KHAN-GATE, THE LATEST BOGUS ATTEMPT TO DERAIL TRUMP???

Our objective state-controlled news media continues to pull out all the stops in what is its obvious attempt to guarantee Hitlery gets elected come this November.  And in so doing those involved in this sleazy occupation have now apparently decided to move on from declaring Donald Trump an agent of the Kremlin and are now gushing over every moment of the Democrat National Convention and fixating itself on yet another fictional story, that Trump hates the families of dead veterans. 

Those watching on the final night of the Democrat ‘kumbaya’ convention watched as Mr. Khizir Khan, a Muslim father who lost his son, Captain Humayun Khan in Iraq 12 years ago, took to the stage with his wife in Philadelphia to deliver what was arguably the most notable speech of the convention.  And it was during this speech that Mr. Khan chose to condemn Mr. Trump for being un-American and sacrificing nothing for the country.  It was a speech that some went so far as to call powerful.

I think we can all assume why the Democrats invited Mr. Khan to speak and why the media has continued to celebrate him ever since. It had nothing to do with any concern for these parents regarding the loss of their son.  And I have a feeling that he likely knew that he was there for one reason and one reason only.  He was there to bait Trump into responding.  And Trump did respond, in an interview with ABC host and former ‘Slick Willie’ aide George ‘Stephy’ Stephanopoulos.

Now as Trump putdowns usually tend to go, The Donald’s response to Mr. Khan’s statements was relatively mild. For one, he said he expressed condolences for the family’s loss and their son’s service. On the negative side, he wondered why Mrs. Khan hadn’t been allowed to speak at the convention, which gave the impression he was implying it was due to her faith. Trump also said in his characteristically humble fashion that he has made sacrifices in developing successful companies.

Now while Trump’s comments may have been somewhat inartful, they were hardly the stuff of vicious denigration. Trump did not attack the service of the Khans’ son and the issue, as later campaign statements pointed out, dealt with the father’s criticism of the Republican nominee’s policies.  Apparently, such a response is to be considered “inhuman”, even “barbaric,” according to the Washington consensus. Thus, we’re in the midst of the most disingenuous Trump outrage story yet generated.

Here are a few things to take away from this supposed scandal.  First of all, Trump and his proposals have zero responsibility for Captain Khan’s death. The same cannot be said of Hitlery, who authorized the Iraq war and continued supporting it long after it was abundantly clear it was a major disaster.  Moreover, her hawkish foreign policy would lead to more unnecessary interventions into the Middle East and other parts of the world and sadly create more Gold Star families like the Khans.

And for anyone to then criticize Trump for his lack of sacrifice, yet overlook Hitlery’s lack of sacrifice and tacitly endorse her policies forcing more American families to lose their children on behalf of what are nothing more than fuzzy ideological objectives is nothing if not totally ridiculous as well as being more than just a little hypocritical.  This entire episode was nothing more than another attempt to somehow portray Trump as being unqualified for the office that he seeks

Secondly, Mr. Khan is draping himself in his son’s death to attack Trump on an issue totally unrelated to his son’s death. A moratorium on countries where radical Islamists are abundant is about national security. Same goes for the proposal to secure the U.S.-Mexico border. The elder Khan claims it is unconstitutional and un-American to do both, when, in fact, legal scholars argue the measures fit very much within the precedents of American immigration law.

To denigrate the Khan family for their sacrifice is wrong and we should honor their son’s service. However, that does not mean the father is immune from criticism on political issues after he decided to take them up in the public arena. Upholding the standard that the families of fallen soldiers should not be criticized for anything is illogical and asinine. We certainly didn’t apply the same standard to Cindy Sheehan and her very well covered crusade against George W. Bush.

And thirdly, the impression given by the media that Captain Khan is reflective of all Muslims who may want to enter in the United States is just as faulty as claiming all Muslims are terrorists.  It is true that 14 Muslims have lost their lives in service to this country since 9/11.  It is also true that over 5000 Muslims are currently serving in our armed services. Various outlets love to report these facts with the hope it transmits the notion that Muslims are somehow incredibly patriotic.  They are not.

Finally, it’s 100 percent certain that our state-controlled media is nothing more than the unofficial arm of Hitlery’s presidential campaign. After a whole week of trying to downplay the Wikileaks DNC scandal they’ve done their best to create a top-down outrage story for the sole purpose of trying to shame Trump and his supporters.  As a Trump supporter I would argue that Mr. Khan’s should be ashamed for allowing himself, and the death of his son, to be exploited by someone like Hitlery.

While claiming that Khan is somehow above any and all criticism due to his loss, many involved in the smear machine that is the state-controlled media had spent nearly all of the prior week attacking Pat Smith, the mother of a Benghazi victim, for allowing herself to be exploited by the Republican National Convention. Her crime?  Sharing the story of how she believes Hitlery is responsible for her son’s death, which clearly has far more basis in fact than does Trump having any responsibility for Khan’s death.

Additionally, our state-controlled media ignored completely the stories of the families at the Republican convention who lost loved ones to illegal immigrants, some who had been deported multiple times but were still able to get back into this country. Their children died as a direct result of policies supported by the Democrat Party, and more specially Barry “Almighty” and Hitlery, but the media plays by a double standard when it comes to who gets to use their tragedy to highlight a policy issue. 

The Khan affair is yet another blatant demonstration that our state-controlled media is deadset against Trump and will blow any story out of proportion to the greatest extent possible in what has become their continuing effort to gin up as much resistance as possible to his candidacy.  Let’s be honest here, the supposed journalists now hyperventilating over Trump’s response to Khan couldn’t care less about Gold Star families or veterans, it’s nothing more than an opportunity to derail The Donald.

And now we’re finding out how Mr. Khan has ties to the government of Saudi Arabia as well as to some international Islamist investors through his own law firm.  In addition to those ties to the wealthy Islamist nation, Khan also has ties to controversial immigration programs that wealthy foreigners can use to essentially buy their way into the United States, and has deep ties to the “Clinton Cash” narrative through the Clinton Foundation.  So once again things are not exactly as we’re lead to believe.

Also, Mr. Khan is an attorney who has previously written in a law journal about Islamic law. He specifically wrote about the purity of the Quran and the Sunnah over all other texts and interpretations.  Khan wrote “Juristic Classification Of Islamic Law” in the Houston Journal of International Law in 1983.  In it he also breaks down different levels of Islamic law. Khan writes that the Quran and the Sunnah were the only sources in Muhammad’s lifetime that “were recognized as binding.” 

Look, since I didn’t watch the convention I only heard about the speech after the fact so I didn’t really pay all that much attention to it.  And I think that if it is true that he has ties to the Saudis and to the Clinton foundation there’s no reason not to counterattack his accusations.  And I think that that also might provide us with the reason why it was that he would go out on national television and make the idiotic claim that Islamic terrorists have nothing to do with Islam.  It’s all about politics.