting for the Democratic Party like no other race in America. And they have not given us the same loyalty and love that we have given them.We as black people have to reexamine the relationship. We’re being pimped like prostitutes and they’re the big pimps pimping us politically, promising us everything and giving us nothing in return. We gotta step back now as black people and we gotta look at ALL the parties…"
And by "all the parties" that includes the so-called racist Republicans and their "racist" candidate for president. Our black inner cities, the worst, most lawless and dangerous places in America are in ruins and get worse by the year with no end in sight. And after seven failed years of America's first black president with Hillary promising to stay the course an increasing number of blacks are fed up with Democrats and want change. Indeed, QX following Trump has fired a warning shot across the bow of the Democrat Party that the days of taking black voters for granted are numbered.
Now do these near endorsements of Trump by two prominent black nationalists mean that he's an anti-white racist? Of course not. In truth, as Trump truthfully said, "There isn't a racist bone in my body." True, Trump seems to have crossed the line into racial discrimination two or three times decades ago with unfair discriminatory housing practices-that seemed limited to welfare recipients*. But there is no long, persistent pattern of such behavior in his past like lying, crooked, smearing Hillary claims.
*The settlement with the DOJ allowed Trump to deny rentals to welfare recipients.
If Trump, as Hillary insinuates, has a "long history of racial discrimination and bigotry" going back to the early 1970s then why in 2005 did she and husband Bill travel 3000 miles to South Florida to attend Trump's wedding? Why did they socialize with Trump years before and after the wedding saying they enjoyed his company ("He was a fun guy to be with," said Hillary)? Moreover, why did the Clintons accept Trump's gift of free access to his Northern Westchester golf club? And why did they accept campaign contributions from Trump, and $100,000 donation to their corrupt foundation? Is it possible that the Clinton's were oblivious to Trump's "long history of racial discrimination and bigotry" until after June 16, 2015 when he launched his presidential campaign? That all those years they were deceived by Trump into thinking he was a New York progressive liberal like them? That, of course, is impossible. If Trump's "long history of racism" were real the Clintons would have known about it and avoided him like the plague.
When you hear this video keep in mind that Donald Trump was a major contributor to Jackson's Wall Street Project for minorities (see). And that the office Jackson used rent free to run and advance his project was in the Trump Building at 40 Wall Street.
But quite to the contrary, it was politically safe and correct for the Clintons to pal around with Trump precisely because of his long history of being anything but racist. Indeed, making Hillary look like a damn, lying, mean-spirited fool the above video has surfaced from the Clinton years showing Jesse Jackson on two separate occasions praising Trump at a Rainbow Push Conference for his "long successful inclusive [30 year*] history of friendship and outreach to poor, underprivileged blacks and minorities." When Trump in defending himself against charges of racism said that he has had "excellent relationships with blacks," this is no small part of what he meant. And it was because of the real, big-hearted, benevolent Donald Trump (who wants to turn poor, disadvantaged blacks and minorities into winners like himself) that the Clintons were proud to be his friend. What is it that Gold Star parent Khirz Khan said about "unempathetic" Donald having a " black [unfeeling] soul?" He should eat his words.
*Jackson said his relationship with Trump goes back to 1984 which was over 30 years ago.
Trump's brash, politically incorrect campaign is drawing fire from the Clintons and Democrat leaders because he's daring to speak truth to power; he's daring to face down the entire liberal establishment over the catastrophic failure of their mindlessly compassionate welfare state and failed War on Poverty (that Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich tried to fix in the 90s) that's provably done far more harm than good to blacks. He's daring to say how $trillions in government handouts have trapped millions of dependent blacks in generational poverty, degradation and sin; how it's destroyed black community life in our inner cities and turned those once clean, safe, thriving places (compared to today) into war zones and moral waste lands of lawlessness, gang violence, drug abuse, illiteracy, failed schools, broken homes, disease and massive death.
And because Trump is daring to speak the truth in a forceful way reminiscent of Ronald Reagan liberals are howling like wounded dogs calling him "psychopath," "mad man," "Hitler" and every ugly name. The panicking bankrupt liberal Democrat left know how badly they're failing Black America and are vulnerable to losing much of its support as QX warned. If Trump stays this course to Election Day, pounding away at the failure of liberalism, asking blacks the question, "What do you have to lose in voting for me?" he could garner more black and minority votes than Romney and McCain did and win the presidency.
WHAT CAN HILLARY CLINTON DO TO CHANGE HER IMAGE AS THE WEAKEST, MOST LIFELESS AND SICKEST PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN US HISTORY?
CLIMB TRUMP TOWER
Okay. Seriously. Crooked, mendacious, old beyond her years, low energy, nearly lifeless Hillary, who once lyingly claimed that her mom named her after legendary Mount Everest climber Sir Edmund Hillary (six years before his conquest, see), doesn't need to climb a mountain or Trump Tower to prove that she's physically fit for the presidency. But opening pickle jars on late night shows is not going to cut it. To dispel self-caused doubts that she lacks (for whatever reason) the energy, stamina and strength to handle the world's most difficult job (without suffering chronic fatigue*) she'll need to demonstrate some real, strong convincing athleticism and physical endurance before election day-and I don't mean yoga, some swimming and light weight lifting, which she's known to do.
*Chronic fatigue affects concentration and judgment and could be dangerous for a president and the nation.
If Hillary's fit for command all she need do to give the electorate proof is run in a marathon and last twenty minutes; or jog around a city block ten times; or swim across the East River from Manhattan to Welfare Island where she launched her campaign; or do 20 laps in her swimming pool at Chappaqua, then bench press 50 pounds several times; or play a round of tennis with daughter Chelsea, etc.
Hillary exerting herself to the utmost in playing a strenuous game of miniature golf with husband Bill. LOL!!!
If Hillary would do any truly athletic thing where she'd work up a sweat it would create a sensation and impress the nation with many declaring, "Man, this is one strong healthy bitch who's got the right stuff for the presidency!"
Her stamina and health concerns would then go away
making Trump and guys like me look foolish.
But as long as Hillary jokes about her health with left-wing comics (and makes no attempt to show real strength in strenuous activity which she easily can do) suspicions will persist and grow until election day about a medical cover up costing her votes and possibly the presidency.
Before and after opening an open pickle jar
Hillary climbs into a car with the help of a footstool.
Behold the sad, tired, sorry face that will sink the Ship of State like it sunk US/Russian relations, Libya, Iraq, Syria and the peace and stability of the Middle East.
Trump is Fit
Let's see Hillary carry boxes of supplies to people like Trump did in Louisiana . Let's see her unload a truck - of supplies her foundation paid for - in some poor village in Africa.
Truth is Trump is an indefatigable force of nature; while Hillary is a spent force of bankrupt liberalism.
