Trump stirs outrage after he lashes out at the Muslim parents of a dead U.S. soldier

Via:
https://earloftaint.com

My initial impression was Trump should have kept his mouth shut.

But the fact is these two Muslim pawns were a deliberate plant. 

They were put on stage for the sole purpose of discrediting Trump’s Muslim ban from countries we don’t trust.

BTW... didn’t Kate Steinle’s mother lose a daughter to an illegal dog. Why was she absent? Because unlike the pro-Muslim rhetoric, her loss didn't fit the Democratic doctrine of promoting illegal invasion and sanctuary cities.

Also:

According to Giuliani did you know uniformed cops were banned from the DNC floor? 

http://www.wnd.com/wnd_video/giuliani-uniformed-police-officers-not-allowed-on-dnc-floor/

 They didn't want to offend the cop killing BLM who couldn't keep their big mouth shut for one minute allowing law abiding citizens a moment of silence for the fallen cops. I'm happy to report just like OWS... BLM is now an integral part of the Democratic party.

---------------------------------------------------

Trump to Khizr Khan: 'I've made a lot of sacrifices'

(CNN)Donald Trump rejected a Muslim lawyer's assertion on the Democratic convention stage that the Republican nominee has "sacrificed nothing and no one."

"Who wrote that? Did Hillary's script writers write it?" Trump said in an interview with with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos that will air Sunday. "I think I've made a lot of sacrifices. I work very, very hard."

Khizr Khan, whose son Army Capt. Humayun Khan died in Baghdad in 2004, delivered one of the most powerful speeches of the Democratic National Convention. With his wife Ghazala at his side, Khan repeatedly blasted Trump's immigration proposals -- specifically those aimed at barring Muslims -- and said the billionaire businessman has "sacrificed nothing and no one."

Trump, in the ABC interview, said in response, "I've created thousands and thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs, built great structures. I've had tremendous success. I think I've done a lot."

Khan "was, you know, very emotional and probably looked like a nice guy to me," Trump added.

Trump, in a statement released Saturday by his campaign, called Capt. Khan "a hero to our country and we should honor all who have made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our country safe."

He argued that the "radical Islamist terrorists who killed him and the attempts by such people to enter the United States and "do us further harm" represent the "real problem."

During his appearance at the Democratic National convention, Khizr Khan held up a copy of the U.S. Consitution and asked Trump if he has ever read it.

"I will gladly lend you my copy. In this document, look for the words, look for the words, liberty and equal protection (under) law," Khizr Khan said.

In his statement, Trump took sharp offense, saying that "while I feel deeply for the loss of his son, 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, (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things."

Clinton early Saturday evening issued a statement coming to Khan's defense. 

"I was very moved to see Ghazala Khan stand bravely and with dignity in support of her son on Thursday night. And I was very moved to hear her speak last night, bravely and with dignity, about her son's life and the ultimate sacrifice he made for his country.

"This is a time for all Americans to stand with the Khans, and with all the families whose children have died in service to our country. And this is a time to honor the sacrifice of Captain Khan and all the fallen. Captain Khan and his family represent the best of America, and we salute them."

At a Clinton campaign appearance in Pennsylvania, lines about the Khan family were visible on a teleprompter, but she did not deliver them. Inquiries to the Clinton campaign about why went unanswered.

Still, a senior spokeswoman for the Clinton campaign, Karen Finney, took a sharper tone against Trump. 

"Trump is truly shameless to attack the family of an American hero. Many thanks to the Khan family for your sacrifice, we stand with you," tweeted Karen Finney, a senior spokeswoman for the Clinton campaign.

By Saturday afternoon Trump's comparison of his own sacrifices to Khan's had blown up to blew on Twitter into a hashtag, #TrumpSacrifices. Users wrote satirically that the candidate had, among other things, been subjected to such hardships as flying commercial, playing golf on a public course and staying at a three-star hotel.

Trump previously responded more obliquely to Khan's convention remarks, in a lightning-round interview with New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. 

"I'd like to hear his wife say something," Trump said. 

In a Friday evening interview on MSNBC, Ghazala Khan spoke briefly about her final interaction with her son, on Mother's Day 2004, wishing him safety while serving in Iraq.

In the New York Times interview, Trump also opined on a range of Democratic convention speakers. He was sharply critical of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an independent who threw his support behind Hillary Clinton and spoke to the Democratic convention. Trump called Bloomberg "a guy who didn't have the guts to run for president."

