Comment: My thanks to Profs. Mankiw, Mansfield and Mutz for pointing out that anyone who questions free trade is a bigot, xenophobe and isolationist. I had thought that this heresy might spring from the life experience of Americans, unhappily not tenured at Ivy League schools, who have lost their jobs to trade or out-sourcing, or who have see their towns and cities devastated by these economic tsunamis, or who suspect that the benefits of unrestricted markets have bypassed them on the way to the 1%. Clearly, I was wrong. With so much else to worry about these days, I’m relieved that I no longer have to fret about these unwashed, unenlightened and uneducated losers who, in their ignorance and narrow-mindedness, deserve what they get. Unfortunately, as Mankiw points out, they have been left with nothing but their votes, and may get the last word.
Posted inEconomics|Comments Off on Is Anyone Who Opposes Free Trade A Bigot?
Over the weekend, I watched a couple of movies (My All-American and The Story of Darrell Royal) about University of Texas football coach Darrell Royal and was struck that all of his national championship teams were all-white.
By winning the 1963 national championship, Royal gained an enormous amount of prestige that he could have translated into bargaining power against anyone putting pressure on him to delay integration. He gained even more leverage in 1964 when the University of Oklahoma, his alma mater, recruited him to come home and become head coach. UT solidified Royal’s position in 1964 when it granted him tenureship, so he would not have risked his family’s financial security by going too fast on integration. Royal could also have used his position to pry open the doors of opportunity at UT by saying, “Either let me recruit the best qualified players regardless of race, or I’m going to OU.” An African-American finally played at UT only after Royal won another national championship in 1969 with an all-white team.
Remember, receiving a scholarship to play football at UT also meant winning an opportunity for an excellent education without paying tuition. Starting in 1964, Royal had the go-ahead to offer scholarships to blacks. How many did he give over the next nine seasons? Zero in 1964, 1965, 1966, and 1967. (He almost signed Mike Williams in 1967 but the deal fell through.) One in 1968, Leon O’Neal, who left after one year, and never played in a single game. One in 1969. One in 1970. Three in 1971. And in 1972 Royal did not sign a single black to a scholarship. E.A. Curry had walked on in 1967 but left after the 1968 season without ever getting a scholarship or playing in a varsity game. Nine years after the regents had approved integration, Royal had given just six football scholarships to blacks.
UT’s Little defends Royal’s foot-dragging as an act of compassion on behalf of prospective black players who might be set up for failure at lily-white UT. “Darrell’s concern was that he wanted someone who wouldn’t fail academically and who would fit into an environment that, let’s face it, was very vanilla,” he says.
But clearly, getting blacks on the teams was not a priority for Royal, or at least that’s what he told a reporter for Harper’s magazine in November of 1970. The Harper’s reporter asked Royal: “Is it important to you that you have Negro players on the team?” Royal replied, “No.” He told the story, “A bunch of Negro boys came to me a while ago and said I could solve all possible difficulties by hiring a black coach. Now that would be fine for them but I’ve got to look at the other side. I’d have a lot of white boys on the team coming to me saying they couldn’t play for a black coach. The family atmosphere of the team would be destroyed… Once the club harmony and spirit begin to deteriorate, I don’t care what kind of talent you have, you won’t win.” (Royal finally hired a black coach in 1971. UT still has not had a black head coach in any sport.)
Royal’s supporters claim there were two reasons he could not find any blacks to play on his team between 1963 and 1970: 1) High academic standards at UT and 2) blacks did not want to play for UT. As for the first excuse, Rice has higher admission standards than UT and it managed to find academically fit black athletes to play football before UT. LeVias excelled academically at SMU; he made the Dean’s List and won academic all-American honors each of his last three years. When he graduated in 1969, he received the prestigious “M” award given to 10 top seniors every year. Besides, UT had academically qualified black members on its track team as early as 1964.
As for the second excuse, a lot of blacks did not want to play at UT because Royal and UT had a reputation in the black community for being racist. While blacks at UT could not even get on the field in the 1960s, in other parts of the nation black athletes excelled on the gridiron. Three blacks won the Heisman Trophy at other schools before a single black ever played a down for UT: Ernie Davis of Syracuse in 1961, Mike Garrett of USC in 1965, and O.J. Simpson of USC in 1968.
