People who watched the Democratic National Convention were no doubt moved after the speech by the Khan family, who lost a son fighting in Afghanistan. They are Muslims. I suppose one of the reasons that they were asked to appear was to bridge the gap between Muslim Americans and others, demonstrating that we are all patriotic Americans.
Donald Trump, of course, has been in the forefront of anti-Muslim rhetoric and this story of unity does not sit well with his own theme of fear peddling against Muslims, so characteristically he said something bigoted, suggesting that Mrs. Khan didn’t speak because as a Muslim she wasn’t allowed to. It’s not true, of course, evidenced by the fact that Mrs. Khan spoke in other venues about her son. Trump could have found that out before making his cruel remark, but that’s not his style.
That would have been the end of the story, and none of this would have appeared on this blog, except that the story didn’t end at that, but turned birther. The progressive web site Think Progress reports that Trump veteran affairs adviser Al Baldasaro tweeted:
Read the truth about your hero, Mr Khan who used his son as Political Pawn.
And that tweet linked to a web site, but more about that later. First, who is Al Baldasaro?
Al Baldasaro has comfortably sat on my Birthers from A to Z list since the election challenges in 2012 when New Hampshire representative Baldasaro took part in a ballot challenge, supporting no less than Orly Taitz in her claim that Obama was not eligible to be president.
Now for that link Baldasaro tweeted. It goes to a page at shoebat.com with a headline that claims Mr. Khan is an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood. The only evidence that is presented to support that claim is that Mr. Khan once lived in the United Arab Emirates. By that logic, I guess Donald Trump is also a member of the Muslim Brotherhood by virtue of his UAE business partners.
The site also claims that attorney Khan is trying to promote Sharia law in the United States because he has written scholarly articles about it. I suppose that every Christian who writes about Mosaic law is trying to bring back stoning for adultery, according to that logic.
The shoebat.com article was written in part by Walid Shoebat. Shoebat claims to be a former Islamic terrorist, converted to Christianity, who is an expert on terrorism. A CNN investigation found problems in the frequent right-wing commentator’s claim that he had ever been a terrorist. In any case, he is a birther as I documented in my article from 2011.
So it’s the three birthers, doing what birthers do: slandering the innocent.
H/t: Justlw.
Our host, Dr. C., writes in the article:
“Shoebat claims to be a former Islamic terrorist, converted to Christianity, who is an expert on terrorism. A CNN investigation found problems in the frequent right-wing commentator’s claim that he had ever been a terrorist. In any case, he is a birther as I documented in my article from 2011.”
It sounds over-the-top. To distract from the fact that he was a birther, he falsely claims to have been a terrorist.
I have openly complained in the past that the excrement disgorged by the birther community (which would be unlawful in France or Germany) would eventually inflict real harm upon your country if left unchecked.
I hope I’m ultimately proven wrong of course, but right now, it’s pretty scary.
Worst team of touring operatic soloists EVER!
More attacks on Donald Trump from a liberal media. Trump just has to wait about less than 2 months before he will put Hillary Clinton out of her misery come the start of the Debates in the end of September.
Trolling again.
You are so right, john. The liberal media FORCED him to attack the Khans. They forced him to take money from shady Russkies. They forced him to be presidential and attack Fire Marshals. It’s all their fault, because Trump is absolutely 100% perfect in every way, without flaws.
The odds are Trump will duck the debates because he wants to watch football instead.
Rachel Madow spent quite a bit of time last night pushing the idea that Trump will find some excuse to duck the debates. She asked if the Clinton’s still had their “Chicken George” suits.
Shoebat makes his living speaking to groups, writing books and going on TV to scare people about Muslims.
The polls from now are unlikely to change much before October. So the debates will likely be his only shot to change the dynamics-a long shot, but the only one he has. So having them is more in his interest than hers.
