THE WRATH OF KHAN
August 3, 2016
Ann Coulter

Khizr Khan, the Muslim "Gold Star Father" who harangued Americans at the Democratic National Convention, with a mute, hijab-wearing wife at his side, is just another in a long string of human shields liberals send out to defend their heinous policies. The "Jersey Girls" were the classic example, first described in that magnificent book Godless: The Church of Liberalism.

In order to shut down a debate they're losing, Democrats find victims to make their arguments for them, pre-empting counter-argument by droning on about the suffering of their victim-spokesperson. Alternative opinions must be preceded by proof that the speaker has "sacrificed" more than someone who lost a child, a husband, or whatever.

Khan's argument, delivered angrily and in a thick Pakistani accent at the DNC, is that "our" Constitution requires us to continue the nonstop importation of Muslims.

If the U.S. Constitution required us to admit more than 100,000 Muslims a year -- as we do -- we'd already be living in Pakistan, and Khan wouldn't have had to move to get that nice feeling of home. So the "argument" part of Khan's point is gibberish.

Luckily, Khan had Part Two: His son died in Iraq, whereas Donald Trump does not have a son who died in Iraq, so he can't say anything.

Yes, a candidate for president of the United States is supposed to be prohibited from discussing a dangerous immigration program because Khan's son was one of fourteen (14!) Muslim servicemen killed by other Muslims in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's why we're obligated to import yet more Muslims – including, undoubtedly, some just like the ones who killed his son. Q.E.D.!

If you think that doesn't make any sense, keep your yap shut, unless you lost a child in Iraq, too.

There were virtually no Muslims in America before Teddy Kennedy's 1965 immigration act. Today, we admit more immigrants from Muslim countries than from Great Britain.

Are Americans allowed to have an opinion on whether that's a good idea?

So far, it's worked out great!

In addition to the sudden appearance of honor killings, clitorectomies, hijabs and massive government frauds, Muslim immigrants have given us: The most devastating terrorist attack in world history, followed by terrorist attacks at Fort Hood, the Boston Marathon, a military recruiting center in Chattanooga, Times Square, Vaughan Foods in Oklahoma, San Bernardino and an Orlando nightclub, among other places.

We've admitted 2 million Muslims just since 9/11 – that’s more than had been admitted before 9/11. If we don't make it 3 million, we're monsters? May we ask how many Muslims Khan's mystery Constitution requires -- or is that out of bounds unless we had a child who died in Iraq?

Apparently, sending out a victim to make their argument was the only option left for the "Make America Muslim!" crowd.

After Trump somehow got the crazy idea that a presidential candidate was allowed to discuss government policies and proposed a temporary ban on Muslim immigration -- which, by the way, is perfectly constitutional -- the entire media and political class erupted in a sputtering rage.

Conscience of a Nation, Speaker Paul Ryan proclaimed: "That's not who we are." Jeb! Bush made the subtle and clever argument that Trump was "unhinged." Marco Rubio called any pause in Muslim immigration "offensive." ABC News' Jonathan Karl called Trump's plan "outrageous" -- which was way better than MSNBC, where Trump was compared to white supremacists and Nazis.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Trump had "disqualifie(d)" himself from "serving as president" for suggesting any slowdown in Muslim immigration. Vice President Joe Biden -- tribune of blue-collar Americans everywhere! -- said that if Trump were the nominee, Hillary would "win in a walk."

Then it turned out Trump's Muslim ban was a huge hit with actual voters. Hillary, who promises to quadruple the number of Syrian "refugees" we bring in, is quite far from winning "in a walk."

So the media and political class had no choice: They had to produce a victim to make their argument, in order to block any response. For their next trick, Democrats plan to produce a little girl whose parents were recently murdered to present their tax plan. (Better make sure they weren't killed by an illegal alien!)

Does anyone know what Khan thinks of gays? How about miniskirts? Alcohol? Because I gather we're going to have to turn all our policies over to him, too. What have you sacrificed, Barney Frank??