"He doesn't know anything about me," Trump said. "But he never had the guts to run. He probably wished he did but he didn't. He spent millions of dollars on polling but he was missing one thing: guts."

The two have been exchanging barbs this week after Bloomberg, who once considered entering the 2016 race as an independent, endorsed Clinton over Trump last weekend, then blasted Trump as a "dangerous demagogue" in Philadelphia.

Trump stirs outrage after he lashes out at the Muslim parents of a dead U.S. soldier

Fat Bastard strikes again

No not this one. 

This one.

Michael Moore writes to Michigan governor, offers to house Syrian refugees

Does anyone really believe this? If/when they arrive I'll be the first to report how many are actually living in Fat Bastard's home. Guarantee it will be zero. If he is such a caring, philanthropic, human being why hasn't he extended this same invitation to a few of the Michigan homeless? Anyone suspect its because there is no political points to be gained from that?

If the vetting process is so meticulous and thorough, as we've been told, let the proponents who have full faith and trust in this scheme i.e. Barry, Pelosi, Clinton, Reid, Earnest, and Kerry have these refugees deposited in their neighborhood. 

You know damn well that's never gonna happen. It's "the righteous thing to do"...but only if they live next door to you. 

Oh...and speaking of idiots this guy's a classic.

He wholeheartedly supports Barry's plot to bring in 10,000 Syrian refugees. Because if we don't... under the new liberal rallying cry... "That's not who we are". 

This is the same guy who got fired from NPR (No Personal Remarks) when he said this:

 When I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Now you know why his kids are Republicans.

------------------------------------------

Film director and Michigan resident Michael Moore posted an open letter to Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) criticizing his stance for putting a temporary hold on the placement of Syrian refugees in his state, and offering to put up a Syrian refugee couple himself.

"I just wanted to let you know that, contrary to your declaration of denying Syrian refugees a home in our state of Michigan, I myself am going to defy your ban and will offer MY home in Traverse City, Michigan, to those very Syrian refugees you've decided to keep out," Moore wrote. "I will contact the State Department to let them know I am happy to provide a safe haven to any Syrian refugee couple approved by the Obama administration's vetting procedures in which I have full faith and trust."

In response to Moore's letter, Snyder's press secretary Sara Wurfel told FOX411: "It’s unfortunate that Governor’s position is being misrepresented. Gov. Snyder has been a vocal advocate for continuing to make Michigan a home and welcoming state for immigrants, including refugees escaping violence and oppression from all corners of the world. He is just asking for a thorough review of security clearances and procedures to ensure that he can also fulfill a primary responsibility of keeping Michiganders safe."

In a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry sent on Nov. 16, Snyder said he wanted a "full review of security clearances and procedures for all refugees who have the potential to be placed in Michigan."

Snyder is not alone asking for the U.S. refugee program to be suspended. State leaders from New Mexico to Michigan have asked President Obama to suspend the refugee program — at least temporarily.

Fat Bastard strikes again

What scandal?

Bob: "Did you hear about the Obama administration scandal?

 

Jim: "You mean the Mexican gun running?"

 

Bob: "No, the other one."

 

Jim: "You mean the State Dept. lying about Benghazi?"

 

Bob: "No, the other one."

 

Jim: "You mean voter fraud?"

 

Bob: "No, the other one."

 

Jim: "You mean the military not getting their votes counted?"

 

Bob: "No, the other one."

 

Jim: "The NSA monitoring our phone calls, emails and everything else?"

 

Bob: "No, the other one."

 

Jim: "You mean the drones in our own country without the benefit of the law?"

 

Bob: "No, the other one."

 

Jim: "Giving high tech battery maker A 123 inc. $300 Million and right after that bail-out it declared bankruptcy and was sold to the Chinese?"

 

Bob: "No, the other one."

 

Jim: "You mean Obama arming the Muslim Brotherhood?"

 

Bob: "No the other one:.

 

Jim: "The IRS targeting conservatives?"

 

Bob: "No, the other one."

 

Jim: "The DOJ spying on the press?"

 

Bob: "No, the other one."

 

Jim: "Sebelius shaking down health insurance executives?"

 

Bob: "No, the other one."

 

Jim: "Giving SOLYNDRA $500 MILLION DOLLARS and 3 months later they declared bankruptcy and then the Chinese bought it?"

 

Bob: "No, the other one."

 

Jim: "The president's ordering the release of nearly 10,000 illegal immigrants from jails and prisons, and falsely blaming the sequester?"

