Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The Wrath Of Khan: Coulter

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.