Going the email route


THE WRATH OF KHAN
August 3, 2016

Khizr Khan, the Muslim "Gold Star Father" who harangued Americans at the
Democratic National Convention, with a mute, hijab-wearing wife at his side,
is just another in a long string of human shields liberals send out to
defend their heinous policies. The "Jersey Girls" were the classic example,
first described in that magnificent book Godless: The Church of Liberalism.

In order to shut down a debate they're losing, Democrats find victims to
make their arguments for them, pre-empting counter-argument by droning on
about the suffering of their victim-spokesperson. Alternative opinions must be
preceded by proof that the speaker has "sacrificed" more than someone who
lost a child, a husband, or whatever.

Khan's argument, delivered angrily and in a thick Pakistani accent at the
DNC, is that "our" Constitution requires us to continue the nonstop i
mportation of Muslims.

If the U.S. Constitution required us to admit more than 100,000 Muslims a
year -- as we do -- we'd already be living in Pakistan, and Khan wouldn't
have had to move to get that nice feeling of home. So the "argument" part of
Khan's point is gibberish.

Luckily, Khan had Part Two: His son died in Iraq, whereas Donald Trump
does not have a son who died in Iraq, so he can't say anything.

Yes, a candidate for president of the United States is supposed to be
prohibited from discussing a dangerous immigration program because Khan's son
was one of fourteen (14!) Muslim servicemen killed by other Muslims in our
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's why we're obligated to import yet more
Muslims – including, undoubtedly, some just like the ones who killed his
son. Q.E.D.!

If you think that doesn't make any sense, keep your yap shut, unless you
lost a child in Iraq, too.

There were virtually no Muslims in America before Teddy Kennedy's 1965
immigration act. Today, we admit more immigrants from Muslim countries than
from Great Britain.

Are Americans allowed to have an opinion on whether that's a good idea?

So far, it's worked out great!

In addition to the sudden appearance of honor killings, clitorectomies,
hijabs and massive government frauds, Muslim immigrants have given us: The
most devastating terrorist attack in world history, followed by terrorist
attacks at Fort Hood, the Boston Marathon, a military recruiting center in
Chattanooga, Times Square, Vaughan Foods in Oklahoma, San Bernardino and an
Orlando nightclub, among other places.

We've admitted 2 million Muslims just since 9/11 – that’s more than had
been admitted before 9/11. If we don't make it 3 million, we're monsters? May
we ask how many Muslims Khan's mystery Constitution requires -- or is that
out of bounds unless we had a child who died in Iraq?

Apparently, sending out a victim to make their argument was the only
option left for the "Make America Muslim!" crowd.

After Trump somehow got the crazy idea that a presidential candidate was
allowed to discuss government policies and proposed a temporary ban on
Muslim immigration -- which, by the way, is perfectly constitutional -- the
entire media and political class erupted in a sputtering rage.

Conscience of a Nation, Speaker Paul Ryan proclaimed: "That's not who we
are." Jeb! Bush made the subtle and clever argument that Trump was
"unhinged." Marco Rubio called any pause in Muslim immigration "offensive." ABC
News' Jonathan Karl called Trump's plan "outrageous" -- which was way better
than MSNBC, where Trump was compared to white supremacists and Nazis.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Trump had "disqualifie(d)" himself
from "serving as president" for suggesting any slowdown in Muslim
immigration. Vice President Joe Biden -- tribune of blue-collar Americans
everywhere! -- said that if Trump were the nominee, Hillary would "win in a walk."

Then it turned out Trump's Muslim ban was a huge hit with actual voters.
Hillary, who promises to quadruple the number of Syrian "refugees" we bring
in, is quite far from winning "in a walk."

So the media and political class had no choice: They had to produce a
victim to make their argument, in order to block any response. For their next
trick, Democrats plan to produce a little girl whose parents were recently
murdered to present their tax plan. (Better make sure they weren't killed by
an illegal alien!)

Does anyone know what Khan thinks of gays? How about miniskirts? Alcohol?
Because I gather we're going to have to turn all our policies over to him,
too. What have you sacrificed, Barney Frank??

Muslim troops accounted for 0.2 percent of all U.S. troop deaths in the
Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Southerners accounted for 38 percent of those
killed in Iraq and 47 percent in Afghanistan.

What has South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley "sacrificed" compared to the
families of these men? How about Nikki put their flag back up?

The Confederate flag won't lead to thousands of dead and maimed Americans,
as Muslim immigration does. The only danger posed by the Confederate flag
is that media elites will hold the South in even greater contempt than they
already do, assuming that's possible.

But as long as they brought it up, if only people who lost children in our
wars may discuss public policy, then only they should vote, not only on how
many more Muslim immigrants this country needs, but on all government
policies. What has Chuck Todd sacrificed? Have any current members of The New
York Times editorial board ever lost a son in war? (Fighting on the American
side.)