Reminds me of the opera, “The Birthers.” It was one of my favorite articles.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/sketches-from-the-birthers/
That kind of “excrement” already has: there are multiple instances in our history where racism and other forms of xenophobia have led us to do harmful and shameful things. As it has in other countries.
But I have doubts about the effectiveness of regulating speech in getting rid of the xenophobia. Will it just drive it underground, only to surprise us when the hidden xenophobes resort to violence, instead? Or is it better to have it out in the open, where it’s subject to public discouragement through reasoned refutation and/or mockery?
Each approach has its advantages and drawbacks. The American attitude has generally been that government regulation of speech has a greater risk of harmful abuse (and we have a few examples in our own history where deviation from that principle has not gone well).
Dreaming is good. The current polls indicate Trump will lose and lose big time, though.
Not necessarily: Maddow also rep0orted the results of a poll Gallup does after the conventions each presidential election year, asking whether the conventions made the public more, or less, likely to vote for the nominee. Usually, both candidates see a slight net positive (on the order of 2-5%). I think she said Clinton got a +3 this year.
Trump’s was not only the first net negative, it was -15!
She argued that not only does Trump do poorly in debates when he can’t turn them into insult- and distraction-fests, but that trying to present his “case” to the general electorate is bad for him.
I’ve been whacking the Trumpkins for months with the fact that the very tactics that boosted his support among his base (mainly pushing doom, gloom, and paranoia) have alienated the people he need to win over to win the election. Some of that has shown up in how he polls with demographic groups, but now it’s showing up as a lack of appeal of his policies and worldview to the electorate as a whole.
The Trump campaign is trying to eliminate those debates, and it’s not yet clear whether they’ll accept having them rescheduled for October.
Perhaps instead of a “Chicken George” suit, they could do a “Donald Duck.”
If his intention is to get elected, then yes, a debate may be his only chance; however, if his goal is to simply stoke his ego, a humiliating defeat in the debates is not in his interest.
Madow made the point that the debate schedule was published a year ago, but only now is Trump objecting to two of the three dates.
I agree the debates are more likely to hurt Trump than help him. But suppose, as is quite possible, he’s down 10 or 12 points in late September. They’re his only shot to turn things around. He’d be a fool to duck them (which means he probably will).
The wild-card is Gary Johnson. He’s likeable and the debates would likely help him. If Trump ducks, would they hold one between Hillary and Johnson, leaving an empty chair for Trump? I don’t know.
Actually it was published on 9/23/15, and and the NFL schedule was released just 3 1/2 months ago.
In 2012 the final debate between Obama and Romney was up against both Monday Night Football and Game 7 of the National League Championship Series.
One can hake the point that Trump, like any parent, would want to know the person who has a desire to date his daughters and join the trump family of friends.
Why is it so different for Trump when he wants to know about suspicious persons who have a desire to join the American family ?
What an amazing night that was. I’ll never forget how Obama shut out Romney 9-0 in the debate, and then stood, looking up into the pouring rain with his arms outstretched, soaking up the glorious victory.
Or was that Giants second baseman Marco Scutaro who did that? All I can say is, I wasn’t watching football that night.
The rule is that Johnson has to be polling at 15% or better to be invited to the debates. I don’t know if they would waive the rule if Trump bows out. Right now Johnson is polling around 8%.
Look up “slander.” It’s in the dictionary.
Doc: “So it’s the three birthers, doing what birthers do: slandering the innocent.”
—-
I think you need to add Roger Stone (who tweeted: “Mr. Khan more than an aggrieved father of a Muslim son- he’s Muslim Brotherhood agent helping Hillary (citing shoebat)).
In March 2011, when Stone was running a “Draft Trump” effort, he explained why Trump should embrace birtherism:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2011/03/trumps-birther-play-034546
There already are extensive checks for people who want to immigrate or become citizens. What Trump wants to do is ban entire categories of people on a blanket basis.
As far as dating and daughters, Trump has said (more or less) that he wants to date his daughter.