TRUMP SHOULD CHALLENGE HILLARY TO GOLF
Donald Trump playing golf with Bill Clinton and Rudy Giuliani (left)
Hubby Bill played golf with Trump, why not wife Hillary? Before the debates Trump should challenge Hillary to a round of golf to prove her stamina, strength
and health. If she can't last 18 holes how could she last 18 weeks as Pres?
Right On Ruddy writes, "Forget about Hillary climbing Trump Tower. Let's see if she can climb ten flights of stairs without fainting from fatigue."
Does Hillary's campaign logo point in the direction of the hospital where she'd have to recuperate from exhaustion if she campaigned half as hard as Donald Trump?
Rumor has it that Hillary and Bill are spending millions desperately searching the world for the legendary alchemical elixer of life to renew Hillary's health before her first debate with Donald Trump in September./sarc
It's hilarious. A phone interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper for Clinton is now the equivalent of a real, full-blown, challenging press conference where the nation could see her struggling poorly with reporters and lying to them about her emails, the pay to play corruption scandal and worsening health. Is that what she'd do as president? Do phone conferences with the White House press corps from the comfort of the Oval Office as if it were a hospital room? Some one said that the multiple of Trump's press conferences vs. Hillary's is 20 to 30 times as many. If she were to match Trump it would be a PR disaster and cost her tons of votes as most of her pressers would be as bad as THIS.
HILLARY'S "AMAZING" STAMINA AT GRUELING BENGHAZI HEARING?
Every so often when husband Bill is asked about Hillary's stamina and health he will pull from his hat last year's Benghazi hearing and glowingly say how she coolly and masterfully withstood 11 grueling hours of hard Republican questioning. But that's not what exactly happened. Forget about her five days missing in action prior to the hearing where she rested up conserving her energies while Bernie Sanders was campaigning his butt off; and forget that the questioning totaled 8 hours at most not 11 as there were three one hour breaks; truth is, the hearing was not the feat Bill Clinton makes it out to be; roughly half of the hearing was a love fest with fellow Democrats soft balling her; while the hard questions came mostly from three Republicans: Gowdy, Jordan and Pompeo.
But that was nine months ago when Hillary was vastly out polling Bernie Sanders and had done little campaigning herself; since then her exertions have clearly taken a toll on her health and is wearing her out-everyone but her blindest followers know it. This was evident from her DNC acceptance speech (one of the worst ever given) which was so insipid, unmoving, ineffective and dull that it embarrassingly put husband Bill to sleep.
Truth is if Hillary were to do as many press conferences and campaign as vigorous and hard as dauntless, dynamic, indefatigable Donald Trump she would collapse from extreme fatigue within a week. Think I'm exaggerating? As I wrote HERE in 2010 Hillary complained in an interview with Esquire that her job as Secretary of State was too exhausting, and that she couldn't and wouldn't continue in office another four years. If she had a second term at State, or just two more exhausting years, instead of "lying, crooked, low energy Hillary" we'd probably be calling her "no energy Hill."
Hillary giving a speech on national security in Virginia and looking like hell.
But the presidency is far more difficult and demanding than heading the State Department. If Hillary lacked the energy, strength and stamina for State how could she have it for the presidency? And how will she have it for the make or break debates with Donald Trump? Will she be running on empty by then and crash and burn physically and emotionally? Trump is a force of nature, a category four hurricane; Hillary is a spent liberal force in slow declining health that's becoming more apparent and difficult to hide. America will see the stark difference in late September when Trump and Hillary go one on one in New York. Mark my words, in that debate Trump will look like a strong, confident, forceful executive and leader; while Hillary (with worsening health) will look like Trump's weak, flabby, passive, barely competent personal secretary.
So the question, "Will Hillary's health crash before the September debate?" depends on the race tightening between now and then. If that should happen (and Trump is working like hell to make it happen) it will force Hillary to push herself harder and campaign more fiercely than is good for her health.
Does the Clinton campaign logo ominously anticipate Hillary being hospitalized for extreme exhaustion, or some illness before election day?
This event in Atlantic City happened last month. But Hillary is always harping on Trump's four corporate bankruptcies as if he's the only billionaire to have them. Warren Buffet one of history's greatest investment geniuses has made bad investments that cost him and his company Birkshire Hawthaway billions (see). When you come down to it if Donald Trump had run his company like Hillary the State Department he'd be in the poor house today.
say about Donald Trump having an evil, self-centered, "black [uncompassionate] soul?" He apparently was a donor to the Clinton Foundation. If true, is that what "black souls" do? LOL!!!
BTW, If Donald Trump is a "racist bigot" like Hillary claims then why doesn't she return the $100,000 donation that he made to her foundation? Isn't that filthy, immoral racist money? By keeping Trump's money what does that say about the Clintons-who accept donations from the racist, misogynistic, Islamofascist Saudis and other bigoted, intolerant Moslem government? It would be hard to find bigger hypocrites than the Clintons, no?
You've got to feel compassion for these people. They mean so well in wanting to save us from ourselves, but just can't catch a break from Nature.
I've got very bad news for the nearly bankrupt, catastrophic, save-the-earth-from-industrial-capitalism, warmunist left: that ungrateful bitch Mother Nature (aka God) will not be reversing course and rejoining your jihad on "polluting," man-caused CO2 emissions anytime soon. Maybe your not screaming loud enough and She can't hear you? Or maybe She's sick to death of your whining and chosen to ignore you for at least another decade or two? But ignoring you She is; and this your failing movement with its shrinking numbers can't afford. For these last 18 dreadful years of what scientists call "the pause," where global temperatures defying expert predictions of dangerously soaring to record heights of two to four degrees, have stayed relatively flat
(despite rising CO2 emissions)making you look like wolf crying fools; and worse still "the [great] pause" may be greatly prolonged continuing for another 12 years-or more. That is what a distinguished "consensus" professor of climatology at the University of Washington is predicting. And he sounds alarmingly convincing-alarming for you.
Currents in the Atlantic could be responsible for a slowdown in temperature
In a peer-reviewed study published 21 months ago Prof. Ka Kit Tung predicted that the 18 year "pause" in the rapid rise of global temperatures-where they've greatly slowed down, stagnated or dropped (depending on how it's calculated)-will be around for at least another 12 years-or, even worse, possibly, but less likely, for another 52 years (see). This is not what you messianic doomsters want to hear. For it greatly adds to the difficulty of making your case that we need to spend trillions fighting climate change; that more important than the War on Terror is transitioning humanity ASAP from dirty fossil fuel running economies to clean, green windmills, solar power and electric cars.
Tung's study of the Atlantic Ocean has discovered that the current persistent "pause" is part of a recurring cycle of short global cooling trends of 30 years duration or more that go back to the pre-industrial age when humanity was significantly poorer but safe (the good old days); that these cycles are caused by the Atlantic Ocean sucking heat from the atmosphere and slightly cooling down the "imperiled" Earth.