Posted inBlacks, Football, Texas|Comments Off on Three Time National Champion Football Coach Darrell Royal Was No Leader On Racial Integration
Few escape petty hypocrisy when preaching the universal gospel of borderlessness. In 2011, open-borders advocate Antonio Villaraigosa became the first mayor in Los Angeles history to build a wall around the official mayoral residence. His un-walled neighbors objected, first, that there was no need for such a barricade and, second, that it violated a city ordinance prohibiting residential walls higher than four feet. But Villaraigosa apparently wished to emphasize the difference between his home and the street, or was worried about security, or saw a new wall as iconic of his exalted office.
While elites can build walls to insulate themselves, the consequences of their policies fall heavily on the nonelites who lack the money and influence to navigate around them. The contrast between the two groups — Peggy Noonan described them as the “protected” and the “unprotected” — was dramatized in the presidential campaign of Jeb Bush. When the former Florida governor called illegal immigration from Mexico “an act of love,” his candidacy was doomed. It seemed that Bush had the capital to pick and choose how the consequences of his ideas fell upon himself and his family — in a way impossible for most of those living in the southwestern United States.
Posted inNationalism|Comments Off on LAT: Why borders matter — and a borderless world is a fantasy
Steve Sailer writes: “Sometimes Krugman’s lack of sophistication has kind of a Trump-like little boy in Emperor’s New Clothes quality to it. I remember one of his columns about a decade ago about how he liked growing up in a middle class suburb on Long Island and why can’t we go back to that kind of America? Somebody must have gotten it through to him that because of Diversity and Immigration, he can’t go there, he just c-a-n-’-t.”
Comments at Steve Sailer:
* What is a nation? According to google it’s “a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.” I didn’t definition-shop, but I would argue the part about “particular country or territory” is weaker than the first part. A distributed people is often referred to as a nation e.g. Elijah Muhammad’s “Nation of Islam”. Or since I’d suppose Krugman is Jewish, that diaspora.
So yeah it’s OK to be loyal to your tribe. What’s the better patriotism — protecting your people, or protecting a specific area of dirt? They are both important, but to me the idealistic view of patriotism has more to do with the people than the land.
It’s hard for me to believe Krugman is missing this out of ignorance. He’s got an agenda and can’t think of good arguments for it, so he uses bad ones.
* He was right that Bush would be a disaster of a president and that the Iraq War would also be a disaster. He noted, before the war started, that it was exactly what Al Qaeda wanted us to do, and that Bush’s estimates for the war’s cost were absurdly low.
And “his brainy technical specialties” is a pretty broad area. He was right, in advance, that the Euro would be a disaster, and he was right for the right reasons: monetary union without fiscal union and labor mobility (like we have in the USA) does not work.
He was also correct that the monetary policy of 2008-2011 of greatly increasing the monetary supply and fiscal deficit would not lead to high interest rates or inflation, which was very widely predicted and is the normal result of such policies.
He has studied Japan’s economy closely and is notable for being someone who writes on the topic without advocating Japan engage in mass immigration, very much contrary to the global elite and how The Economics, Foreign Affairs, etc. cover it. He also defends Japan’s economic performance by noting that it is not too bad if you adjust for the fact its working age population is declining.
* Steve cannot really comment on this because he honors his old confidentiality agreement, but I think he said a long time ago that Krugman was on his old HBD listserv.
I wonder if Krugman, who lacks social graces, got into some heated disagreements with Steve who still has a mild grudge over it. I also think after reading him for years that Krugman is not an IQ egalitarian but feels conflicted but its implications.
* Looks like K-thug is just flat out engaging in psychological projection of his own belief system. Amazing how he could be so blind to it as to publish it in a major news outlet, but such is the state of modern day American MSM. And to wag his finger at white Christians who are probably the group in the US showing the least tendency to act “for their tribe” while his own shows the most. Loved how he tried to put the ‘us’ in there, to try and fool anyone who might be reading into thinking he was a ‘white Christian’. Lotta work, this guy.