The inevitable conclusion to the hysteria over Khan is that only those who
have worn the uniform and heard shots fired in anger can vote in our
elections. Hello, media? Hey -- where'd everybody go?

copy and paste from http://movealongpeople.com/2016/07/29/the-worst-arguments-against-gun-control/

1. Guns Don’t Kill People, People Kill People

This is the granddaddy of them all, a brilliantly clever way of conveying two related ideas: (1) because guns themselves are morally neutral objects that become a problem only when used by dangerous people, it makes sense only to focus on punishing bad people who use guns, rather than regulating guns themselves; and (2) even if dangerous people can’t get guns, they will simply use other weapons to inflict death and injury. In short, there is no gun problem; there is only a people problem.

Would we find this reasoning persuasive in other contexts involving dangerous products? Consider automobiles, for example. A car also is pretty innocuous sitting in a driveway, until it comes into contact with a driver who may be untrained or reckless. Yet our public policy toward preventing auto injuries is not confined to punishing careless or reckless drivers following a tragedy. We think it equally important to have a licensing system in place to prevent untrained and potentially high-risk people from driving in the first place. Similarly, we should have laws in place to prevent dangerous people from having guns—at the very least, required background checks for all gun sales.

Yes, it is true that dangerous people could turn to other weapons if denied access to guns. But this is a false equivalence. Research shows that attacks with guns are five times more likely to be lethal than attacks with knives, for example. Does anyone really believe that the Orlando shooter could have killed 49 people and injured 53 others with a knife or baseball bat? Guns don’t kill people, but people with guns kill people, far more effectively and efficiently than with other weapons.



Criminals Don’t Obey Gun Laws, Only Law-Abiding Citizens Do

This is the futility argument. According to the National Rifle Association and its allies, since gun laws are directed at criminals, who of course pay no attention to any laws (that’s why they’re called criminals), gun control can’t possibly be effective, except in making it harder for law-abiding citizens to have guns to defend themselves.

First, the argument is transparently circular. Of course, as to individuals who are willing to disobey gun laws, the laws are futile by definition. But what about the possibility that there are potentially violent individuals who are deterred from carrying guns by the illegality of doing so? Surely compliance with a law cannot be determined merely by looking at the instances of when the law is violated. If it could, we would regard all our criminal laws as ultimately futile because all of them are frequently violated. Should we repeal our laws against homicide because murderers don’t obey them?

It turns out that there is substantial evidence that many criminals may refrain from gun carrying because of gun control laws. In one survey, incarcerated felons who had not carried weapons during the commission of their crimes were asked why they decided against being armed. Fifty-nine percent chose the response “Against the law.”

In addition, the argument proceeds from a false premise, i.e., that the effectiveness of gun control laws depends on compliance by criminals. Take the Brady Act, for instance. It requires licensed gun dealers to submit the gun purchaser’s name for a background check and to refuse the sale if the check reveals a disqualifying record. If the dealer is willing to obey the law, the criminal’s preferred source of guns will be denied him. “Terror gap” legislation simply adds persons on the “no-fly” list and other suspected terrorists to the categories of persons who will be denied purchases from licensed dealers. The effectiveness of such background checks do not depend on the willingness of criminals and suspected terrorists to obey the law.

Of course, it is possible that dangerous gun buyers will turn to other sources for their guns, but that is a reason to extend mandatory background checks to all gun sales, not just sales by licensed dealers. There may be some gun sellers who will ignore the law, but we don’t consider other laws to be ineffective simply because compliance is not universal. The point is that gun control laws can reduce access to guns by criminals and terrorists without compliance with those laws by criminals and terrorists.

Any Gun Control Is a Slippery Slope to Confiscation

This canard is particularly important to the gun lobby because, since even most NRA members actually support modest measures like background checks, it is strategically critical for the NRA to argue that such reforms should be defeated because they will lead ultimately to more radical measures that the gun-owning public strongly opposes.

The slippery slope argument would have validity if it were difficult to logically distinguish the proposal at the top of the slope (say, universal background checks) from the feared proposal at the bottom of the slope, i.e., a complete ban on gun ownership. But of course support for a proposal like universal background checks, closing the “terror gap,” and even licensing of gun owners and registration of guns does not logically entail support for a broad gun ban. The slippery slope is more like a flight of stairs, in which it is quite possible for make a valid argument for taking the first step, e.g., universal background checks, which would still allow law-abiding citizens to own guns, without logically committing oneself to several steps down, e.g., a gun ban, under which even law-abiding citizens would be barred from gun ownership.