Tung claims that the last 30 year cooling cycle was from 1945-1975 (where global temperatures slightly dropped raising fears among scientists of a coming ice age); and before then was the cooling period of 1880-1910. And now since 1998, which set the record for being the warmest global year on record since 1880 (when global temps were first recorded) temperatures have slightly fallen. This defied IPPC (UN) projections which predicted that global temps would surpass the 1998 high and keep on perilously rising until heat trapping CO2 emissions were substantially cut. But since then a dirty huffing and puffing industrializing third world (led by China and India) has been vastly increasing CO2 output; but temperatures relative to 1998 have fallen going nowhere near the 1998 high (caused by the Super El Nino not by human behavior)*.
*If we measure the last 18 years relative to global temps from 1975 (the end of the last 30 year cooling cycle) we find slight increases of 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) a value close to zero.
Global warming 22nd of the 23 top national issues in Pew poll.
From Obama on down these last 18 years have greatly damaged the credibility of your movement to such a degree that of the top 23 important national issues global warming ranks a low 22. For predictions of soaring world temps causing snowless winters, iceless arctic summers, devastating coastal floods displacing millions,droughts, famines, plagues killing millions, etc haven't materialized. And if 18 years has politically caused you alarmists so much harm what will the next 12 do-or possibly another 52? For Prof. Tung has depressingly discovered that some past cooling cycles though rare have extended for up to 70 years-and this cycle could be one of them.
Desperate warmunist sets himself on fire
protesting CO2 pollution and becomes a CO2 polluter./sarc
What if that happens. What will you do? Go on a rampage vandalizing SUVs? Set yourselves on fire? Go terrorist and assassinate Big Oil execs to draw attention to your collapsing cause? Or sinking into utter despair join nihilistic alarmists like Guy McPherson declaring all is lost (see). That we've reached the tipping point of no return on carbon emissions. That the climate is spinning out of control beyond our power to stop. That because we're not deindustrializing we're going to die. What are you going to do?
Son of an economics teacher with a B.A. in the subject John Maynard Kaine is shown here in 2014 presenting his paper at the Clinton Foundation on his revolutionary idea, "Spiritual Regeneration Through Higher Taxation." Why won't he make this speech public? What is he hiding?/sarc
IF AS ECOMONICS MASTERMIND TIM KAINE SAYS
that it would be good and beneficial for me for government to raise my taxes and take more of my wealth and money then it follows that the more in taxes it takes from me the "better off" and happier I'll be. Meaning that for our runaway tax and spend government to benefit me to the highest possible degree (giving me the biggest boost and bang for my bucks) it must take all of my money, wealth and property-every dime that I have and cent that I make from now till my dying day.
In other words, according to the new economic theory of Tim Kaine (could it be he's the new John Maynard Keynes?) in taking 100% of my wealth and everything I own (whether I'm rich, poor or middle class) the government by completely impoverishing me (stripping me of all my wealth and possessions down to the clothes on my back) will benefit me tremendously with blessings far outweighing in value the wealth that I had before reducing me to penury.
Senator Kaine praying to God for guidance in developing his revolutionary taxation ideas.
In other words, in some new way that Tim Kaine has yet to explain (I'm waiting for the publication of his General Theory) I will be better off and richer than I was before- having nothing but my life and naked shivering self as if I were a world renouncing cave dwelling ascetic.
Now either Kaine is speaking economic nonsense, or I'm just too dumb to fathom his meaning. Assuming that the latter is the case and, like John Maynard Keynes, Tim Kaine is a genius, let's try and figure out what he means by the term "better off."
Now if higher taxation will make me happier and "better off," and the more I'm taxed the happier and "better off" I'll be, then by "better off" Kaine can't mean greater material wealth-more riches than I had before government made me penniless. No matter how much government takes from me and gives to some one else, or invest in whatever projects or programs, it's not going to increase my wealth or make me happier or better off in the material sense than before. Then what in God's name can "better off" mean to Tim Kaine?
Perhaps Kaine's faith will provide a clue. A devout Roman Catholic and graduate from a Jesuit High School Kaine believes in a God, a moral law, an immortal soul and an after life of heaven, hell and purgatory. So if, as Kaine believes, the government can benefit me by taxing me more, and can benefit me optimally by taxing and taking away all of my wealth, then "better off" can only mean one thing: benefiting me spiritually-or bettering my soul. It can only mean that Tim Kaine has discovered a new, revolutionary way to spiritual betterment, enrichment and inner wealth:
SPIRITUAL REGENERATION THROUGH HIGHER GOVERNMENT TAXATION.
In other words, Tim Kaine seems to believe that if government taxes me into poverty and takes everything I own God will benefit, bless me and greatly enrich my immortal soul. What else can Kaine mean? We've seen that taking my wealth from me and giving it to another (redistributing it) makes me poorer and doesn't materially benefit me at all. Indeed, the Bible (which Kaine says he reads and believes in) teaches that "man doesn't live by bread alone," and "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
Okay then. So when Kaine says that raising my taxes will make me "better off" it's likely he had these two verses of scripture in mind. In other words, by taking the clothes off my back and the bread from my mouth government will set me free-liberate me from the dead weight, corruption and chains of owning material things; indeed, it will renew me morally and spiritually and make it easier for me to pass through the needles eye into heaven when I die.
So by making me "better off" through what appears to be punishing taxation John Maynard Kaine means spiritual regeneration. There is no other possible explanation. When government raises our taxes it's not the state who'll reward us with material blessings, but God Himself with the riches of the spirit. In other words, for Kaine, God loves government above all earthly things; and He loves people more when government is taxing them to death and the rich are made poor. What else can Kaine mean by the words "better off?" Nothing else makes sense.
Democrat George McGovern senator of South Dakota ran for the presidency in 1972 against incumbent President Richard M. Nixon and was crushed in a landslide election winning only 1 state out of 50 and Washington DC. Bill Clinton and then girlfriend Hillary Rodham worked for the McGovern campaign in Texas where Bill was in charge of organizing the state for the senator. During the 2008 primaries McGovern endorsed his good friend Hillary against Barack Obama, then urged her to back out when her candidacy seemed hopeless (see).
Bill Clinton and McGovern in 1972.
On October 21, 2012, during the waning days of the presidential campaign that would reelect Obama to a predictably disastrous second term, George McGovern died at age 90. Five days later on October 26th McGovern was laid to rest in Sioux Falls, So. Dakota* (see). That very day Hillary Clinton (who did not attend the funeral) celebrated her 65th birthday (see).
*It was at Sioux Falls in 1971 that McGovern announced his run for the presidency (see).
George McGovern's funeral.