* According to the new narrative to be a patriot one must be an adherent of globalism, which is essentially supporting global government. I don’t think it will be too long before these tough guy acts will be using the words “global security” instead of “national security” to argue for conflict somewhere.
* From my perspective, I don’t care if Muslims feel alienated. I want them to assimilate or leave.
* The left has been going on like this for decades: “The only true patriot is the one who wants to dismantle his country and turn it into something completely different.”
* The thing is, the entire profession of elite academic economics, the Federal Reserve, and the financing of the Democratic Party are virtual Tribal monopolies at this point. None of this bothers Paul Krugman. I wonder why?
* Devotion and support for one’s country would make one desire less, not more foreigners to come on board, particularly those who massively change the fabric of the country itself, and want to turn it into New Mecca, or New Aztlán. Not to mention the crime, disease, violence, loss of social capital they bring or cause, or how adding more people who are ‘on the public dole’ brings us down.
What is the ‘celebration of diversity’, but just a round about way of saying less whites? Whites built this country. “Treasonous white nationals”? It would be like saying the Japanese are committing treason by not importing millions upon millions of African guest workers to become Japanese citizens, and take over Japan. As usual, you completely flip reality on its head.
“We progressives love America enough to point out the ways in which she is failing People of Color and to try for positive change, while the Republicans stand that premise on it’s head and claim that it “those people” who are failing America.”
– Why should the goal be how it ‘fails people of color”? Are people of color the majority of Americans? If we’re talking ‘love and devotion to one’s country’ (i.e. patriotism), then why do we give two sh*ts about doing more for a million illegal Guatemalans here? “People of Color” are the ones who are failing America. They commit more crime, they take more public assistance in net than they contribute, they are more likely to engage in politics that rip the country apart. Not to mention how an increasing percentage of them are in groups that literally want to make America into New Mecca, or New Aztlán. How is it ‘positive change’ to take away from the descendants of those who built the country, those who contribute the most still, and give it to those who take away from the country and who literally seek to make it into an extension of their homeland?
* I actually think Krugman gets it, in some flawed way (and with an unwillingness to do the electoral math), in a way that Mrs. Clinton and most of the Democratic mainstream does not.
This election is about identity and interests, not ideology and principles. Krugman may be unhappy that White America has returned to seeing itself as a nation worthy of inhabiting and preserving it’s own nation-state, but I’ll give him credit for figuring it out.
Of course, Trump also gets it, and has done the electoral math, and has no moral qualms with the idea of an American nation-state, which is why he stands a good chance of being the next President, and all Krugman gets is a column in the NYTimes op-ed page.
* Was it just his [part black, part white, part Indian] wife?
Pretty much.
The change tracks closely to the time of marriage, and she’s a radical feminist who “helps” him write his Times articles.
We’re the dog that Krugman kicks after his wife kicks him.
* If nothing else, the Trump candidacy has been a stalking horse outing the pseudo-conservatives in the Republican party as well as the anti-white elements on the left. He is yelling Little Marco, and everyone else has to yell Polo. The people are not realigning so much as the parties are. But there are a number of impostors who would have preferred to remain where they were, well hidden and well employed behind enemy lines.
* Steve — There is a Krugman blog post from 2013 where he reminisces about the way that public expression of racism became “utterly taboo” in his old neighborhood. I find really interesting; maybe you could do something with it? Here is the key paragraph:
“And while it didn’t literally happen overnight, it did happen fast. My personal memory: I grew up on Long Island in the 60s, and at the time many of the fancier houses (split-level ranches!) had little statues of coachmen in front. In my memory, at least, there was one summer — maybe 1965? — when, suddenly, everyone had the faces on their coachmen repainted; all of a sudden they were white. The message had gotten through: pretending that you were living in antebellum Tara was not OK.”
I find it kind of hard to reconcile assertions that America is a racist society with the fact that it’s been 50 years since it’s been possible for respectable members of society to risk the appearance of racism.
