Something important is being missed in never-ending saturation coverage of Donald Trump's rather modest war of words with the Khan family. The storyline is so perfect for the liberal media - horrible Republican nominee insults parents of dead servicemen - it's rather astonishing how few recognize what an ambush this whole thing was.
It's long been a Democrat tactic to hide behind the skirts of people they declare to have "absolute moral authority," meaning that they can never be criticized for anything no matter what they say or do. You will remember this was the status bestowed upon insane Bush critic Cindy Sheehan. Because her son had died in the war, she had "absolute moral authority" to say anything she wanted about Bush - no matter how unhinged or divorced from reality. And that made her extremely useful to Democrats, who preferred not to personally impugn the war effort when they could get the mother of a dead soldier to do it for them.
Putting the Khans on stage at the DNC was the same type of gambit. It started with a false premise, which was that Donald Trump had attacked the patriotism of all Muslims. He had done no such thing. He had suggested we should temporarily stop admitting Muslim immigrants because of the consistent pattern of terror attacks being committed by radical Islamists. He had never attacked Muslims who were already here, and had certainly not impugned the patriotism of Muslims serving in the U.S. military.
But that didn't matter to Democrats, who know they can establish false premises because the news media will never challenge them. So there's Khizr Khan, ripping Donald Trump for supposed offenses against his family, and making the specious complaint that Trump had not "sacrificed" anything for the sake of the nation - as if Hillary Clinton has ever sacrificed a damn thing in her entire life.
An aside about the whole "sacrifice" thing: It's a load of crap. For two reasons. First, I can think of no reason that having "sacrificed" necessarily makes you better prepared for the presidency. Some people sacrifice for the sake of others, and that's a virtuous choice to make. But others prepare for high positions of responsibility by learning how to be successful in other positions. That too is good preparation, and would be honored in a nation that had not forgotten how much success is a recommendation for further responsibility. But beyond that: Hillary Clinton has spent her life enriching herself through her involvement with the public sector and calling it "sacrifice" when in fact all she's done is learn how to game the levers of power for her own benefit. If that's sacrifice, I'm eight feet tall.
Donald Trump has spent his life making money in the private sector, where making money is what you're supposed to do. He's given a fair amount of it away, and some would say that qualifies as sacrifice, but if he never sacrificed a thing while learning to be a highly effective leader and decision maker, then it seems to me he could still be an excellent president.
I think we should honor people who make sacrifices. I don't think we should give them license to harangue others for not sacrificing. This is a longstanding game Democrats have played - putting people who have made sacrifices in their lives up on stage to rip those who have not.
And the reason they do it is because they know perfectly well that the target of the attacks is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If he just lets the attack stand, he's admitting guilt. If he responds . . . How dare you attack a Gold Star Family!
But that Gold Star Family launched the first attack, completely unprovoked, and in the service of making Hillary Clinton president of the United States. That in no way takes away from the loss of their son, but someone needs to say that when these people allow themselves to be used for such nefarious purposes, they are not immune from criticism and they should not be treated as untouchable.
Support Canada Free Press
That's not to say I liked the substance of Trump's response. I didn't. It was clumsy, ham-handed and ineffective. But I think he would have been attacked merely for engaging, regardless of what he said, just because the rules of politics say you never respond to those with so-called absolute moral authority.
That's a crock. If Democrats are going to keep using these people to make the attacks they are too cowardly to make on their own, then the attackers should expect rejoinders. No matter who they are.
Something important is being missed in never-ending saturation coverage of Donald Trump's rather modest war of words with the Khan family. The storyline is so perfect for the liberal media - horrible Republican nominee insults parents of dead servicemen - it's rather astonishing how few recognize what an ambush this whole thing was.
It's long been a Democrat tactic to hide behind the skirts of people they declare to have "absolute moral authority," meaning that they can never be criticized for anything no matter what they say or do. You will remember this was the status bestowed upon insane Bush critic Cindy Sheehan. Because her son had died in the war, she had "absolute moral authority" to say anything she wanted about Bush - no matter how unhinged or divorced from reality. And that made her extremely useful to Democrats, who preferred not to personally impugn the war effort when they could get the mother of a dead soldier to do it for them.