 

Bob: "No, the other one."

 

Jim: "The president's threat to impose gun control by Executive Order in order to bypass Congress?"

 

Bob: "No, the other one."

 

Jim: "The president's repeated violation of the law requiring him to submit a budget no later than the first Monday in February?"

 

Bob: "No, the other one."

 

Jim: "The 2012 vote where 115% of all registered voters in some counties voted 100% for Obama?"

 

Bob: "No, the other one."

 

Jim: "The State Department interfering with an Inspector General investigation on departmental sexual misconduct?"

 

Bob: "No, the other one."

 

Jim: "Clinton, the IRS, Clapper and Holder all lying to Congress?"

 

Bob: "No, the other  one."

 

Jim: "I give up! ... Oh wait, I think I got it! You mean that 65 million low-information voters who don't pay taxes and get free stuff from taxpayers and stuck us again with the most pandering, corrupt administration in American history?

 

Bob: "THAT'S THE ONE!"

 Sit back and imagine Barry was a white Republican. 

Just one glaring example of media bias.

Abu Ghraib - wall to wall coverage number killed zero.

Benghazi - no coverage (except FOX) number killed... four dead Americans. The MSM was only to happy to go along with the..."it was the video" bullshit.

Oh... and if Ft. Hood was workplace violence... then this statement:

“In the name of Almighty Allah, the most gracious and the most merciful, my name is Nidal Hasan, Major Nidal Hasan, and I would like to convey a message to the world,” runs more than six pages.

Hasan also says he regrets his years in the Army, claiming that his service was inconsistent with his religious beliefs. “I would like to begin by repenting to Almighty Allah and apologize to the (Mujahideen), the believers, and the innocent. I ask for their forgiveness and their prayers. I ask for their forgiveness for participating in the illegal and immoral aggression against Muslims, their religion and their lands,” he said.

  proves clearly Nadal Hasan is a closet Presbyterian.

What scandal?

WAPO editoral

To defend our democracy against Trump, the GOP must aim for a brokered convention

I prefer John Kasich myself. But wow...WAPO really hates Trump! According to them he's a Klan member, a fascist, and Nazi, all rolled into one. Of course they left out the part where some of these protesters are paid to disrupt his campaign rallys. 

Got to love this:

"A democrat disavows violence; a demagogue wields it as a threat."

You know, like… The 1968 Democratic National Convention 

---------------------------------------

DONALD TRUMP'S primary victories Tuesday present the Republican Party with a stark choice. Should leaders unite behind Mr. Trump, who has collected the most delegates but may reach the convention in July without a nominating majority? Or should they do everything they can to deny him the nomination? On a political level, this may be a dilemma. As a moral question, it is straightforward. The mission of any responsible Republican should be to block a Trump nomination and election.

We do not take this position because we believe Mr. Trump is perilously wrong on the issues, although he is. His proposed tariff on Chinese imports could spark a trade war and global depression. His proposed tax plan would bankrupt the government while enriching his fellow multimillionaires. But policy proposals, however ill-formed and destructive, are not the crux of the danger.

No, Mr. Trump must be stopped because he presents a threat to American democracy. Mr. Trump resembles other strongmen throughout history who have achieved power by manipulating democratic processes. Their playbook includes a casual embrace of violence; a willingness to wield government powers against personal enemies; contempt for a free press; demonization of anyone who is not white and Christian; intimations of dark conspiracies; and the propagation of sweeping, ugly lies. Mr. Trump has championed torture and the murder of innocent relatives of suspected terrorists. He has flirted with the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacists. He has libeled and stereotyped wide swaths of humanity, including Mexicans and Muslims. He considers himself exempt from the norms of democratic contests, such as the release of tax returns, policy papers, lists of advisers and other information that voters have a right to expect.

Does a respect for democracy require the Republican Party to anoint its leading vote-getter? Hardly. We are not advocating that rules be broken but that they be employed to maximum effect — to force a brokered convention and nominate a conservative candidate who respects the Constitution, or to defeat Mr. Trump in some other way. If Mr. Trump is attracting 40 percent of Republicans, who in turn represent about one-quarter of the country, that is a 10 percent slice of the population — hardly a mantle of legitimacy.

There are some Americans, Democrats in particular, who are happy to watch the Republican Party self-destruct with Mr. Trump at the helm. We cannot share in their equanimity. For one thing, though Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, would be heavily favored, a Trump defeat is far from sure. For another, the country needs two healthy parties and, ideally, a contest of ideas and ideology — not a slugfest of insults and bigotry. Mr. Trump's emergence already has done grave damage to American civility at home and prestige abroad. The cost of a Trump nomination would be far higher.