* Did anyone notice how Tim Kaine repeated a phrase at the convention: “Faith, Family and Work” — a translation of the Vichy France slogan “Travail, Famille, Patrie”?
Someone call the ADL.
* Krugman telling white Americans they should get over being dispossessed from the patrimony their forefathers built is like Mark Zuckerberg telling kids who lost their house in a fire they shouldn’t be so materialistic, it’s only stuff. Before slamming shut the door to his 50k square foot mansion. He shouldn’t be surprised to find one of them in his garage, playing with matches.
It’s easy for Jews to lecture whites – they’ve already got their homeland.
* It’s pretty clear that Israel is the only nation that David Brooks feels patriotic about:
Having acknowledged that, I nevertheless understand the complaints of those readers who are bothered by something they have recently learned about David Brooks: his son is a member of the Israel Defense Forces. In a recent Hebrew-language interview in Haaretz magazine, Mr. Brooks was asked about his worries as a father. The article noted that the columnist’s “connection to Israel was always strong.” It continued:
“He has visited Israel almost every year since 1991, and over the past months the connection has grown even stronger, after his oldest son, aged 23, decided to join the Israel Defense Forces as a ‘lone soldier.’ ” (The reference is to a soldier whose family is not living in Israel.)
Mr. Brooks described the situation as “worrying.” He added: “But every Israeli parent understands this is what the circumstances require. Beyond that, I think children need to take risks after they leave university, and that they need to do something difficult that involves going beyond their personal limits. Serving in the I.D.F. embodies all of these elements. I couldn’t advise others to do it without acknowledging it’s true for my own family.’”
As far as I’m concerned, serving in a foreign military is an act of treason, and David Brooks’ son should be stripped of his American citizenship.
* Interesting to note how touchy John Podhoretz is about people noticing that David Brooks’ son serves in the IDF:
John Podhoretz @jpodhoretz 8 Oct 2014
Everybody who thinks David Brooks has to “reveal” his son, who’s 23, has joined the Israeli army can go f[***]himself.
Will Stokes @William_Stokes 8 Oct 2014
@jpodhoretz not trying to be antagonist. Don’t you think having your son in a military would at least unconsciously effect your beliefs?
John Podhoretz @jpodhoretz 8 Oct 2014
@William_Stokes his son is an adult and it’s nobody’s fu[***** business. And he’s a writer, not a politician. It’s naked anti-Semitism.
Will Stokes @William_Stokes 8 Oct 2014
@jpodhoretz for me, if someone was a writing a piece on Afghanistan and Iraq and had a son serving there, I’d want to know.
John PodhoretzVerified account
@jpodhoretz
@William_Stokes it’s none of your business. NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
* Krugman the loony lefty likes just about the only openly Republican hair band while Trump favors globalist gay boy piano man. Opposites can admire each other I suppose.
I think Krugman’s piece about Republicans serving the tribe is just another example of Steve’s conjecture that Jewish intellectuals tend to project Jewish intramural conflicts onto the gentile world. I can’t imagine any of Krugman’s relations being happy that he married a schvartze, lopping off a branch of his own family tree and in effect refusing to serve his own tribe.
* I have taught my children that whenever you read something by someone who’s promoting something decidedly disastrous for our people, something counter-intuitive turning nature inside-out and upside down, just google their name and add “Jew”. 9 times out of 10 it’s a Jew. I call it Jew bingo.
My eldest came home one day and said “You know how you said to google someone’s name and add Jew whenever you read something nasty and anti-White? Well, I did it all day and guess what? You were right!” It was a great moment in family bonding.
That night we went through the history of feminism and the bingos were going off like you wouldn’t believe. If I can turn this into a board game I reckon I could retire on it.
* I do think it is odd that any American citizen would serve in another nation’s army. I would consider that grounds for forfeiting citizenship. (I think some of those early 20th Century idealists were willing to do so, and/or otherwise break the law.) However, the SCOTUS determined in 1967 that service in a foreign army is not incompatible with citizenship, and that definitely creates a gray area in the War on Terror where we do not have any clearcut national entity that we have declared war on. (Supposedly you forfeit citizenship if you serve in the army of a nation we are at war with.)