Even as a historical matter, there is no basis to believe that enacting some gun regulation leads inevitably to broad gun bans. Take the idea of registering guns like we register cars. Gun partisans have an intense fear of registration because they regard it as a slippery slope to confiscation; once the government knows who owns the guns, it will be nicely positioned to confiscate them. But the State of Pennsylvania, for example, has maintained a database of persons who lawfully purchased handguns since 1931, and there is no reason to believe that the authorities are likely to start knocking on the doors of Pennsylvania gun owners, demanding surrender of their guns.

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason

The fact is that the slippery slope argument is, at its core, nothing but uninformed speculation. There is, however, a steep social cost to that speculation if we allow it to block enactment of sensible policies, like universal background checks, that help to prevent dangerous people from getting guns. If Congress had been persuaded by the slippery slope argument during the Brady Bill debate, since 1994 we would have allowed more than two million legally prohibited gun buyers to buy guns over-the-counter that were, instead, blocked by Brady background checks.

How many more Americans must needlessly perish before we insist that our gun policies be based on reason and evidence, not on the bumper sticker logic of the gun lobby?

Dennis A. Henigan is the author of “Guns Don’t Kill People, People Kill People,” And Other Myths About Guns and Gun Control (Beacon Press 2016) on sale now in e-book and in print July 26. He is the director of legal and policy analysis at the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and formerly vice president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

By MICHAEL D. SHEARAUG. 2, 2016

Obama Says Trump Unfit to Serve as President
President Obama said on Tuesday that Donald J. Trump was “woefully unprepared” to serve as president, and asked why Republicans kept distancing themselves from the candidate while still supporting him.
By CBS, VIA REUTERS on Publish Date August 2, 2016. Photo by Al Drago/The New York Times. Watch in Times Video »

WASHINGTON — In his strongest denunciation of Donald J. Trump so far, President Obama on Tuesday said Mr. Trump was “unfit to serve as president” and urged the leaders of the Republican Party to withdraw their backing for his candidacy.

Mr. Obama said the Republican criticisms of Mr. Trump “ring hollow” if the party’s leaders continue to support his bid for the presidency this fall, particularly in light of Republican criticisms of Mr. Trump for his attacks on the Muslim parents of an American soldier, Humayun Khan, who died in Iraq.

“The question they have to ask themselves is: If you are repeatedly having to say in very strong terms that what he has said is unacceptable, why are you still endorsing him?” Mr. Obama said at a news conference at the White House.

Mr. Obama said that in addition to Mr. Trump’s comments about the Khan family, the Republican nominee had demonstrated that he was “woefully unprepared to do this job.” The president said Mr. Trump lacked knowledge about Europe, the Middle East and Asia.

“This isn’t a situation where you have an episodic gaffe. This is daily,” Mr. Obama added. “There has to be a point at which you say, this is not somebody I can support for president of the United States, even if he purports to be a member of my party. The fact that that has not yet happened makes some of these denunciations ring hollow.”

Mr. Obama’s comments came as he stood next to Lee Hsien Loong, the prime minister of Singapore, in the East Room of the White House. The president is hosting a state dinner Tuesday evening to highlight 50 years of cooperation in Asia between the two countries.

That setting stood in sharp contrast to Mr. Trump, who was delivering a campaign speech in a rally at Briar Woods High School in Ashburn, Va., at the same time that Mr. Obama made his remarks.

Mr. Trump questioned Hillary Clinton’s ability to serve as president and called her a “thief” who should not be allowed to serve in the Oval Office.

“She’s got a bad temperament,” he told a packed auditorium. “She’s got the temperament of a loser.”

Four minutes into his speech, he accused Mrs. Clinton of lying to Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday,” as chants of “Lock her up” filled the auditorium.

“She said the F.B.I. director said like everything was just perfect, and it wasn’t,” Mr. Trump said in reference to James B. Comey and the bureau’s inquiry into her personal email server. “I mean, she lied. She, pure and simple, she only knows to lie. She really does. She only knows to lie. But she lied, and it’s a big story.”

And even as Mr. Obama discussed trade policy and security issues with the Singaporean prime minister, Mr. Trump criticized world leaders. He said he would ask Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, “what went wrong” in her country. And he criticized Mrs. Clinton for what he called “terrible relations” with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.


While there was no immediate reaction to Mr. Obama’s comments from House Speaker Paul D. Ryan or Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, one Republican House member had already taken the president’s advice earlier on Tuesday.

Representative Richard Hanna, Republican of New York, said Tuesday morning that he plans to vote for Mrs. Clinton, calling Mr. Trump “unfit to serve” as the nation’s president and commander in chief.

Mr. Hanna, who is retiring at the end of his term in January, has said before that he could not support Mr. Trump’s candidacy. But his willingness to endorse Mrs. Clinton, a Democrat, sends a dramatic message to his colleagues in the Republican Party.
He announced his decision in an interview and in a column that he posted on Syracuse.com. In both, he said he came to his decision to support Mrs. Clinton in part because of Mr. Trump’s comments about Khizr and Ghazala Khan, the parents of the fallen American soldier.

