Given the growing problem of climate change, the severity of poverty in the U.S., the never-ending wars in the Middle East, the decline of education, the collapsing of our infrastructure, and the ever-present threat of terrorist attacks, it is nothing less than absurd that the media has become obsessed with the exchange between Mr. Khan and Donald Trump.
I have heard Khan’s speech characterized as heartrending, heart-wrenching and passionate. Quite frankly, I found the speech inappropriate because I consider the political realm to be a place for rational thought, not for emotional appeals. In order to fairly judge the speech, we need to set aside the emotional tone and distinguish between the tragic death of the Khans’ son and the speech itself. I sympathize very much with the Khan family und empathize with their loss. I also sympathize with the parents and friends of the victims of the Orlando shooting in the nightclub Pulse. I sympathize with the families of the wedding party that President Obama bombed with a US drone strike in Yemen. I sympathize with the families of the World Trade Center attack. I sympathize with Americans living in poverty today because of the policies of the Clintons. But none of this has anything to do with the speech of Mr. Khan.
If Mr. Khan had wanted to address the problem of immigration at the DNC, he should have done so in a respectable and straightforward manner. Immigration in a time of worldwide terrorism is a legitimate issue and needs to be discussed from various perspectives. Unfortunately, Mr. Khan chose to use the death of his son in order to advance the political career of Hillary Clinton and gave a theatrical performance which added nothing to the much needed debate on the issue. Furthermore, the speech itself struck me as an expression of anger, not of grief. The facial expression, the finger-wagging at the camera, the dramatic presentation of the Constitution and the insults hurled at Donald Trump reflected more indignation than sorry. It’s ironic that Mr. Khan directed his indignation toward Donald Trump who was in no way responsible for sending his son into harm’s way.
In my opinion, any neutral observer would conclude that the entire speech had been carefully orchestrated by the Clinton campaign in an attempt to provoke Trump. As we know, Trump took the bait and responded in his typically spontaneous manner. Nevertheless, Trump’s responses were usually not as harsh as the pro-Clinton media reported. In an interview conducted by Maureen Dowd, Trump was asked to respond to Khan’s speech. He said: “I’d like to hear his wife say something.” Almost immediately, the pro-Clinton media began reporting that Trump had attacked Khan’s wife. This is typical Clinton spin. Then came the interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in which Trump was asked again about the Khans. He responded that Mr. Khan “was, you know, very emotional and probably looked like a nice guy to me”. Then Trump continued with a statement about Mrs. Khan: “If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably–maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.” ABC interpreted this statement to mean the following: “This appears to be Trump tipping his hat to some far-right-wing and nationalist Twitter users who have suggested that Ghazala Khan was silent during her husband’s speech because they are Muslim and he prohibits her from speaking.” Of course, this is not what Trump said. He used the words “probably” and “maybe”, concluding with a mild imperative directed to Stephanopoulos: “You tell me.” The International New York Times followed suit by claiming: “Donald Trump belittled the parents of a slain Muslim soldier who had strongly denounced Mr. Trump during the Democratic National Convention, saying that the soldier’s father had delivered the entire speech because his mother was not ‘allowed’ to speak.” The tentative remarks of Trump were spun by the pro-Clinton media into asseverations. Reading the pro-Clinton media gives us a totally skewed picture of what Trump actually said.
It is not my intention in this article to defend the statements or the policies of Donald Trump. I am simply pointing out that the pro-Clinton media is rendering it virtually impossible to fairly evaluate Donald Trump as a candidate. Without a measure of honesty in reporting, we have no way of forming a clear picture of a possible Trump presidency. The matter is further complicated by the fact that wealthy Republicans gladly join the chorus of pro-Clinton media critics because they would rather have Hillary than Donald as President.
Returning to Mr. Khan’s speech, I not only listened to it; I printed it out, read it and took his challenge to read the Constitution again, paying special attention to the phrase “equal protection of law”. I presume that Mr. Khan was referring to the very controversial Fourteenth Amendment which reads as follows: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (bold type added). Reading this section again, I wondered if Mr. Khan himself had read the US Constitution carefully. The phrase “equal protection” applies to citizens of the United States, not to hopeful immigrants. At best, one can interpret the Amendment to include the children of illegal immigrants who are born on US soil. But Mr. Khan was trying to make a different point, namely that Trump would not have allowed the Khan family to immigrate in the first place. Perhaps that is true, but it has nothing to do with the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, I know of no prosperous country that does not place limits on immigration. Switzerland certainly does. The Swiss Government does not tolerate illegal immigrants, and applicants for citizenship are scrutinized carefully over a period of time. In spite of Mr. Khan’s theatrical performance, his speech lacked substance. As I said, he would have had a better speech if he had addressed the issue of immigration in a straightforward manner.
Jack Brush is a Villager and frequent contributor to Villages-News.com. In his new book In Search of the Common Good: Guideposts for Concerned Citizens, he develops guidelines for balancing human rights with the urgent need to promote the common good in our society. For more information, seewww.jackebrush.com.