The problem with making these kinds of exceptions, even when your heart is in the right place, is that you open the door to dual citizenship of all kinds. I object to this. Right now, apparently, there are millions of American citizens in the Southwest who also have Mexican citizenship (because Mexicans who become American citizenship do not lose their Mexican citizenship). I think that is insane.
I think holding David Brooks’ son to account for serving in the IDF rather than the armed services of the United States is valid, and not anti-semitic, because the US is de facto at war (something not applicable in your contrary examples) and thus failure to serve, but to serve a foreign country, suggests that the loyalties of Brooks’ son lie more with Israel with the United States. I wouldn’t call it treason but I wouldn’t mind having Brooks, Jr. called to account.
For all that, the sins of the son should not be visited on the father, either.
* The thing that gets me most about how Democrats are all in a dither over Russia is just how petty and immature their attitude toward Russia is, given that it is still by far the most fearsome nuclear power in the world, ourselves excepted.
We’re supposed to worry about Trump bringing us to nuclear war when Obama and Hillary did just about everything they could to gin up tensions with Russia? And over what, for God’s sake? Because Russia made Obama look weak and rather stupid in his idiot program to oppose Assad (which program, rather embarrassingly, enabled the rise of ISIS)? Because Russia and the Ukraine (a former republic in the Soviet Union)– were trying to smack each other around over territory? Because Russia gave the gay rights movement, for Christ’s sake, some disrespect?
I’m sure Obama’s feelings, the feelings of a black man, were hurt, and Hillary’s feelings, the feelings of a woman, were hurt as well, and those are some very important feelings. But are those feelings of such awesome significance that we should be antagonizing the one power in the world that could actually blow us to kingdom come if it had a desire to?
Again, is there anything more petty, more childish, or more foolhardy than the Democrats’ attitude toward Russia?
Posted inAmerica, Jews|Comments Off on Paul Krugman: The GOP’s National Security Stance “Serves the Tribe”
Compare this with what Trump actually said in his response:
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.
What honest reporter can describe that statement as Trump saying the man has “‘no right’ to criticize me”? Trump is saying that the man was saying something false about him, and had no right to do so; how is that possibly equivalent to Trump saying that the man in general had no right to criticize him?
These reporters are just disgusting. They lie and distort worse than the politicians.
* Mr. Kahn’s son was killed by Muslims in one of Hillary’s wars. Why is he mad because Trump doesn’t want to let the people who killed his son into the country?
* More Muslims would be alive today if Trump had been President from 2000-2008. I am glad Trump’s not backing down. Mr. Khan’s tribe discovers niceties like the Constitution and secular living only when it is in the minority.
As for the media freakout, Kate Steinle’s parents were invisible to the MSM ponces.
* So you have 14 out of around 6,000 American military combat deaths since 2001 or around 0.23% of American combat deaths vs. around a 0.9% overall Muslim population. So they are underrepresented by a factor of almost 4x. But they are nevertheless the Gold Star parents Hillary chose to bring on stage. Just more Coalition of the Fringes – they live in their own reality and facts and statistics mean nothing to them. And these folks are the posterboys – I can only imagine what some of the others were like. I wish I had the audition tapes where the other 13 sets of parents would get upset and shout Kill Bush or whatever.
* Two US Muslims, Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez and Major Nidal Hasan killed more US soldiers (18) than US Muslims soldiers died in the WoT (14).
* Remember Dyan’s advice for guaranteed military victory……always fight Arabs.
* Inviting Muslims into your country is like playing a game of Russian roulette with your country. Yes, most of the chambers are empty but if something does go wrong the consequences are disastrous. The standard leftist drivel is, “Well, most Muslims aren’t terrorists, most Muslims aren’t suicide bombers. ” Would Liberals let their children play Russian roulette knowing that most of the chambers are empty and therefore harmless? No, of course they wouldn’t. So the effect of Muslim immigration is that you are no better off or dead. Cost-benefit analysis says keep Muslims out.