Muslim troops accounted for 0.2 percent of all U.S. troop deaths in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Southerners accounted for 38 percent of those killed in Iraq and 47 percent in Afghanistan.

What has South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley "sacrificed" compared to the families of these men? How about Nikki put their flag back up?

The Confederate flag won't lead to thousands of dead and maimed Americans, as Muslim immigration does. The only danger posed by the Confederate flag is that media elites will hold the South in even greater contempt than they already do, assuming that's possible.

But as long as they brought it up, if only people who lost children in our wars may discuss public policy, then only they should vote, not only on how many more Muslim immigrants this country needs, but on all government policies. What has Chuck Todd sacrificed? Have any current members of The New York Times editorial board ever lost a son in war? (Fighting on the American side.)

The inevitable conclusion to the hysteria over Khan is that only those who have worn the uniform and heard shots fired in anger can vote in our elections. Hello, media? Hey -- where'd everybody go?

How does this contrived dog and pony show equate to a "crisis" for Trump?

...

Ya, I seen that too, brilliant piece.

One might wish Trump could talk to someone like her on occasion so as to come up with an articulate response.

Only for the RETARDS my friend, only for the RETARDS. How ever the media is a big mega phone to over come. Things appear much bigger than they actually are. Now be patient for the azz licking POS retards on the fire to spew their diarrhea from their mouths.


Take care, Willie

Too bad the great unwashed that is the voting public does not read this. There was also another article on Drudge on Mr. Khan's views on Sharia over the Constitution and other moslem ball washing views.

I remember when Coulter was a reasonably good conservative and didn't constantly lie and propagandize.

She's been going downhill for quite a while. Sad.

Seriously? EVERYTHING she says in that article is spot on.

Can you point out her "lies" in that article and show how they are "lies"?

The independent vote.

Trump is gonna need a majority of them...and a lot of them get their political information from the MSM...

Here's the full transcript of his convention speech:



Point out in there where he says that the Constitution requires us to allow nonstop Muslim immigration? That's the basis of Coulter's entire article, and it's a flat out lie.

Take your time.

Actually, the point is Mr. Khan accused TRUMP of calling for a total ban on all Moslem immigration - which is a lie, "flat out" and otherwise. And if he did not want people to think that our Constitution required unlimited Moslem immigration - which is the business he is in - or at least stop a president from restricting it - then why did he bring it up, wave around a copy, and urge Trump to read it?

Wow.. Khan accused Trump of wanting to discriminate against Muslims, women, and other races/nationalities and to kick them out of the country. Most or all of which IS against the Constitution according to Supreme Court cases.

See here:



Now has Trump threatened to kick all Muslims out of the nation? I'd guess probably not, but the way he has rambled free form in every speech for the last year I wouldn't be surprised at all if somebody did find that he'd said that.

But the point is that Khan never, ever argued for unlimited Muslim immigration.

Coulter is lying, she's been doing it a lot the last couple of years. She's become everything she hates in the mainstream media.

It's sad.

Trump did make that call...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/

I don't believe Coulter lied. She just has a different interpretation of why the muzzie was waving the Constitution around than you do. Khanwas not specific about that at all, except as a baseless slam, so different opinions are to be expected.

How would you interpret (from his website) :

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on" from his own web site, Dec 7."

Not arguing the merits or detriments to such a policy, but a reasonable person would certainly interpret his statement of a 'total and complete shutdown' a ban even if temporary. Now since that statement he's 'modified' his position (alibi dependent on the time of day and audience). But he did call for a ban. To say he didn't is just semantics.

If you don't understand that the entire point of "The Kahn Job" speech was that it is "unconstitutional" to discriminate in immigration or even limit immigration, you truly are a dolt.