Trump could start shooting people in Central Park. He said that would make his numbers go up.
We already have regulations in place that screen out potential troublemakers and criminals. But it’s more nuanced than “turn away everyone of this religion / ethnic group”.
Birther Vallely is also attacking the Khan family.
And, of course, Rondeau does her thing regarding the Khans.
Well, technically, I think he only said it wouldn’t make them go down.
But maybe it would act as an outlet for his anger that would reduce his compulsion to tweet stupid stuff 😉
Thanks for the correction. Actual quote:
“I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters.” – Donald Trump.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-news/watch/trump-i-could-shoot-somebody-wouldn-t-lose-voters-607788099619
And then there were four:
And Now, Corey Lewandowski Is Reviving Trump’s Birther Claims on CNN
As much as some people like to complain about a liberal bias at CNN, I think CNN actually tries too hard to not be biased, employing the likes of Lewandowski.
It would appear that there’s a less-than-arm’s-length relationship between CNN head Jeff Zucker and Donald Trump.
Well if the racist tropes he’s been relying on had been repressed earlier arguably we wouldn’t be in the situation of running the risk of Trump being elected; but as i said I do have faith in the American people and hope that he’ll find himself relegated to his natural base in the general election.
In any event my sole point was: that stuff that we here often look at as fringe speech and openly mock (“gerbil report” etc) can turn out to have nefarious consequences in the greater world at large.
How long until Trump invokes the “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”?
If it were about Muslims, we’d gave already seen it.
Agreed. Same stinking b*llsh*t. Their assault on the Khan family begs for a defamation suit. I am not familiar with your libel laws, however, so perhaps I’m wrong.
Lupin, as a non expert on libel law who has nevertheless studied the subject academically, I would say that the Khan family might have a go at it. One quuestion arises: Is the senior Khan now a public figure because he spoke out on a public issue at the DNC? If so, it makes it harder for him to win a libel suit. The landmark Supreme Court case on libel law is NY Times v Sullivan. That 1964 case requires that for a public official or public figure to win a libel suit, he must show that a defamatory falsehood was publishef about him with actual malice. The legal definition of actual malice established by this case is that the defamatory falsehood was published with knowledge that it was false, or with reckless disregard as to whether it was false or not. (Lawyers, have I stated this accurately?)
Just my horseback opinion, but I think that Ted Cruz’s father has an even better case for libel, regarding his alleged association with Lee Harvey Oswald. The Nation Enquirer, of course, would be the defendant. But I would love to see Trump subpoenaed as a witness, to be grilled about whether he actually believed the Enquirer, or whether he just said what he did to indirectly malign a political rival.
BTW, although a president is, as a practical matter libel proof, because he can’t spare the time and other resources to pursue a libel action, a presidential candidate, or former candidate, isn’t. Barry Goldwater proved that in winning a libel lawsuit against a rag that ran an article in fall 1964 purporting to show that he was, to use a layman’s term, nuts.
Perhaps against Shoebat. BTW, the other Shoebat author of that story is a self-identified fascist.
Doesn’t a libel suit also have to cause demonstrable harm to a person? I mean something beyond just hurting their feelings. Like hurting their reputation which could cause a loss of income? Most people seem to be very supportive of the Khans.
This is not necessarily true. Some kinds of libel are considered so harmful on their face that damages need not be proven. See “libel per se.” I do not think that anyone would disagree that calling someone an agent of a terrorist organization qualifies as liber per se. Mr. Khan is an attorney, by the way.
Here comes Trump again through his former campaign manager Corey L. challenging Obama’s citizenship because Obama’s unreleased harvard Transcripts would be the definitive proof of citizenship, i gather. Article in Politico.
http://tinyurl.com/zuv6r2y
The Lewandowski outbreak brings to mind Dr. Carson’s attack of the bitters, I don’t know how long ago, where after some particularly stinging defeat he went into a passive-aggressive lament about how Obama has gotten away with (random list of fringe-y conspiracy theories).