Remember legal Muslim immigration is why we have a huge surveillance state; it is why we have been on a perpetual war footing since 9/11; and why the nations of Western Europe seem to suffer a terrorist attack each week now.
* I’m confused. I thought the Left officially gave up on patriotism. The more patriotic people feel, the less likely they are to vote Dem. And celebrating soldiers of today’s army is patriotic, no matter how weak it has become.
What gives?
* I must have missed this guy at the DNC, what with all the other memorable speakers (transgender, illegal immigrants, little people, mentally handicapped…). Hey, did you know that the white house was built by slaves? Tolerance!
* Will someone, please, help us American voters understand why the DNC didn’t seek out Nidal Hasan’s dear old mama & papa to speak Convention Invective to White Supremacist Power?
* The analysis I’d really like to see is whether a Muslim in the western world is more likely to become a soldier for their host nation or a soldier for ISIS.
* “Global empire would not be so costly if we weren’t actively dispossessing the Palestinans from their homeland.”
Why don’t we get terrorist attacks from Tibetans? After all China is occupying their land and using an ethnic cleansing strategy to displace the native Tibetans with Han Chinese. In addition they have killed over a million Tibetans.
Why don’t we get terrorist attacks from Papuans. After all Indonesia is occupying their land and using an ethnic cleansing strategy known as Transmigrasi to displace the native Papuans with Indonesians. In addition they have killed over half a million Papuans.
To put this in perspective, Israel has killed 22,000 Palestinians since the conflict in 1967 to the present day. China has killed 1 million Tibetans since occupation in 1951 until today. Indonesia has killed 500,000 million Papuans since the occupation began in 1963 until today. China has been occupying Tibet longer and has done 40X the killing Israel has. Indonesia has been occupying Papua longer and has done 20X the killing Israel has.
* The logic is simple: If a single American Muslim dies fighting foreign Muslims, the only solution is more Muslims. If the Arab Spring has shown us anything, it’s that there is a genuine grassroots love of democracy in the Muslim world. There are millions and millions of future patriots in the Middle East, tossing and turning at night as they dream of a shining city on a hill. Many of them are brassy, outspoken feminists like Mrs. Khan.
* I feel sorry for the guy whose son died in the armed services.
However, the father is the one who took his son’s sacrifice and tried to make a political issue out of it. Therefore, he deserves to be treated as someone who turned his son into a political football, not as a grieving parent.
Some Muslim who dies in the armed services doesn’t validate anything. It doesn’t validate open door Muslim immigration, it doesn’t validate Hillary, it doesn’t validate “Religion of Peace”, and it doesn’t validate hating Trump.
It would be no different than if the father of some generic white kid killed by an IED appeared in Cleveland to talk about how all Muslims are evil, or of the mother of one of the cops murdered in Austin showed up and talked about how all blacks are evil. That would rightly be condemned as fomenting racist hatred. In this case, we are promoting a kind of racist virtue.
Both arguments are illogical and should be condemned by anyone who is rational.
* To continue your point, one could argue that more racists have fought and died for the USA than any particular minority group. Racists helped to found this nation and contributed mightily to its founding documents and its war of independence. I am sure they landed on Normandy Beach, helped to liberate the camps and are quietly serving to this day.
Yet you won’t hear the democrats or the republicans making the case that racists should be openly welcomed in society. Rather, anyone accused of being a racist is subject to social shunning and a loss of status and employment.
* Trump could have easily responded by saying:
1. It is sad that this man’s son died in a war Hillary started.
2. It is ghoulish for Hillary to exploit a tragedy she helped bring about.
3. Let’s learn a lesson from this man’s tragedy and stop Hillary from bringing his son’s killers to this country to kill more sons.
Its easy really. You don’t attack a victim, because he’s not the enemy. You attack the perpetrators of the tragedy and show how your policies will help.
* A single anecdote doesn’t prove anything, but large numbers of anecdotes pointing in the same direction does make for a stronger case.
You’re correct- a lone Muslim soldier proves nothing, and certainly doesn’t justify opening the gates and letting in all Muslims.