Personally, I think putting a stop to Muslim immigration is a good thing. Immigration is supposed to benefit the USA, not necessarily the immigrant. What do we gain from a culture that has vowed to take us over or kill us? There is no Constitutional right to unrestricted immigration. In view of what is happening in Europe, it's stupid to allow it.

Send every one of them bastards home, NOW! America doesn't want muslims, politicians do, for the wrong motives! Politicians are traitors and should be dealt with.

I provided his entire transcript, but you are seeing hidden points and secrets that are obvious to everybody but idiots?

yeppers... there be idiots in plenty, we agree on that.

Thank God for Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter.

No, only idiots have such poor reading comprehension as you. You have missed his entire point. Your shortsightedness is like someone attempting to see the Hoover Dam from 3 feet.

Seriously? and only a couple of years ago you and the rest of the RP Kookistas were excoriating her...

More immigration from the Middle East means more clients for Mr. Kahn's law firm.

Does "liberty" and "equal protection" under the law mean unrestricted immigration?

Kahn must think so.

If you are going to waive the Constitution around, read the whole thing.....

Feel better now?

Go forth and make it so.

Now Colter and Trump have both lied.
Trump: “Mr. Khan, who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution...Mr. Khan, who does not know me, viciously attacked me from the stage of the DNC and is now all over T.V. doing the same – Nice!

This what Khan actually said.
Khan: Donald Trump, you are asking Americans to trust you with our future.'
Let me ask you: Have you even read the U.S. Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy. In this document, look for the words "liberty" and "equal protection of law."

“viciously attacked”????

Anything less than slobbering adulation is an attack, it seems.

I've been a fan of both for decades. I had issues with her opposition to Ron Paul. One small blotch on her otherwise excellent record.

And her position on Israel
And her position on the wars
I could go on, but why bother. Either way, she's 100% on the mark

That costs $5 extra downtown...

Israel's a bad example, since she and I are in agreement that our politicians shouldn't be running for office here as though they were running for office in Israel. She's gotten into some hot water over that, in fact.

Regardless, It's quite clear to any objective observer that my praise of her, over my many years here at the Fire, has far outstripped my opposition. She is, by far, one of the best commentators for American nationalism out there, thus her appearances at Fox News becoming so much less frequent of late.

isaac this was the best read in a long time worth the beans . Glad you said this it was great an very true . All of it even the South Flag this is bull chit what these ass-nines idiots did taking it down .It was a war flag . The teachers should go back to school an learn History an so should ours so called leaders in the Democrat party .

Fuckin' inflation

I guess Kahn Jahb is admitting here that he would have never been admitted if he had been properly vetted by Immigration.

Roll with it. We all know he's quite sensitive and hyperbolic.

Really? Your reading comprehension is not improving and your general cognitive abilities are on the same tack.

He is butt hurt over Cruz losing so anyone who agrees with or defends Trump is wrong, and Khan apparently is right so he'll be voting for Hillary.

Besides Barry, you haven't lost children in wars overseas so you can't say anything anyway .

Never said Khan was right or Trump was right or either one was wrong.

Simply pointing out that Coulter is lying about what Khan said at the Convention.

Trump doesn't need lies or propaganda to win, the fact that his opponent is Hillary Clinton should be enough for anybody to win in November.

You want to go back a few decades...
1999 Trump:“Buchanan winks at barbarism in his new book,” Trump wrote. “There is no other way to describe his views. Buchanan argues that we should have ignored Hitler’s rampage to Eastern Europe during World War II. Hitler meant us no harm, Buchanan says. The same man who argued forcefully — and in my opinion correctly — that we should not give an inch during the Cold War is now saying in effect that Hitler should have been appeased.”

“Buchanan has enjoyed a long psychic friendship with Hitler, whom he has called ‘an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier and a leader steeped in the history of Europe,'” Trump wrote. “He also warns his followers that the United States is controlled by Jews, especially regarding foreign policy. On slow days, he attacks gays, immigrants, welfare recipients, even Zulus. When cornered, he says he’s misunderstood.”

