Give a Better News Update

Top Search

Search This Blog - Yes We Khan! The Democratic Party 2016

I've already addressed the disgraceful display at the DNC of parading out the Khan family as a shameless tokenism "proving" that Muslim Americans died for our country, obviously paraded out for any reason besides acknowledgment or respect for the disastrous grieving of the over 4,000 families who have lost family members during this war, of whom yes, indeed, there are 14 Muslim families.

But when did Democratic voters stop thinking? Why the relentless news coverage of Donald Trump's inartful response to the horse and pony show rather than moral outrage at the horse and pony show? It's obvious, however, that the irrational emotionalism of the Democrats has made them the party of nothing. After all, what did the Khans prove? Is it that Hillary supports vets? Is it that Hillary supports Muslim Americans?

Forgetting that Donald Trump NEVER said anything against Muslim Americans, but in the context of terrorism and the admitted inability of our system to vet immigrants and our country's determination to admit hundreds of thousands to millions of Muslim refugees from unfriendly countries that there should be a stop, a pause in the policy UNTIL the government can do its job, I wonder why the allure of the Khan story.

What point was the DNC trying to make, that Donald Trump's speech is often inartful? OK, his speech is sometimes clumsy but for thinking Democrats, shouldn't they be able to consider priorities of seriousness? Inartful is worlds better than illegal, deceptive, contemptuous especially when those are adjectives that can arguably describe the treatment of American citizens by our elected representatives.

Sure, the Khans were part of the Democratic con, they're trying to muster up division--get the military vote, get the Muslim vote, get the female vote, while also sending clear messages of screw the white men, screw the old folks, screw the young citizen Americans, screw the coal miners, screw the racist law enforcement---Their list of screw yous is as least as long as their list of who needs to be embraced. Hardly the party of inclusion.

Again, what are you voting for with the relentless consideration of the Khan story?

Could it be that Hillary Clinton is going for the military vote? That would be bizarre since Donald Trump has come out so strongly on behalf of the military that it's almost uncomfortable to listen to him. For instance, when so many Americans are suffering in this economy, that he vows job preference beyond the job preference already granted to vets that has resulted in a 4.2 percent unemployment rate for vets far LESS than the national unemployment levels and notably less than the double-digit unemployment levels of America's young people.

Trump's also promised vets superior medical care, showing outrage of wait times beyond five days, which for many of us is actually far superior to the wait times we face for medical care. No, commitment to the military can't be it.

The choice of the Khans to speak at the DNC was no less calculated than the wardrobe, the music, the audience and the speeches themselves at the DNC, a stunt designed to distract from the Debbie Wasserman Schultz debacle illustrating the cheating and machinations used to eradicate Bernie Sanders from the election, to distract from the email scandal that at best labeled Hillary Clinton as incompetent, not intentionally criminal, from the scandal of President Clinton and Loretta Lynch, two lawyers "accidentally" meeting and chatting as one was supposed to be judging the legality of the other's spouse's behavior and those were just that month's issues.

But if Americans put on our thinking caps, there is a tough challenge for the Democratic aggressors, they feel they're winning. But what is it that they're winning?

As I consider this election I wonder whether inartful isn't far less serious and dangerous than the conniving, deceiving, manipulative, and contemptuous approach adopted by Democrats when it comes to our potential elected officials.

After all, was it inartful or something worse that Hillary Clinton promised West Virginia that “We're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business"?

Was it inartful or something worse that Hillary Clinton told a woman distressed over the cost of Obamacare to "shop around," YouTube , minute 22:52?

Was it inartful or something worse that Hillary Clinton asserted we "didn't lose a single person" in Libya,

Was it inartful or something worse that Hillary Clinton, lying to defend her lie about her emails asserted that FBI Director Comey (who embarrassingly bent over backwards to support Loretta Lynch) had deemed her truthful--, earning a pants on fire rating?

Was it inartful or something worse that the campaigning Obama informed the INTERNATIONAL community this week that he considers a candidate chosen by at least a portion of the American people as UNFIT when, as CNN reported, Obama denounced Trump as Unfit at a "news conference with the Prime Minister of Singapore,"

Is it inartful or something worse that Obama's signature Obamacare law embraces discrimination by age including in Obamacare only TWO statistically significant justifications for charging people more for health insurance, age being one of them, in defiance of the reality of other statistically significant cost centers for increased health costs?

Is it inartful or something worse that Obama is the President whose Administration decided to PAY physicians to counsel old people on the cost-benefit of life-saving treatment under Medicare including financial considerations (See paid end of life counseling)?

Is it inartful or something worse that this is the President under whose leadership seniors received ZERO cost of living increases, the THIRD TIME in history of the program all THREE under his leadership 2010, 2011 and 2016?

Was the Iran deal an "inartful" move or something worse by the President as just this week we hear of payoffs to Iran, The Wall Street Journal,

Is it inartful or something worse that Obama's own foreign policy advisor admitted we'd been deceptively sold the Iran deal in May of 2016 (though careful not to use the word deceived) when Ben Rhodes, asserted that the White House used "standard messaging tactics -- and not deceit -- to market the plan,"

Was it inartful or something worse when our self-deluded commander in chief who has somewhat successfully persuaded some Americans that we have a universal right to health care, did not do as well during his road-show to Cuba where Castro noted that the US shouldn't comment on human rights issues since we don't have universal health care which Cuba does?

Regarding Britain, was it inartful or something worse for the President to be told to, "Mind your own business," as he tried to use his bullying strategy to convince British voters not to vote for Brexit, (which they did vote for),

Was it inartful or something worse for the President to try to force states to implement expanded Medicaid or forfeit all Medicaid funding under Obamacare, which was declared illegal by the Supreme Court in June of 2012?

Was it inartful or something worse in May of 2016, when a federal judge declared that bypassing Congress to fund a portion of Obamacare was illegal,

Even if they "win," what are Democrats winning? The right of a President to bypass our system of checks and balances? The right of a President to nationalize and fund his national programs without Congressional approval? The right to have a President who shames his own political process and its candidates abroad? The right of a President to choose to alienate historical allies?

Regardless of who we vote for, artfulness should NOT be the standard of who's FIT to be President.
Disqus Comments

Popular Post