Now here is where it gets profound. Hillary who celebrated her 65th birthday on the 26th day of October 2012 (when failed 1972 presidential candidate George McGovern was interred) was formally and historically nominated at the DNC on the 26th day of July 2016 as her party's presidential candidate. Needing 2380 delegates to win, the state that put Hillary over the top (during the roll call) was none other than South Dakota, the home state of George McGovern (see and see). In fact, before Ann Tornberg*, head of the SD Democrat Party announced the 15 delegates Hillary would receive to secure her nomination she mentioned that her state was "the home of 1972 presidential candidate George McGovern (see)."
*It is interesting to note that Ann Tornberg is running as a pro-life, pro-family Democrat for the SD state senate (see).
Oddly from George McGovern's funeral on Hillary's 65th birthday to her nomination on July 26th was exactly 45 months-giving us the number of the next sitting president (see). Linking the significant election year number 45 to 1972 George McGovern, loser of the 72 race, looks ominous for Hillary.
New York State Republican Party Chairman Edward Cox with the Trump family at the RNC.
Even more fascinating and perhaps meaningful in an oracular sense is that on July 19th, seven days before Hillary won the Democratic nomination with George McGovern's state putting her over the top, Donald Trump won his party's nomination in Cleveland. Astonishingly, and you can't make this stuff up, July 19th coincided with the 95th anniversary of George McGovern's birth (see).
But there's more. By design it was The Donald's home state of New York with its 89 delegates that put him over the top on the delegate count. Now as this day was George McGovern's 95th birthday (the loser of the 1972 election to Nixon) incredibly the first to speak for the New York State delegation (before Donald Trump Jr. cast the delegate vote) was Edward F. Cox. Who is this man? The head of the New York State Republican Party, and son-in-law of none other than President Richard M. Nixon (see and see) .
But there's more. As I pointed out HERE the year of Donald Trump's birth, 1946, was politically auspicious for four US presidents: two of our 44 presidents, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, were born in 1946; and two other presidents, John Kennedy and Richard Nixon, began their political careers in that year. Now by providence or chance it just so happens that Edward F. Cox (son-in-law of Richard Nixon (who defeated George McGovern) also was born in 1946 (see). Could this be a sign that the 1946 born Donald Trump will overcome all of this blunders and setbacks and become the first New Yorker since Franklin Roosevelt to be president? Roosevelt won the presidency on November 8, 1932; November 8, 2016 is the 84th anniversary of his victory.
ELECTION YEAR 1972
Does the presidential race of 1972 when George McGovern was badly defeated by Richard Nixon foreshadow Hillary Clinton losing to underdog Donald Trump in November?
When McGovern was laid to rest on Hillary's 65th birthday he was 90 years, 3 months and 7 days old. This translates into 32,972 days, a five digit number that ends in "72" an abbreviation for the year 1972 (see).
Moreover, McGovern was defeated on November 7, 1972; from then to November 8, 2016 is exactly 44 years and 1 day. This translates into 16,072 days, giving us another five digit number ending in "72." (see)
Could these be providential signs that the American people will do to Hillary Clinton on election day what they did to George McGovern in 1972, and deny her the 45th presidency? Of course, no one but God knows this. But it is incredibly mindboggling odd that when McGovern was defeated on November 7, 1972 Hillary was 25 years and 13 days old. What is odd about this? 25 years and 13 days translates into 9145 days of calendar time, a four digit number ending in 45 (see).
By the way, you will notice above that when George McGovern was laid to rest on Hillary's 65th birthday he was 90 years old. 90 is a multiple of 45 twice. Will election day be the burial of tired, old, crooked Hillary's dream of being the 45th President of the United State? Hopefully it will.
The 2016 presidential race is the 58th in our nation's history. Oddly the number 58 is a factor of the number 1972 34x, giving us the year McGovern lost to Nixon.
On November 8th Trump decimated Hillary in North Dakota winning 61% of the vote to Hillary's 31%.
The Patriarch Abraham about to sacrifice son Isaac to God.
You've heard it said by David Horowitz over at Frontpage that "Inside every liberal there's a totalitarian screaming to get out." Well it's also true, as you will see below, that INSIDE EVERY LIBERAL THERE'S AN "ISLAMOPHOBIC BIGOT" THEY'RE TRYING TO KEEP IN. Indeed, I have found that in my debates with liberals (who mindlessly bleed for Moslems believing they're the most oppressed and discriminated group of victims on Earth) that if you scratch them hard enough you'll find a hypocrite underneath with contempt for the faith and its millions of normative, mainstream devout believers-75% of which, as studies show, are unreformed, anti-modern, anti-liberal, backward, reactionary, medieval fundamentalists hostile to democracy, freedom and western civilization (see).
Sharia fundamentalist Khizr Khan.
Lately I've been disputing on Disqus with a leftist warrior named Peter Johnson. We've been arguing back and forth about Khirz Khan, Islam, jihadists and Syrian refugees. Khirz Khan as you know is the American Moslem Gold Star parent from Pakistan who lost a heroic son, Captain Humayun Khan, in the Iraq War to an al Qaida suicide bomber who blew him up as he was protecting fellow soldiers. As you know Khan used his son's death in a vicious partisan political attack at the DNC to smear and lie about Donald Trump-inferring that he was a black souled anti-Moslem bigot (ignorant of the US Constitution) for wanting to temporarily halt the flow of Syrian refugees into this country until the vetting process in rooting out terrorists was perfected.
At one point in his crazy, unhinged anti-Trump tirade Khan asked the billionaire candidate what sacrifices he had made in his life as he himself had made in losing his heroic son in Iraq. Of course, his son's death was a painful personal loss for Khan, but not, strictly speaking, a personal sacrifice. For it was the son who sacrificed his life to save some fellow soldiers not the father sacrificing his son to do that or anything else. In fact, the father who perhaps was opposed to the Iraq War (most American Moslems were) was against his son joining the army to fight Moslems abroad. Indeed, if Khirz Khan knowing what he knows today could go back in time it is likely he'd do everything in his power to stop his son from sacrificing his life that day; even if that meant the soldiers that he saved from death, dying instead.
But Johnson stubbornly insisted that this Moslem man (who in attacking Trump was dragging his son's memory through the mud of partisan politics) had made a very painful personal sacrifice that Trump had never made--when, in fact, Trump's loss of his father, brother, a grandmother and uncle while he's been alive were just as personally painful to him. Truth is, strictly speaking, a personal sacrifice means "giving up something of value that you want to keep especially in order to get or do something else or help someone (see)."What personal sacrifice is not is the simple, common, everyday loss of a loved one to death which most people suffer in their lives.
In searching for an instructive analogy to clarify the meaning of sacrifice for Johnson I then asked him to think of the very moving and beautiful biblical story of the patriarch Abraham who was ordered by God to sacrificially kill his beloved son Isaac in order to prove his righteousness, faith and love. And then Johnson, the so-called progressive compassionate leftist friend and lover of all true Moslems (not jihadists or murdering terrorists who he considers unIslamic) stepped in it big time making a complete fool of himself, and showing his ignorance of the faith. His is what he said:
"Yes Abraham was ready to kill his own son in order to obey God?---something that if he claimed today, would quickly and correctly cause his case to be filed under the mental illness records of the local psych ward. Other than that, I don't get your analogy?......"