What about Ron Paul's opposition to Trump?
Rand Paul has said he will support the Republican nominee, while his father will support the Libertarian ticket — more so for what it stands for than for who's on the ticket.

“I just can’t, you know, say I’m really enthusiastic about the ticket. But the Libertarian Party stands for the nonaggression principle, and that means that you and I cannot use aggression to get our way, and you can’t use the government to get your way by using force,” he said on C-SPAN. “And that principle is sound on the Libertarian Party, and the more votes they get, the more votes there will be for the nonaggression principle, and that’s as far as I go because I’m a just little bit frustrated with all the individuals running and the discussion going on.”

seriously dude, you are losing what little cred you used to have. What happened to you? Geez

Amazing the chit that has slithered in here, and some that were here embarrassed of what they are. All it took was a little company. and they come out of the wood work.



Take care, Willie

The issue for me is not the content of Khan's attack, it's the way Trump responded. Not the details of how he responded or how right or wrong his positions are, but that Trump was totally unprepared to respond, and predictably so.

For someone asking to be the President I expect them to be informed, seek the best consul, and respond brilliantly. Had Trump done so he could have easily turned Khan's attack back on Hillary and demonstrated his aptitude for being President. As it is, he demonstrated how badly he would handle provocations were he elected.

I expect Hillary's campaign is planning more attacks to further demonstrated to voters that Trump's response to provocations is predictably amateurish and bumbling. Vladimir Putin, Li Keqiang, and others are watching and learning.

So what if the American public stops muslim immigration...or do you not think your country has the right to self determine it's own future and citizenry?

I am very sure I want my government to look out for my future better than it has, after all if I wanted to live in a muslim infested cesspool I would move to France.

There is no problem with limiting immigration by things like country of origin or creating blocks to immigration such as unable to vet somebody or if they have even distant relations who are involved with terrorist organizations.

And, ALL immigration can be halted.

I would expect any block on immigration based on the faith of the immigrant to be struck down in court as unConstitutional, but that's just a guess.

Want it to happen? Just have to convince Congress and the President to do it.

I understand a non-muslim president can do it, as it has been done before.

My understanding was that it hadn't been done based on religion, but rather on country of origin. Again, just what I've heard, maybe some of the legal types here know more.

Last time religion might have been used was probably 1910 or earlier, and lots of court rulings have happened since then. Back then they did things like create laws that china men and native americans couldn't become citizens - those were struck down long, long ago.

So what if it on the basis of religion, specifically a religion that exerts political influence on it's members and those not under it's control.

Your constitution is by Americans for Americans.

I think its clear to everyone that Trump has never read the consitution !! let alone read anything

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/10/donald-trump-humiliates-constitution-wrong-meet-press.html

Another Republican in the meeting, Rep. Mark Sanford (R-SC), [said] that Trump was asked pointedly if he would defend Article I of the Constitution.

"Not only will I stand up for Article One," Trump enthusiastically stated, according to Sanford. "I'll stand up for Article Two, Article 12, you name it of the Constitution."

Sanford said Trump's lack of knowledge about how many articles exist, gave him "a little pause." (The Constitution has seven articles and 27 amendments.)

http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/24/donald-trump-article-xii/

"The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders".

- Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding Template:344 U.S. 590, 596, (US Supreme Court Ruling)

Thank you Hawk.

There you go fellas, you don't have to let anyone in at all if you do not want to.

But those you have let in already are Americans with full rights and responsibilities.

The second part of your statement overstates the ruling. All people within our borders are not US Citizens with all of the rights thereof. It does say, however, that all rights recognized by our Constitution as belonging to all people must be respected by our government with regard to those lawfully within our borders. Not all people within our borders, however, have a Constitutional right to citizenship.

More importantly, however, the ruling states that no one who is not yet authorized to enter our borders may appeal to their rights under our Constitution with regard to our immigration policy.