That being said, thousands of Westerners getting raped or murdered by Muslims, and millions of immigrants biting the hand that feeds them, does make a pretty good case about whether or not we should allow them into our country.
* … there’s difference about being prudent in your conduct because of data reinforced stereotypes about certain groups of people, as opposed to claiming authority because you lost a loved one and/or are a “survivor” of something or other.
But we take it for granted these days that someone who is titularly black, or gay, or what have you has a special insight, a special wisdom, and special authority to lecture the rest of us on what it means to be black. Just as we take it for granted that anyone who is a survivor of sexual assault is automatically an authority on sexual ethics.
To see how ludicrous this is, imagine a white guy or a white woman who is a documented “survivor of black crime” speaking at a convention to lecture everyone about black people. See what I mean? #BlackCrimeSurvivor — yeah, that’s a hashtag with a future.
* Khan kerfuffle blowing up even more. I hate to say it but all the other Republicans really are cucks. My only hope is that the public was really thinking what Trump voiced out loud and is not as fake-insulted as the press and the cucks pretend to be.
* If Trump defends himself from the attacks of this father, and declares that what the father had said about him, Trump, was false, how does that constitute “continuing an attack” on him, or, as you put it, “taking a swipe” at him?
* Why did these people come to America? More importantly, why do we allow people like them to come here? Is our population collapsing? Not that it’s a good idea, but at least it’s possible to understand the misguided justification of allowing immigrants to come from south of the border to do the work Americans won’t do (for extremely low wages). But, why the hell do we need people from halfway around the world?
* In some ways, I just wonder how the public can possibly take these faux outrages seriously, at this point in the election cycle, when the media seems to invent every single day a new thing they can attack him with.
There does come a point at which the daily gotcha just doesn’t do anything anymore, and at which the public starts to lose any remaining respect they had for the media.
The media really doesn’t seem to understand that they can lose this battle themselves by trying way too hard to bring Trump down. They have their own credibility at stake, but don’t seem to realize it.
And they will never bring Trump down if they have no credibility.
* It seems to me this family should be more upset that establishment politicians, not Trump, sent their son to die in a stupid war.
And while the Constitution prohibits treating Muslims as second class citizens, it does not prohibit restricting Muslim immigration.
That said, I’m very sorry for their loss.
* Lots of people were already secretly wondering about why Mrs. Khan just stood there, didn’t even say one word about her son. Why go up to the podium if she wasn’t going to say anything? Just to be seen in a hijab?
I watched it live and thought it was weird. I thought it was bad optics for the Hillary campaign and that the weirdness of it undermined the intended “Muslims are patriotic too” point.
I was glad Trump noted she didn’t speak. No one else in the media said anything about it, although it was legitimately bizarre.
* Impossible for the Republicans to control the media narrative, wikileaks merely confirmed what we all knew already about them taking their orders from the left. They still claim Trump mocked a disabled reporter for being disabled when he was mocking the reporter for lying and confusing the issue around his story after 9/11 of people in NJ celebrating the attack. Flailing his arms around to impersonate confusion and dissembling. The only reason Trump is still going to win is the media is completely distrusted and disliked and that the internet exists.
Of course, that said, Trump should have counter attacked better.
* Khan said to Trump. “I will gladly lend you my copy [of the Constitution]. In this document, look for the words ‘liberty’ and ‘equal protection of law.’
You will also find references to slavery, which was then legal. The Constitution was not the naive, Kumbaya, “Give me your wretched refuse” style of document we would purport it to be – and as leftists are thrilled to remind us, when they’re talking down about America’s racist past. They also love to talk about the immigration law that restricted naturalization to free white people, passed within a decade of the Constitution’s ratification, and the Chinese Exclusion Act, passed by the generation that freed the slaves.
When they talk about immigration, though, they pretend that racist past didn’t exist, and that of course mass immigration by anyone, from anywhere was exactly what the Founders had in mind.
Posted inAmerica, Donald Trump, Islam|Comments Off on Steve Sailer: Invade the World / Invite the World in a Nutshell: The Khizr Khan Kherfuffle
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