Now this Peter Johnson in prior posts arrogantly and condescendingly treated me as if I were a blind, bigoted, hate driven ignoramus about Islam; and that my use of such terms as "Islamic terrorism," "radical Islamic jihadism," "Islamic supremacism" or "Islamonazism" was, he said "offensive and insulting to most Muslims" who were peace-loving souls; and that this was evidence of my hatred, ignorance and insensitivity. And laughably this arrogant fool was going to set me straight and be my mentor enlightening me about the true nature of Islam so that I could approach it in a more positive, civilized and inoffensive (politically correct) way. But, as you'll see from my reply, it turned out that Johnson hadn't even read the Koran; that what he knows about Islam is from left wing web sites; and that he's at the kindergarten level of learning about the faith. My reply was as follows:
"OMG. For a leftist Islamophile who goes out of his way not to offend Moslems, and to praise their faith as a harmless, civilized and even beneficial "religion of peace," you're being brutally offensive to Islamic sensibilities, values and culture. Do you realize what you said? Are you that ignorant of Islam and its core beliefs that you called Abraham, of all people, a "mental case" for obeying the will of Allah and his command to sacrifice the life of his beloved Isaac to test his loyalty, righteousness and faith? And do you have any idea what would happen to you if you stated that publicly (defaming Abraham) in most if not all Moslem countries? You'd be arrested for blasphemy and legally put to death; or if you're lucky you'd have your tongue cut out or be brutally flogged receiving hundreds of lashes for your crime.
And do you know why what you said is blasphemous to devout, normal, mainstream, traditional Moslems (including Khirz Khan who believes in the supremacy of Sharia law and literal truth of the Koran)? Because the Prophet Mohammed regarded Abraham as his biological ancestor, and, most importantly, the TRUE FOUNDER OF ISLAM-the real, true, authentic, God certified monotheistic faith.
Apparently you're ignorant that the Prophet Mohammed taught that Allah revealed Islam to Abraham in MECCA the holiest site of Islam where he allegedly lived. Apparently you're ignorant that the near, sick, "psycho" sacrifice of his son Isaac took place there. Apparently you're ignorant that when devout sharia Moslems like Khirz Khan turn toward Mecca and pray five times a day they ask Allah to send His blessings upon the "mentally ill" patriarch. Apparently you're ignorant that Abraham, the Founder, Father and First Prophet of Islam is regarded by Moslems as the moral and spiritual model of faith, sacrifice, commitment, patience, obedience and friendship with God.
The Quran sums up the view of the Prophet Abraham among Muslims: "Who can be better in religion than one who submits his whole self to Allah, does good, and follows the way of Abraham the true in Faith? For Allah did take Abraham for a friend" (Quran 4:125).
You utter crazy ignorant confused leftist ideological fool. Saying that Abraham was a "mentally ill psycho " for obeying the Almighty is equivalent of saying that the Prophet Mohammed-who by divine revelation rediscovered and restored the Islam of Abraham (allegedly perverted by Christians and Jews)-was himself a deranged "mental case" unfit to govern, command or lead. It's the equivalent of saying that Islam (an Abrahamic faith) is a religion of the insane; and that the hundreds and millions of faithful Moslems (like Khirz Khan and his family) who include Abraham in their daily prayers are praying for a religious lunatic and are collectively deranged.
Now taking Abraham's intended sacrifice of Isaac as Islam's model of a father sacrificing his son how then is Captain Khan's heroic self-sacrifice in Iraq a sacrificial death made by his dad? As Khirz Khan was opposed to his son joining the army and putting his life at risk in fighting Moslems how then was his death a personal sacrifice? From the Islamic viewpoint, using Abraham's intended sacrifice of Isaac as a model, your assertion that Khan losing his son in Iraq was a personal sacrifice makes neither moral nor Islamic sense.
Perhaps a better analogy would be a Moslem honor killing of a child-widely practiced across the Islamic world (see). This is where a Moslem father or mother kills a disobedient child for sinning against Allah and bringing shame upon Him, them and their family. Indeed, Moslem parents who are shamed by a sinful son that they love but need to kill draw courage and strength from Abraham's example to go through with it. In other words, honor killings (horrible as the practice is) is a real sacrifice of a child for a higher moral good: restoring family honor and its good standing with God. In short, what the Khans suffered in the death of their hero son was a painful personal loss, not a personal sacrifice of any kind-such as would have been the case had Khan killed his son to stop him from joining the US army believing that killing fellow Moslems was a grievous sin that would have damned his soul to hell.
Hopefully I've clarified for you the meaning of the term personal sacrifice as it's understood by most Moslems. And before I go I strongly urge that you stop getting your info about Islam from left-wing websites and buy a copy of the Koran and study it so you can begin your real education in Islam."
To summarize the above, in taking Johnson's assertion that Abraham (the true founder of Islam) was a "mentally ill psycho" to its logical conclusion it means that all fundamentalist Moslems (75% of them) are potentially dangerous mental cases or ticking time bombs. It means that the Islamic world community (umma) is one vast insane asylum of religious nuts and lunatics. In other words, by his own yardstick, in calling Abraham a "mental case" for dutifully and Islamically obeying God, Peter Johnson exposed himself as an offensive, bigoted, hypocritical, anti-Moslem Islamophobe who inwardly regards most Moslems (as he likely does all fundamentalists) contemptuously as dangerous mentally deranged psychos.
But the wonder of it all is that from Barack Obama on down the Peter Johnsons of this country want to open the floodgates of Islamic immigration and add to the millions of Abraham emulating,
unreformed, anti-liberal, freedom hating, reactionary, regressive medieval fundamentalist Moslem psychos already here. It's mind-boggling. But then liberalism is itself a mental disorder.
It was to the National Home Builders Association. It was measured, subdued, thoughtful, honest, funny. Gone were the bombast and outrageous statements. Gone was anything controversial that could be negatively spun. And incredibly, he did it without a teleprompter keeping him on message. What is alarming is that I didn't think he was capable of this. What is alarming is that if he continues looking so competent, presidential and unscary til November there's a very real danger he'll make it to the White House.
Hey, remember this full length motion picture about the assassination of George W. Bush?
HILLARY IN 2008 TALKS ABOUT OBAMA BEING ASSASSINATED LIKE RFK
In 2008 race against Obama Clinton made these statements. "Asked if her continuing fight for the nomination against Senator Obama hurts the Democratic party, Sen. Hillary Clinton replied, "I don't. Because again, I've been around long enough. You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know, I just don't understand it. You know, there's lots of speculation about why it is. “
"So in 2008 Hillary actually said that she remained in the race as there was a chance that her opponent would be assassinated."
Exactly, Sue. Trump said nothing as inflammatory as that comment.
