– it only emphasizes what's wrong with the Democrat Party
Speaking at the DNC on July 28, 2016, Khizr Khan holds up a paperback U.S. Constitution that he pulled out of his vest pocket to offer to Donald Trump, while his wife looks on.
By Carolyn Yeager
WHAT WE HAVE HERE ARE PAKISTANI IMMIGRANTS trying to dictate to Americans what is moral and what is not, and attack us based on our own beliefs, achievements and traditions! It's fine to honor their war hero son Humayun Khan, but they themselves are nothing special and cannot be set up as moral arbiters for our nation. Their son is a hero, they are not.
We're witnessing Political Correctness gone wild. We better get used to non-politically correct speech because this is one of the benefits that comes with Donald Trump. It always clears the air, doesn't it?
Trump met rudeness with bluntness. As he has said so many times, he didn't start it. He just answered it. Here is what happened.
Khizr Khan came to America in 1980 from Pakistan, with a wife and two sons, to study at Harvard University. He managed to stay and is currently age 65, a lawyer, and resides in Virginia with his wife and two grown surviving sons. He was invited to speak before the Democratic National Convention on July 28, 2016 in support of Hillary Clinton. He decided (or it was decided for him) to expand his remarks to attack Donald Trump, the Republican nominee. He said:
“Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims. He disrespects other minorities, women, judges, even his own party leadership.
“Donald Trump, you’re asking Americans to trust you with their future. Let me ask you, ‘Have you even read the United States Constitution?’ I will gladly lend you my copy”
as he pulled a paperback version out of his jacket pocket and held it in front of him. He then went even further and asked if Donald Trump had ever visited Arlington National Cemetery where “patriots” of “all faiths, genders and ethnicities” are buried. “You have sacrificed nothing and no one,” he cried, as his deceased son's gigantic portrait stared out from the screen behind him.
This was certainly an unnecessarily vicious attack on Donald Trump, clearly out of vindictiveness at Trump's policy position of excluding Muslim immigration from countries engaged in anti-Western terrorism. It also makes clear that Mr. Khan puts the welfare of Muslims ahead of the welfare of Americans, and anyone with half a brain can figure that out.
I also want to make the point that this man is a lawyer, a professional. As such, he is using his son's death in Iraq in 2004, although it was 12 years ago, to give himself the status he would never have without that death. So he is, as they say, trading on his son's death in a blatant attempt to determine the outcome of an American election! An outcome that favors Muslim immigration from the middle east! This is not American patriotism!!
Media invents “comparison” idea of sacrifices
Trump sent out only two tweets about Khan's speech, both early Sunday morning:
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!
I was viciously attacked by Mr. Khan at the Democratic Convention. Am I not allowed to respond? Hillary voted for the Iraq war, not me!
In a pre-taped interview Trump gave to ABC News' George Stephanopoulos (Friday or Saturday?) that aired Sunday, Trump was asked what he had to say to Khan's charge that he had never sacrificed anything for his country. Trump responded with things he believed were sacrifices he made. The media then characterized what he said as comparing his sacrifices to Khan's which was not true, just the usual Trump-bashing they engage in. Truth be damned! I guess he was supposed to say he had made no sacrifices at all and then they could ridicule that.
However, Trump did make a mistake by putting any attention at all on Mrs. Khan. He pointed out she remained silent at the DNC, and caught himself in a trap of his own making by using her silence to make a point about the role of women in Islam. Big mistake! Though you never know how Trump's “mistakes” will turn out, since when Mrs. Khan responded, she revealed extreme weakness by admitting that even after 12 years, she cannot see a picture, or hear her son spoken about, without “coming apart” emotionally. Mr. Khan gets extremely emotional too. This, I would submit, is the quality in middle-easterners that makes their nations so unstable, enabling (and maybe requiring) dictatorial rule, and leads so many into religious jihadism. Perhpas it is also why Islam is a religion that works for them, that keeps them calm and accepting of tyrants and corruption. But Westerners are not in need of such a religion and it is not suitable for the Occident.
Khan then characterized Trump's response to Stephanapoulos as “an attack” on his wife and said they were “typical of a person without a soul.” Pretty strong, extremist language.
Kid-glove treatment encourages Khan to keep punching
The response of the television talking heads and most politicians is predictable—Khan, as a Gold Star father is off-limits for any rebuke. Everyone must understand his pain and respect it; he can say whatever he wants. Therefore, Khan is now saying that he will continue to speak out against Trump throughout the campaign, and the media will no doubt give him the airtime. Although it's possible it could backfire on him and the Dems, as I intimated in the beginning, because many will see him as I do – as a foreigner who thinks he knows more about America than those who have been here for generations – and what's more, he's going to keep on lecturing us. No one wants that.
And, as if to prove that point, Khan is now going after the entire Republican party! This “righteous Muslim” is on a tear, dictating to Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan that they have a “moral obligation” to speak out against their own party's standard bearer! He says the same to every Republican running for office this year. Going beyond the pale for an immigrant, he has now publicly called Trump a “black soul” who is “totally unfit for the leadership” of the USA and added Trump lacks a “moral compass and empathy.”
I guess he doesn't realize he is not only insulting Trump, but every person who likes and supports Trump, which is currently about 45% of the American population. His message is “I am a better American than you, I have given more, I better understand the American Constitution” (which democrats have never cared about, and even Geo.W. Bush called “only a piece of paper”), which gives him the right to abuse our nominee. Khan accuses Trump of being abusive—he should apply the same yardstick to himself.
Khan told the San Francisco Chronicle:
This is our country too. This is not only Donald Trump’s country. He is an ignorant, divisive manipulator, and through my message I wish to convey to him and to all Muslim Americans: This is our country too.”
He uses the term Muslim-American. How does that fit with sound thinking? Do we call people Christian-Americans, or Buddhist-Americans? No, we call people by their race or ethnicity, not their religion! Jewish-American is used because Jew is both a race and religion. But Muslim's come from many nations that argue and fight among themselves. Trump has changed his ban to nations and territories that are rife with terrorist activity, not to Muslims overall. So Khan is mischaracterizing Donald Trump's policy which is disgraceful enough in itself because Donald Trump is a quintessential American who embodies the essence of “freedom and opportunity” that people like the Khans say they want for themselves. Donald Trump is a good and honest man but I can't say the same for Khizr Khan.