“I was stunned by the callousness of his comments,” Mr. Hanna said. “I think Trump is a national embarrassment. Is he really the guy you want to have the nuclear codes?”

Correction: August 2, 2016

An earlier version of this article misstated where Mr. Obama made his comments. He was in the East Room of the White House, not on the South Lawn.

Alexander Burns contributed reporting from New York and Nick Corasaniti contributed from Ashburn, Va.
Find out what you need to know about the 2016 presidential race today, and get politics news updates via Facebook, Twitter and the First Draft newsletter.

1. Guns Don’t Kill People, People Kill People

2. Criminals Don’t Obey Gun Laws, Only Law-Abiding Citizens Do

3. Any Gun Control Is a Slippery Slope to Confiscation

Your mission, should you accept, is to show how truly vacuous (dumb) these arguments are. If those arguments are part or center to your arguments for guns, do a little Devil's Advocate on your beliefs, truly test them, by probing thought and research that counters these assumptions. However, if you are not inclined in the least to question your support of guns that partially or completely rest on the above three points, for whatever reason (such as, a liberal trick meant to undermine the 2nd Amendment), you are not being honest. Truth demands inquiry and fearless inquiry. To question deeply and open-mindedly is the love of truth, and freedom as well. It is not being disloyal. It is not being rebellious. It is not even being doubtful. Wonder and curiosity in every part of our lives should be welcomed. We look and we look deeper and we look deeper. We need not fear what we find in such a search but rejoice in whatever is thus discovered.

By Leonard Pitts Jr. The Miami Herald....First Published Jul 24 2016 06:00AM • Last Updated Jul 24 2016 06:00 am

Well, that was sure ugly.

Last week's Republican conclave in Cleveland came across less as a nominating convention than as a four-day nervous breakdown, a moment of fracture and bipolarity from a party that no longer has any clear idea what it stands for or what it is. Everywhere you turned there was something that made you embarrassed for them, something so disconnected from fact, logic or decency as to suggest those things no longer have much meaning for the party faithful.

Did the convention really earn rave reviews from white supremacists, with one tweeting approvingly that the GOP "is becoming the de facto white party?"

Did Florida Gov. Rick Scott really say he could remember "when terrorism was something that happened in foreign countries" — as if four little girls were never blown to pieces in a Birmingham church, and an NAACP lawyer and his wife were never killed by a bomb in Scott's own state?

Did Silicon Valley entrepreneur Peter Thiel really say, "It's time to end the era of stupid wars," as if it were Democrats who dragged Republicans into Iraq with promises of flowers strewn beneath American tanks? Did Ben Carson really link Hillary Clinton to Satan? Did the crowd really chant, repeatedly and vociferously, for her to be jailed? Did at least two Republicans actually call for her execution?

No, you weren't dreaming. The answer is yes on all counts.

Then there was the party's nominee. Donald Trump's "acceptance speech" was a 75-minute scream as incoherent as everything that preceded it. He vowed to protect the LGBTQ community from "a hateful foreign ideology," as if his party's platform did not commit it to support "conversion therapy," an offensive bit of quackery that purports to "cure" homosexuality.

He accused President Obama of dividing the nation, as if he were not the one recycling Richard Nixon's racist Southern strategy with unsubtle cries of "law and order," and George H.W. Bush's infamous Willie Horton ad with tales of "illegals" out to kill us.

Trump painted a bleak picture of a nation in decline and under siege, and he offered a range of responses: fear or fright, fury or rage. But glory be, he promised to fix everything that ails us, down to and including long lines at the airport. Trump gave few specifics, mind you, beyond a guarantee that he can do all this "quickly." Any resemblance to a guy hawking magical elixir from the back of a wagon was surely unintentional.

This gathering made one thing clear, if it had not been already. The battle between left and right is no longer a contest of ideas, no longer about low taxes versus higher ones, small government versus big government, intervention versus isolation. No, the defining clash of our time is reason versus un-reason, reason versus an inchoate fear and fury growing like weeds on the cultural, class, religious and racial resentments of people who cling to an idealized 1954 and wonder why the country is passing them by.

The Republicans, as presently constituted, have no ideas beyond fear and fury. And Lord help us, the only thing standing between us and that is a grandmother in pantsuits.

The Democrats have their gathering this week in Philadelphia. Ordinarily, you'd call on them to present a competing vision, but the GOP has set the bar so low you'd be happy to see the Democrats just present a vision, period, just appeal to something beyond our basest selves, just remind us that we can be better and our politics higher than what we saw last week.

This has to happen. Because, you see, the Republicans were right on at least one point: The nation does face a clear and present danger, a menace to our values, our hopes and our future.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
lpitts@miamiherald.com