If 121 GOP national security experts with an open letter issued in March couldn't stop Donald Trump from seizing their party's presidential nomination what do 50 of them hope to achieve now? How can fewer succeed when 71 more of them had failed? Anyway you analyze this letter it's politically and policy wise laughable in the extreme. This is what they're saying:
After Obama and Hillary blew up American foreign policy and turned the Middle East into one vast strife-torn killing field with hundreds and thousands dead that Trump is going to blow it up some more, make it worse causing more death, destruction and mayhem. That is what they're warning. But the question is what will President Hillary do differently from her disastrous, incompetent, crooked reign at the State Department? Hillary (as Rumsfeld would say) is a known known. She's been in politics for decades. Trump is a known unknown and is new to the game. We know what Obama and Hillary did: Iraq, Libya, Syria, Egypt, the Islamic State, Yemen, Iran, Crimea, the China Sea, etc; and we know what Hillary intends to do as president as she has said it often enough: stay the course and continue what she and Obama accomplished together in the world.
But Trump the nonideological known unknown has a realistic view of the Obama-Clinton foreign policy mess and wants to clean it up. For Trump US foreign policy falls way short of where it should and could be and was not too long ago after the fall of the Soviet Union when we were indisputably numero uno. Indeed, Trump has learned from the disastrous foreign policy decisions of the Bush and Obama/Clinton years and vows not to repeat them, and he won't as his focus will be on rebuilding the economy which is in decline with massive debt and is our overarching national security threat. That's not recklessness. It's wisdom.
Hillary who apparently has learned nothing from her blunders at State and insists that she was a great historic success with a splendid record of achievements (like traveling millions of miles wearing herself out and enriching the coffers of the Clinton Foundation) has vowed to stay the same disastrous course insisting that more of the same is needed, not radical Trump change.
Tired, old, miserable looking Hillary Clinton (this campaign is slowing draining her strength and energy) complained in a 2010 Esquire interview that her job as Secretary of State was wearing her out and that she couldn't endure a second term of it. But isn't the presidency far more demanding, stressful and exhausting than Secretary of State (see)?
In other words, we need more Arab Springs to destabilize the Middle East; we need to precipitously pull our troops from Afghanistan, like we did from Iraq, so that al-Qaida and the Taliban can prevail and return to power again; we need to send billions more to the terror masters of Iran so they can more effectively spread their brand of radical Shiite Islam and become the regional hegemon. In short, we need more insanity hoping to get a better result. And Donald Trump is the crazy, reckless, dangerous one?
These 50 Republicans like their ineffective 121 predecessors have lost their minds. They're no different from Ford, Kissinger, GHW Bush and the other establishment Republicans who tried to stop Ronald Reagan saying his strong anti-communism made him one of history's most dangerous men, and that he couldn't be trusted with the nuclear codes as he might cause Nuclear Armageddon. It was Reagan's predecessor JImmy Carter who blew up America's foreign policy then. And now we have 50 Republican experts who want to give Carterism another chance after three terribly destructive terms. Who in heaven's name is being reckless here?
Back in May of last year I posted a piece on this site called "Is George Zimmerman A Sign The Six Baltimore Cops Will Be Acquitted Of Any Crime In The Death Of Freddie Gray (see)? In it I noted two extraordinary coincidences which I believed at the time might prophetically anticipate the racially mixed Baltimore Six being acquitted of all crimes in the death of Freddie Gray-just as racially mixed George Zimmerman was rightly acquitted of murdering Trayvon Martin by a jury of six.
THE UNJUST ACCUSERS
In the piece I noted that Freddie Gray's arrest (which led to his death) on April 12, 2015 fell squarely on the 3rd anniversary of Florida judge Mark Herr's ruling that prosecutor Angela Corey's politicized affidavit accusing Zimmerman of murder sufficiently established probable cause. I also noted that just 23 days after Gray's death* Zimmerman was in the news again as the target of a shooting where a bullet was fired into his car shattering a window and injuring him with flying glass (see).
*Gray died on April 19, 2015.
What do Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown have in common, besides being canonized as saintly martyrs in the cause of racial justice? If they had been decent, good, law-abiding citizens they'd all be alive today.
Judge Barry Williams
Then it happened: On July 27th (67 weeks after Freddie Gray's fatal arrest) to the dismay of Black Lives Matter and the race obsessed, lynch mob left (which rioted over Gray) a Judge Barry Williams (a black man) struck down all charges on the Baltimore Six; and crazy, out of control, lynch mob prosecutor Marilyn Mosby was excoriated by her peers and in the press. And just as Freddie Gray's death was followed by Zimmerman making the news, incredibly it happened again. For just ten days after the last three defendants of the Baltimore Six were acquitted it was reported that Zimmerman was the alleged victim of an assault in a Sanford, Florida restaurant for talking about killing Trayvon Martin (see). You can't make this stuff up.
But just as fascinating and incredible is that just as Freddie Gray's arrest fell on the third anniversary of Judge Herr's rulling in the George Zimmerman case so July 27th (when the nightmare was finally over for the remaining Six) landed on the third day of the Democrat Convention. What is fascinating is that the day before on the 26th is when eight black mothers (including Trayvon Martin's mom) of the "Mothers of the Movement" endorsed Hillary Clinton for president; and the following day on the 28th (the day of Hillary's acceptance speech) Dallas Sheriff Lupe Valdez was booed by despicable, cop hating, Black Lives Matter fascists when she asked for a moment of silence to honor fallen cops.
BLM booed Sheriff Valdez.
Also incredible is that April 12, 2015, the day of Freddie Gray's arrest (67 weeks before the exoneration of the Six), was the day that 67 year old Hillary Clinton (formerly the 67th Secretary of State) launched her second presidential campaign.
Could it be that Hillary Clinton starting her run for the White House on the day of Freddie Grey's fatal arrest, and the Baltimore Six being finally acquitted during the convention that would nominate her president, are signs of the imminent demise for the radical fringe Black Lives Matter movement? And that it reached its political apogee at the convention and now will wane and disappear going the way of Occupy Wall Street? Or could it signal that more BLM inspired racial strife, violence and cop killings are ahead? And that this will help Donald Trump (the pro-cop law and order candidate) defeat Hillary Clinton in November? We shall see.
It was deja vu all over again. Last week the normally super-confident "winners never quit" Donald Trump very certain of being elected 45th president, in a moment of uncharacteristic doubt told supporters in Ohio that he feared "the election will be rigged" against him, and that he could lose in November. This triggered a frenzy across anti-Trump media land speculating that with Hillary "surging" in post-convention polls that Trump was turning negative and pessimistic about his election prospects; that seeing a dimming light at the end of the tunnel for taking the White House he was playing the "rigged card" to delegitimize the outcome of a Clinton victory; and that the election if he should lose would be unfairly and criminally stolen from him.