It reminds you that this sort of thinking remains just under the surface with lots of these folks. They will never let it go.
It’s true, and it leads me to have mixed feelings about seeing birtherism raised in the campaign.
I think we’re foolish if we assume that a public airing of the issue will result in a definitive rebuke to the birthers. We know what arguments they’ll make, and we know how to refute them. But to a largely uninformed audience listening to sound bites, I’m afraid it will register as “see that, it’s still under dispute. Why not release the documents? What is he hiding”
But it will be worth it to me if Trump can be nailed on his lies concerning his “investigation” and why he came to the conclusions that he expressed at the time.
The thing is, it does seem to be hurting the Khans reputation. About 40 or so percent of the electorate seems to support Trump at the moment and as best I can tell, they tend to go after anyone who speaks ill of him with everything they’ve got. Unfortunately, a lot of the lies that are out there have a way of becoming accepted as true just through sheer repetition. John Kerry was not a war hero; he was a coward. Trayvon Martin was not just walking home minding his own business; he was a burglar. Planned Parenthood sells baby parts. There was a stand-down order in Benghazi.
None of those things are true but a significant percentage of the population thinks they are because they hear Hannity or Fox and Friends or Breitbart or Drudge say it.
Sort of like how the SEC is the best college football conference in the country because ESPN says it over and over.
The web site for Khan’s law practice is off line now. The RWNJ’s saw it’s because he was doing something illegal, but it’s more likely because of the harassment he’s receiving.
Assuming it was feasible, if I was Mr Khan I’d go after each and every of these jackals.
FWIW under our (France’s) legal system, one could invoke the penal code and let the public prosecutor do the legal heavy lifting (as long as he agreed to file charges) while being represent in court as “partie civile”. However the fines and money to be collected would probably only be in the thousands, nothing comparable to the amounts at stake in your lawsuits.
Nice piece in Washington Post, written by the retired U.S. Army major general who was Capt. Humayun Khan’s combat brigade commander:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-was-capt-khans-commander-in-iraq-the-khan-family-is-our-family/2016/08/03/9a4c0e4e-598f-11e6-9aee-8075993d73a2_story.html
I wish he would.
While I guess it seems kind of stupid to sever friendships over political disagreements, I parted ways with one friend yesterday after he posted a meme that suggested that Khizir Khan was involved in smuggling illegal immigrants and he had ulterior motives in attacking Donald Trump.
I flat out told him, nothing on the meme was true and The fact that he is an immigration lawyer is irrelevant and should not be taken into consideration when evaluating what he said.
One thing I have no tolerance for is attacking non-combatants. Below-the-belt attacks against political candidates has always been a part of the game and probably always will be, right or wrong, fair or unfair. Mr. Khan is a private citizen. He did not become fair game for the most vile personal attacks simply because he spoke at the DNC Convention. He lost his son and deserves to be treated with respect.
Politics has always been ugly, but this is the worst I’ve ever seen it. Anyone says anything negative about Donald Trump and it’s like blood in the water and they’re sharks on steroids.
Please don’t tell me this is all just a dress rehersal for Sharknado 35: The Gerbil Strikes Back and Fonzie is going arrive on his skis to bang on the jukebox to get it to start playing Happy Daze Are Here Again which makes the sharks explode into rainbow unicorns.
I probably could have picked a better simile.
Vultures, perhaps?
Aw, gee whiz. What fun would that have been?
Walid is a horrible, terrible human being.
He uses his fake cred as a “former terrorist” to cast doubt on people, and runs an even more sinister racket with Arabic. He relies on the fact that most anti-Islam folks don’t actually speak the language to color and warp things around, or provide what’s actually said with no real context, other than what he provides.
When I heard they were attacking Khan, I wondered if he was involved. Turns out he’s the one everyone’s linking to. Imagine my surprise.