Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Khzir and Ghazala Khan have launched an extended and unprovoked personal attack against the republican party's nominee for President, Donald Trump. They did so on a political stage, the Democratic National Convention, inviting and compelling a response by their target through their actions, not his. Khzir Khan was the initial aggressor in this partisan war of words and Donald Trump exercised his right to self defense from the unprovoked and partisan attack.
Khan questioned whether or not Trump had read the US Constitution. He later accused Trump of having a black soul. The Khans have irrationally alleged that Trump has no understanding of "sacrifice" and therefore has no right to hold the political positions he holds, a blatant non sequitur. The Khans' argument, reductio ad absurdum, holds that no one who has not lost a son in combat has the right to maintain a position on immigration. They have failed to demonstrate how the loss of a son increases anyone's ability to rationally arrive at a successful immigration policy, or how the lack of having lost a son disqualifies one from being able to form a rational immigration policy. Their emotional and outrageous attacks on Donald Trump provide evidence that it is they who are unable to form rational arguments regarding American immigration policy, not Donald Trump.
Every American has sacrificed the lives of fellow Americans for their altruistic generosity in allowing Muslims into America. We have all lost American sons and daughters to Islamic terrorism. So the Khans' moral highground is made of sand, or more correctly, horse manure. The Presidential candidate has a duty to the nation to formulate an immigration policy, so Trump has crossed no line, and has instead fulfilled his duty in creating his immigration stance. Khan has offered no rational reason for his attempts to deny Trump the right to formulate policy, and his tacit argument that only he has the right to do this is transparent nonsense, overwhelming arrogance and is, frankly, unamerican.
The mighty Khan has spoken. Only he has the right to talk about Muslim immigration, because his son died fighting for the USA. NONSENSE!
Khan started a fight and when the response to his attack came, the media cried foul. So let us apply Khan's illogic to the media. Have they ever sacrificed a son in war? If not, are they barred from forming an opinion on each and every issue? Are they forbidden to criticize Trump given that he is the republican nominee for President? Is it a violation of their patriotism and journalistic duty to criticize Trump? Should they not respect republicans and place Trump above criticism?
Khan stepped into the ring slinging mud and when it splashed back on him, he cried foul. The media do not care about him, he was irrelevant until he became a tool with which to attack Trump. Their attack on Trump is so opportunistic, disingenuous and disproportionate that it is damaging to our political process.
No politician should be muzzled by a press willing to shove forth an insulting loud mouth trying to serve his personal interests over the greater good of the nation. The greater good of the nation comes first and Khan is not serving the best interests of all Americans, but rather is a self serving and disrespectful clown working to advance the selfish interests of Muslims over the general welfare of all Americans.
Trump should not yield ground to Khan and should state that he will not sacrifice more Americans to the Islamic terrorists just to placate the Khanman.