TRUMP PLAYED THE "RIGGED CARD" DURING PRIMARIES AND WON BIG
But as I said, it was "deja vu all over again." For Trump during the primaries had said practically the same thing about the GOP primary process. In early April after losing to Ted Cruz in Wisconsin, and with Cruz and Kasich afterwards forming a stop Trump alliance, Trump fearing that he could lose and be "cheated" out of the nomination in a contested convention said in mid April, "It's a rigged system. It's a crooked system. It's a 100 percent totally rigged and broken system (see).
But then came April 26th and Trump's super Tuesday landslide sweep of five northeastern states which all but clinched the nomination for him. And when the primaries were over for both parties the results for Trump and the GOP were astounding, as it hopefully will be in November.
REPUBLICANS TRUMP DEMOCRATS DURING PRIMARIES
Trump with his 13 million plus primary votes (eliminating 16 rivals) set a GOP record out doing both McCain and Romney by 3.5 million votes, and George W. Bush in 2000 by 1.5 million votes. Moreover, Republicans overall outdid Democrats by 750,000 votes as they gained a total of more than 8 million votes over 2008 (28 million vs. 20 million); while Dems (moving in the opposite direction) lost 8 million votes (35 million vs. 27 million). Another disappointment for Dems was Hillary Clinton under performing from 2008 by a huge 2,052,365 votes-gathering 15,805,136 vs. 17,857,501 votes eight years ago.
But on top of the above bad numbers for Dems (showing a far more motivated Republican party), where they are really hurting is with the vitally important independents. Indeed, according to a July 25th CNN poll Trump is crushing Clinton with independents by a whopping 18 point margin 46% to 28% (see). And though the Gold Star parents blowup occurred shortly after this poll was taken there is evidence from a more recent poll that Trump's support with independents is flourishing like never before and continues to grow.
This is what I mean:
THE RASMUSSEN POLL WITH INDEPENDENTS
Amazingly, as Rasmussen reported two days ago (despite Khizr Khans vicious unwarranted partisan attack on Trump and his "insensitive" replies) independent support for him has been surging. Indeed, from just a week ago Hillary who enjoyed a 5 point post-convention lead over Trump with independents has precipitiously dropped an astonishing 17 points with Trump now leading her by a commanding 41% to 29% (see).
THE IMPORTANCE OF INDEPENDENTS TODAY OVER PAST ELECTIONS
So now we have two major credible quality polls (one center-left the other center right) showing an overwhelming double-digit gap between Trump and Clinton on independents-exceeding what Romney achieved in 2012. Indeed, Romney beat Obama with independents nationally by just 5 points 50% to 45%. But this time it looks like independents by double-digit majorities are with Trump; and if Trump can just sustain that margin to election day its inconceivable that he would lose.
INDEPENDENTS' GROWING NUMBERS
As for those who challenge the value of independents in this or in any national election and say "it's importance is overblown" they are ignoring that there are more indies today than ever before as noted in 2014-when Republicans won back the Senate from Dems (see). It is two years later and as disenchantment with Washington is far stronger now than it was then there is certainly more indies fed up with the status quo looking for a leader of Herculean strength to clean out the Augean stables of DC and Wall Street corruption.
THE LARGE, PRO-TRUMP ANYONE BUT ESTABLISHMENT VOTING BLOCK
Moreover, as astute Washington Post reporter Robert Costa told Charlie Rose (I heard this on Rush) there seems to be a new class of voters in the multi-millions who he calls "the previously disengaged." These are a silent ANYONE BUT THE ESTABLISHMENT voting block that sat out the last two elections and are roaringly for Donald Trump the ultimate establishment bashing nonpolitical outsider (see five minutes into the interview).
THE USC/LA TIMES POLL vs FOX POLL
The center right FOX News poll which sent MSM into ecstasy this week showing Hillary Clinton with a ten point post-convention lead over Trump (five less than Carter over Reagan in the August 1980 Gallup poll) was taken from a sample of 1022 registered voters. Not a very large group. On the other hand, the center left USC/LA Times Daybreak (daily rolling) poll (taken from a larger group of 3000 registered voters) showing Clinton (like all other major polls) with a good post-convention bounce (and sliding numbers for Trump) have them at a virtual dead heat at 44%, and is holding steady with Clinton unable to rise any further. Based on the number of participants (3000 vs. 1022) which of these two quality polls seems more credible?
As you can see from the above the doomsayers are very wrong: the Trump campaign is anything but imploding. Typical of this anti-gravity impossible candidate when he seems to stumble and fall and it looks like the end is near he defies conventional wisdom
Is Khirz's Khan's ideal of an "empathetic leader" the Prophet Mohammed who ethnically cleansed Medina of Jews, and savagely ordered the beheading of up to 900 Jewish men in front of their horrified wives and kids. Why? Because they wouldn't renounce their Judaism and bow down to him as God's final messenger and prophet with the ultimate revelation of truth to mankind? In other words, does Mr. Khan believe that if Trump modeled himself on the Prophet Mohammed it would save his "black soul" from the sin and darkness of cruelty and inhumanity?
Do you now understand the universally accepted meaning of the word "sacrifice?" And how it's completely and dishonestly distorted by Khirz Khan in his slanderous, politicized, demonizing of Donald Trump as a self-centered, anti-Moslem bigot ignorant of the Constitution? Do you understand that like Trump Khan never in his life personally put himself at risk to save the lives of others like his heroic, self-sacrificing son did in Iraq? And that he Khan is no more sacrificing or self-sacrificing or heroically selfless then is Donald Trump or most human beings? Truth is if Khan losing a son (hero or not) was a sacrifice for him then Trump is just as sacrificing having lost a father, brother, grandmother and uncle while he's been alive.
No. However I do understand how a soulless, vapid Trump apologist might try to define the word and try to rationalize Trump's total lack of empathy.
Sacrifice is to give up something valuable for the GREATER GOOD. Soldiers do this. Builders do not (nor do their elder parents, or siblings), and this is especially true of builders who had the opportunity to serve their country and "got out of it" by designs, by deferments, and by getting a doctor's note: "Donald cannot join you in VietNam, his foot hurts."
Tell little adorable Megan Nichols, crippled from birth with brittle bone disease, that Donald Trump is a heartless, soulless, vapid man totally lacking in empathy, compassion and love and she'd think you were mad.
As Maury Povich says in the video, "Donald Trump is one of the most generous men that I know." And indeed he is "most generous" as he can probably multiply his act of kindness to this little unfortunate girl thousands of times. So much for Khizr Kahn's filthy, disgusting, black lie denigrating Trump as having a "black soul" as if he were an evil creature of darkness like the prophet Mohammed who he reveres.As far as Megan Nichols is concerned her great her great, good, humanebenefactor Donald Trump has a HEART OF GOLD.
If Donald Trump's legal avoidance of the draft during the Vietnam War era disqualifies him from becoming President then what about Bill Clinton whose avoidance is legendary?
