found online by Raymond
From Last Of The Millenniums:
So a ‘Gold Star’ father who spoke out against Donald Trump – suddenly has his travel plans ‘reviewed’?
Maybe Trump’s just banning Muslims early…….
5 thoughts on “New McCarthyism: Khizr Khan’s Travel Rights Under Review”
Comments are closed.
If Khan’s rights to travel are “under review” without probable cause, then shame on the U.S. government.
As far as a “new McCarthyism”, well this is something that has been going on for a long time. Ask those Tea Partiers about their IRS encounters, or even those folks on Bill Clinton’s enemies list where he had over 800 FBI files on them in the White House.
I know… these were all simply bureaucratic snafu’s. THIS new issue is really and truly McCarthyism though.
Thank you T. Paine.
Oh, I don’t think letting tax exempt organizations; liberal, conservative, and those in the middle; that they were required to meet long-time written conditions to maintain tax status is the same as restricting the movements of a political critic.
I’d like more evidence of the Khan review. I am confident that he was told of the review. We know he canceled an appearance in Canada. We do not know who spoke with him or that person’s level of governmental authority.
I do wish you would extend the same regard for evidence to the Clintons. There was a brief flurry of publicity about an improper request for FBI files in 1993. The staffer who made the request was fired. Ken Starr investigated in 1998 and exonerated both Bill and Hillary Clinton. He stated quite clearly that the attempted access was requested without their knowledge.
It is possible Ken Starr was part of some massive cover-up, but I think that unlikely, don’t you?
Mr. Deming, you must be right, of course. I am sure that former bouncer and unqualified ne’er-do-well Craig Livingstone who became director of the White House’s Office of Personnel Security, requested those hundreds of FBI files on Bill and Hillary’s political adversaries on his own authority and on his own accord. I am certain that the Clinton’s had no knowledge of this whatsoever until it was reported in the daily news. The fact that Mr. Starr could not find any evidence to tie the Clinton’s to this resulted in him doing the responsible thing and exonerating them.
That said, why would some horribly under qualified flunkie be hired for such a position and then violate multiple laws in acquiring these files of political opponents “just because”? What possible purpose could he have under his own authority?
Knowing what we all know about the Clintons, do your really protest their innocence simply because they once again hid any damning evidence to the contrary? After all, Bill “never had sex with that woman” until the blue dress came to light.
So the absence of evidence of any guilt is itself evidence of guilt? Sounds a lot like a heads-I-win-tails-I-win-even-more approach to evidence.
There was no substantial and credible evidence that any senior White House official, or First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, was involved in seeking confidential Federal Bureau of Investigation background reports.
I suppose that should be in quotes, since it was the conclusion of Ken Starr as summarized by his successor, Robert Ray.
As far as a “new McCarthyism”, it’s never totally gone away. Red-baiting demonization has long been part of the con-servative playbook. I recall cons screeching about Obamacare being the next step to Stalinism.
After all, “death panels” are just another form of Commie death camp, amirite?
Trump waged a years-long campaign to Muslim-bait Obama the foreign Black Guy.
Same evil, different cast of deplorables.