On Wednesday, Mr. Trump offered what was meant as an argument for his nomination. If he reaches the convention with a lead short of an outright majority, and then fails to win, "I think you'd have riots," Mr. Trump said. "I think you'd have problems like you've never seen before. I think bad things would happen."

A democrat disavows violence; a demagogue wields it as a threat. The Republican Party should recognize the difference and act on it before it is too late.

WAPO editoral

The Ground Zero Messiah

You be the judge.

This is what he initially said:

"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," Obama said, weighing in for the first time on a controversy that has riven New York City and the nation.

"That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

I guess you can't be more direct and straightforward then that.

 It's gratifying to know Obama's compassion and support for the ground zero mosque is shared by Hamas. 

But Wait...

Then he changed it to this:

"I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there," Obama said in revising and extending and eviscerating his remarks of the previous night. He had merely been commenting on freedom of religion.

In the article below the White House is trying to convince you Obama is not "backing off" his original statement. You see, his first statement was actually about how good the shrimp tacos are in lower Manhattan.

White House Says Politics Not a Factor in Decision to Enter Mosque Debate

The White House claimed Monday that politics were not at play in President Obama's decision to dive into the controversy over a planned mosque near Ground Zero, but the issue was quickly feeding fuel to Republicans looking to corner Democrats into taking a position on the issue.

White House spokesman Bill Burton said that he "can't speak to the politics of what the Republicans are doing," but the president was not looking to make political hay with his remarks, which he reportedly considered carefully before delivering them at a White House dinner on Friday night.

"The president didn't do this because of the politics. He spoke about it because he feels he has an obligation as the president to address this," Burton said.

The president stepped into the fray when he appeared to endorse the Park 51 mosque project during a Ramadan dinner at the White House. The next day, he clarified that he was merely commenting on fundamental religious freedoms -- and not specifically on the "wisdom" of the mosque project. Then Burton said Obama was not "backing off" his original remarks.

The prolonged presidential explanation has effectively elevated the issue beyond a local dispute and hurled it into the political arena. Republicans have both criticized his position and pressured other Democrats to take a stand on the politically sticky issue, one where charges of insensitivity have flown on both sides.

Democrats were mostly able to avoid the debate until the president spoke up.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee on Monday targeted Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., for not speaking out on the issue. Citing an article that said the normally chatty Schumer would not comment on the mosque remarks, the NRSC said Schumer should weigh in.

"It's a remarkable commentary on the most camera-friendly senator that he’s more than happy to weigh-in on caffeinated malt beverages, but he won’t take a public position on the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero," NRSC spokesman Brian Walsh said in a written statement.

"It's time for Chuck Schumer to stand up and be counted -- does he stand with President Obama in support of this mosque or does he stand with the countless 9/11 families who believe its location is inappropriate?" Walsh asked.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., who opposes the mosque project, said Monday that the White House softened Obama's original comments because it probably heard "pushback" from other Democrats. He said Obama was "clearly" taking a side on the issue no matter what he claims.

"Everyone says as far as I know that the Muslim community has the right to build a mosque. The whole question is whether they should or not," he told Fox News. "So for the president to raise it in the way he did on Friday was clearly giving the impression that he was endorsing it or supporting it -- or tacitly supporting it."

Most Americans think the group planning the mosque and Islamic cultural center has the right to build it, according to a Fox News poll released Friday. However, the poll showed that 64 percent think it would be wrong to build it, regardless of whether the developers are within their right to do so.

Supporters of the mosque and cultural center in lower Manhattan, including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, say its development should stand as a testament to religious tolerance in America. They say it would be a mistake to equate Islam as a whole, and its practice in the United States, with Al Qaeda -- and remind critics that Muslims were also killed in the attacks on the World Trade Center.

Burton said Monday that the president weighed in as part of a constitutional discussion.

"The president thinks that it's his obligation to speak out when ... issues of the Constitution arise. And so, in this case, he decided to state clearly how he feels about making sure that people are treated equally, that there is a fairness and that our bedrock principles are upheld," Burton said.

He added the administration can't control the conversation on cable TV or in newspapers, but the White House has had a "pretty fulsome conversation" about it and has addressed it to a "pretty full extent."

"I think that it's a debate that was had and we've weighed in," Burton said.

The Ground Zero Messiah