The Democrats' four-day coronation of Hillary Clinton has ended.  It turns out that embracing the hate-filled racists of Black Lives Matter and indulging Barack Obama's fantasies about the sweetness of life under his benign, albeit lawless, reign have earned the pathologically truth-challenged candidate a substantial bounce in the polls.  She couldn't have done it, however, without an assist from her obliging opponent.

Donald Trump has a knack for saying things that provide the Dems with a target-rich environment.  He frames issues imprecisely, at least initially, gets bogged down in wild irrelevancies and ends up with his words twisted by spectacularly unscrupulous foes whose standard operating procedure seeks to blur important distinctions.  Curiously, his most outrageous assertions often prove on analysis to be more right than wrong.

Let us take a close look one of the left's trademark bogus controversies:

At their convention, the Democrats trotted out the parents of a Muslim soldier killed in Iraq in 2004 to bash Trump's call for a temporary moratorium on immigration from areas infested with radical Islamists.  What is the nexus between Trump's policy and the death of Humayun Khan?  Why are the parents surfacing now to attack the character of the Republican nominee?  Why are these obvious questions ignored?

Nobody disputes Khan's heroism or his honorable service to America.  Not a hint of disrespect has been directed toward him or his family.  On July 31, Trump tweeted: "Captain Khan, killed 12 years ago, was a hero, but this is about RADICAL ISLAMIC TERROR and the weakness of our 'leaders' to eradicate it."

A Muslim site reports that seven Muslims serving in the American military had been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq as of 2009.  Their sacrifices demand full-throated praise from all patriotic Americans, but they represent less than one percent of all American battle deaths.

If Republicans were to borrow a page from the Democratic playbook, they would point out that Major Nidal Hasan murdered thirteen American soldiers in a paroxysm of what the Obama administration bizarrely called "workplace violence."  No useful purpose is served by wondering what weird game is being played here.  When jihadists in France sought out a kosher grocery, invaded it, and slaughtered Jews, Barack Obama called the incident "random violence."

Random.

Seriously.

Now, does the man whose heaven-storming intellect dwarfs the mediocre minds of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison know the meaning of the word "random"?  If he does, why did he select it?

The simple fact is that Barack Obama is an extreme Islamophile.  He is angered and frustrated by the existence of ISIS because the radical Islamists rampaging throughout the world do not conform to his conception of Islam as a warm puppy.  Although he is quick to condemn the jihadists' perversion of the faith he admires so passionately, one thing he will never do is confront them on an intellectual level.  The jihadists firmly believe that their pure, textually faithful interpretation of the Koran is greatly superior to the watered down versions favored by apologists for Western decadence.  Jihadist clerics eagerly seek opportunities to debate those elusive "moderates," but the suspicion lurks that "moderates" are none too confident about their ability to prevail in a theological disputation.  It must be admitted that those same moderates are not particularly eager to get killed.

Obama, then, can bray about the tiny minority of fanatics who seek to hijack the faith that enriched his youth, but he crashes headlong into the reality that radical Islam is not a tiny fringe of the Muslim world.  Viewed as a historical force, it is large and growing.

Major Hasan's murders were acts of war – a jihadist carrying out his duty to smite infidels.  A Republican behaving like a Democrat could maliciously inquire about the balance sheet and ask if more American troops would be alive if no Muslims served in the military.  Naturally, the Democrats' media water carriers would excoriate anyone posing such a question.  They would not actually deign to answer it.

Khizr Khan, the father of the slain hero, waved the Constitution and thundered that Donald Trump should read it.  He neglected to show us the part where it is stated that Muslims have a right to move to America without stating a preference for American values.  Trump's immigration policy toward Muslims is centered on the statistical truth that a large group of Syrian refugees will necessarily contain jihadists, whose purpose is to commit mayhem upon arriving here.

Nobody can estimate the percentage of terrorists in a population of mostly ordinary people.  If there are ten thousand refugees and ten percent of them are ISIS infiltrators, a thousand murderous savages will have been unleashed to work unspeakable evil.  If only one percent of the refugees are committed to violence against Americans, then there are a hundred fanatic killers diverting the strained resources of law enforcement agencies.

Setting aside the usual demagoguery from the usual demagogues, why is this issue something other than a matter of logic and common sense?

The question is not rhetorical.  Democrats insist on framing an issue of national security as a bigoted attack on non-white non-Christians.  That well never runs dry.

How infuriating is it to see Democrats fawning over Gold Star parents?  The last parent of a soldier killed in action to be embraced by the left was the America-hating screech owl Cindy Sheehan.  Maureen Dowd imbued Sheehan with "absolute moral authority."  It developed that such authority derived entirely from Sheehan's hatred of George Bush, since the grieving parents of slain heroes who did not hate America had no such authority.

Veterans are simply not, and never will be, one of the special-interest groups Democrats pander to.  Conditions in the VA are deplorable, and only Trump talks about fixing the problems.  Troops in the field understand that Democrats never have their backs.  Forced to toil under absurdly restrictive rules of engagement authored by liberal bureaucrats who harbor a visceral hatred of the military, many young men and women have lost their lives needlessly.

The Democrats' idea of a war hero is John Kerry, a man who entered the national consciousness by slandering the men who fought alongside him in Vietnam.  He didn't care that many of the "Winter Soldiers" who produced the baseless smears he peddled were frauds who never wore a real uniform.  He grasped his ticket to fame with both hands, then cynically appeared at the 2004 convention that nominated him to run for president as "Lt. Kerry reporting for duty."  Vietnam vets tend to despise Kerry, but genuine war hero John McCain sided with his fellow member of the Millionaire Boys' Club over the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth – brave, honest men who exposed the nature of Kerry's shamefully abbreviated service.  McCain received the appropriate award for his bipartisan spirit when he was predictably ripped to shreds in 2008 by a media totally in the tank for the anti-military radical Obama.

Yes, the Khans are the new rock stars of the left.  They should savor their moment in the sun while pausing for sober reflection: the people praising them to the skies today are the same people who trashed war heroes George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole to support a draft-dodger.