Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has drawn almost universal outrage over his attacks on Khizr and Ghazala Khan, the Muslim parents of Army Capt. Humayun Kahn, who was killed by a suicide bomb while serving in Baghdad. But I don’t understand why everyone is so upset with Trump. Are they forgetting that the Khans started this fight? If you can’t take criticism, then you shouldn’t dish it out. One of my pet peeves how someone will verbally attack another person and then act so indignant when that person responds in kind. What should they expect?
But some people still insist that Trump should not have retaliated, even though Mr. Khan fired the first shot by attacking Trump in a speech at the Democratic National Convention. They say Gold Star families like the Khans should not be subject to the kind of disparagement that Trump has hurled at them. However, that’s totally asinine. No one in this country is so high and mighty that they are above criticism – even members of Gold Star families. Others argue that people have a First Amendment right to criticize Trump. Of course they do. But isn’t Trump also entitled to his First Amendment rights? If he exercises his, how is that violating theirs? Or is it now the case that some people – such a Gold Star families – get a bigger share of First Amendment rights than others? If that’s the case, then so much for the concept of equal protection under law, huh?
Still others argue that Trump should have had the decency not to attack back when a Gold Star family attacked him, regardless of any free speech considerations. However, shouldn’t the Khans have had the decency not to attack him in the first place? Why is no one making that argument? Sounds like a lot of people believe that the Khans are morally superior to Trump. Ironically enough, many of those who are implicitly making that judgment are some of the same ones who go around priding themselves about how non-judgmental they are. Go figure.