Now that you know Clinton's history of avoiding the draft and becoming a soldier to "give up something valuable for the GREATER GOOD" was it right, in your view, that he served as president for eight years? And should he be allowed back into the White House as First Gentleman?
If you're going to be promoting Trump as a "saint", perhaps you should contact him and urge him to release his tax returns so we can ALL see what a generous and feeling fellow he is.
As to "avoiding the draft", I draw a sharp distinction between those who ADVOCATE war and killing, and those who look at it as a terrible last resort, to be avoided if possible. Trump is the former, Clinton the latter.
If Trump weren't a generous, feeling, good-natured soul why would he help little crippled Megan Nichols? And why would Maury Povich a good, honest, charitable man testify publicly that Trump "is one of the most generous men I know" if he wasn't a witness to other acts of Trump's kindness?
Several years ago the very generous Donald offered to donate $5 million dollars to Barack Obama's charity of choice if he released his college transcripts. Obama, however, refused, and in doing so deprived perhaps hundreds of needy children like Megan Nichols of that money. Shame on him.
Megan Nichols is emblematic of Trump's great generosity and giving soul. As Maury Povich says in the video: "Donald Trump is one of the most generous men that I know." Meaning that there were many other Megan Nichols-before and since; but done quietly and humbly as long time friend Mayor Giuliani recently said (see).
Trump's soul is so unfeeling, inhumane and black that apparently he contributed $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
What moral compass were the Khans using when they politicized and demeaned their patriotic son's heroic death and used it to vilify and lie about Trump being an anti-Moslem racist bigot who is ignorantly violating the Constitution? What political compass were the Democrats using when they put the Khans up to this charade?
There was nothing immoral about their attack on Trump.
He has indeed sacrificed nothing comparable to losing a son on the battlefield, as he demonstrated in his fumbling interview with Stephanopoulos. He actually tried to peddle job creation as a "sacrifice." This was completely an unforced error on Trump's part.
And if his policies were in place when Mr. Khan immigrated from Pakistan, he would indeed have been blocked from doing so.
I guess you also missed Khan's later statement (in the interview on The Last Word, where he called on Republican leaders to repudiate Trump.
There is no evidence other than giving him a speaking slot that the DNC "put them up to" anything.
Your doubling down on Trump's criticism of the Khans
is more evidence that you are a vile and twisted solipsist. Denying that the Khans have a moral compass is purely vile on your part.
Khizr Khan's moral compass was immorally pointed downward toward the darkness of deceit and lies about Donald Trump, not upward toward the light of truth. That Khan was on the high moral ground in attacking Trump is completely laughable as his charges of anti-Moslem bigotry and shredding the constitution have no basis in reality or morality.
Indeed, if Captain Khan's death was such a tragic heartbreaking loss in Khizr Kahn's life then where was his condemnation of the Iraq War (the "wrong war" as Democrats believe) that killed him? And where was
his outrage at George W. Bush who sent his son into the wrong war to die? Moreover, where was his moral outrage at Hillary
Clinton whose vote for the Iraq War Resolution
authorized Bush to go to war. And who reauthorized funding for it 21 times over a four year period?
As Captain Khan would be alive today if there were no
Iraq War Hillary then deserves more of Khan's anger and outrage than does Trump who opposed the war before Hillary did and simply wants to prevent ISIS terrorists from entering this country through poorly vetted Moslem refugees.
Hillary in part is morally responsible for
sending Captain Khan to his death, and dying for nothing in a war that Trump had nothing to do with it. So again I ask the question: what was the moral basis for Khizr Khan viciously attacking Donald Trump who (unlike Killery) did him and his wife and children no harm?
BTW, your claim that the Khans made a sacrifice when they lost their son in the Bush/Clinton War is preposterous. The Khans in fact sacrificed nothing. They lost a son who volunteered for military service in wartime knowing the risks; and then in performing his dutiesheroically sacrificed himself to save others. It was the son who did the sacrificing, his parents sacrificed nothing.
Khan self-righteously asking Trump "what did you ever sacrifice in your life" when he lost his father, brother and other loved one's is an insincere duplicitous partisan political attack disguised as moral outrage and shouldn't be taken seriously.
The DNC vetted Khan's anti-Trump speech and approved it which is normal in a convention.
More typical dodging, weaving, and hand-flapping from ApolloSpeaks, the dishonest solipsist.
Donald Trump supported the war at the time of the War Resolution; there is no record that he did not, and he made statements in interviews supporting it. Just because he didn't vote, doesn't mean he didn't support it.
Calling Hillary "in part morally responsible for sending their son to his death" is ridiculous, because you know and I know that the actual invasion of Iraq was based on bad intelligence, which was pushed by the Bush administration over objections of their own intelligence officers.
You also miss the basic point (I believe deliberately): Trump's proposed Muslim ban, had it been in effect when Mr. Khan immigrated, would have blocked his immigration. Trump has stopped shy of making a distinction between "Islamic extremism" and Muslims who love this country. This has been read consistently by his followers--including you--as casting suspicion on the entire Muslim community. It is the Muslim ban and the trumping up of anti-Muslim sentiment that do harm.
As for claiming that the parents have sacrificed nothing when their son died, that is pure sociopathy on your part, and you know it. I believe it is because you believe that Muslims are a lower life form than Apollo the Clown.
In 2002 Trump weakly (half heartedly, unenthusiastically) supported the idea of going to war in Iraq telling Howard Stern "Yeah. I guess I'm for it." While at the time both Clintons were gung ho war hawks hell-bent on going to war based MOSTLY (not exclusively) on the wmd intel Bush inherited from the Saddamophobic Clinton administration
-the new bad Bush intel confirmed the old bad Clinton intell.
In July 2004 Trump ripping into Bush in an Esquire interview came out in full-throated opposition to the war saying it was a mistake and was destabilizing the Middle East. At the time the Clintons still fully supported it. In fact it wasn't until November 2005 (16 months later) that Hillary Clinton turned against the war and said it was a mistake. But Hillary's voting for refunding the war hypocritically continued until May 2007 when she joined with Barack Obama in opposing a $124 billion Iraq War spending bill.
If Khizr Khan was blocked from entering the US and remained in Pakistan it's highly probable that some other brave soldier would have done what his son did and sacrificed himself that day.
Only a liar or a fool would say that Trump and Hillary are equally responsible for the deaths of 3000 Americans. Hillary, not Trump, has drops of Capt Khan's blood on her hands and every other dead soldier in that war.
And lastly define for me the term "sacrifice" then show me how it applies to the Khans in their loss of a courageous patriotic SELF-SACRIFICING son in a war.
Now that you know the standard, universally accepted definition of the term "sacrifice" for you to say (as you did) that the Khans SACRIFICED their brave, wonderful, heroic SELF-SACRIFICING son is illogical and stupid, right?