A war of words has erupted between Donald Trump and Khizr Khan, the father of an Army Captain killed in Iraq. A war of words that started with a war against words, ie the 1st Amendment.
But Khizr Khan didn’t start that war at the DNC, that was started by the Dems decades ago, with the primary tactic being the “shame game”. The attempt to bully conservatives into submission through a beat down with the PC stick, to silence political opposition.
If you want welfare reform, you hate poor people. If you’re pro-life, you hate women. If you want border/immigration control, you hate brown people, and now muslims. And that’s exactly the well learned game that the muslims are using against to shame us into submission. Which is fitting since “the very definition of islam is submission”, says Nonie Darwish.
Thankfully, we have a presidential nominee who can’t be shamed into silence. At every primary leading up to the RNC, a majority of voters, including democrats and independents, agreed that temporarily stopping muslim immigration made sense. After all, Jimmy Carter did it during the hostage crisis.
Trump is supposed to stay silent now? Should Trump have responded to the political attack from Khan? Absolutely. His non political remarks propelled him to the ticket, and in large part due to his fearless comments on immigration.
I don’t necessarily agree with his choice of response. He should have kept it on the bigger issue we face of Islamic terror, and steered clear of personal comments.
But it was a delicate situation, by design, and Trump isn’t a career politician, well trained in the art of interview maneuver, carefully choosing words with only one goal, obtaining or maintaining political power.
And obtaining and maintaining power was the goal of Khan, not maintaining the Constitution that he dared to wave at Trump. Khan nastily asked if Trump had read it. Has Khan? The US Constitution doesn’t follow US Citizens to other countries, as we know after citizens have been held hostage by muslim countries like Iran. Likewise, the US Constitution doesn’t extend to non US citizens abroad, who have zero rights here, and that includes entrance.
By now most Americans have learned that Captain Khan died 12 years ago, but there’s no statue of limitations on not using your child as a political tool. It’s as unseemly and gross 25 years later as 12.
Yes Patricia Smith spoke at the RNC, but her son died specifically at the hands of Hillary. Trump had nothing to do with Khan’s son’s death. Hillary did, though, as she voted for the war, but Khan is as dishonest, apparently as Hillary.
Trump was asked what sacrifices he’s made. What sacrifices has Hillary made? Besides the sacrifice of the truth, Khan’s son. And she’s willing to sacrifice all our sons, daughters, gays, minorities, etc. to partner with the ideology of islam that does not discriminate. They want dominance over all infidels.
What sacrifices did Khazir Khan make for the country that allowed him entrance? He didn’t risk his life for America, his son did. He seems to think he did, and now deserves to demand open Islamic immigration as a result? He didn’t purchase that through his son’s military service, regardless of his paying the ultimate price.
US soldiers are supposed to be fighting for AMERICAN interests, not the interests of muslims around the world, the majority of whom, like Khizr Kahn, support sharia, that subjugates women, children, gays, Christians and Jews to persecution and death.
Not all US Soldiers fight for American interests, Major Nadal Hassan was a “Warrior for Allah”, like Khizr Khan. The only difference is tactic. There are 2 types of jihad, one through the sword and the other through using our system of laws, the Constitution he waved against us.
I say Nadal Hassan cancels out Captain Khan. But how many other Hassan’s remain in the service? Who knows. How many remain at every level of our government?
By now most Americans know Khan’s ties to the MB. And like Huma Abedin, ties to the WH and Hillary Clinton.
But they’re “good Americans”! How do we know? It’s as impossible to vet the muslim vets as the muslim government officials as the muslim immigrants.
Was this just a distraction that Trump and others should ignore? I say no. I say this is the most critical issue of our time; the partnership between the islamists and Democrats for power to then achieve the transformation of America to a Marxist state.
The distraction is the anti Trump movement on the right joining in on the left to attack Trump instead of keeping the focus on Hillary, Obama, the left, and their plan for America.
Trump had great poll numbers and a significant bounce coming out of the RNC. The Hillary campaign and her media will use every word he says against him and make up what he doesn’t say, to distract voters from her crimes, corruption, and ultimate communist schemes.
While traditional communism may have been atheistic, with replacement of church with state, islam shares the centralized government totalitarian goals with Clinton. So for that, she’s partnered with them, and is in effect a “Warrior for Allah”