The enormity of the bad taste of the DNC regarding the manipulating of a Muslim man, Khizr Khan, to appear in the Democrat Convention to lecture Americans will grow each day as citizens continue to think about that in-your-face gesture. The man’s son, a Muslim U.S. military officer, was killed over ten years ago in Iraq.
The man has a right to grieve but so have many other fathers, nearly all of whom were/are not Muslim. The objective was to somehow embarrass or harass presidential candidate Donald Trump, who has never held an office in the government and certainly had nothing to do with either the man’s deployment or his death. Khan waved a copy of the U.S. Constitution as if in Trump's face though it had nothing to do with the subject but, ironically, Clinton voted for the action in which the son was killed.
The man claimed that Trump had never made such a sacrifice. Neither had the Muslim father. His son made the sacrifice and his father cheapened that sacrifice by taking credit for it and cheapened it even more by using that sacrifice in an attempted political hatchet job. What could be sleazier or more self-serving?
It has been no surprise that the media has awarded this man almost iconic status (even having him appear on TV, where he, a Muslim, called Trump, a Christian, a “black soul”) in using the hatchet job as a politically correct affront to Trump, apparently just because Trump has had no sons killed in Iraq, as was/is the case with millions of other fathers, whether Muslim or anything else.
The Democrat National Committee probably thought this would play on the emotions of everyone in Philadelphia and via TV throughout the entire world. It has done that and will until the folks see through the “big con,” and they will resent this outrage in the next hundred days until the November vote. To have one’s intelligence, the democrat party, and every military non-Muslim (infidel) sacrificing soldier (nearly all of them) so insulted is to invite utter disgust.
Then-DNC chairwoman Schultz, ironically a Jew condemned by Khan's holy book to death, must take responsibility for this outrage, though she has been fired for attempting to rig the DNC against Clinton's Primary opponent, Bernie Sanders. An apology to all Americans is in order since that same holy book demands that infidels (non-Muslims) must be made to pay the tax (be enslaved) or killed, except for Jews, whose only option is death.
This affair occurred account blatant stupidity or planned example of the new social paradigm—political correctness. Or, it was just to get another democrat-voting bloc as per the black and Latino blocs, while scourging Trump as a racist vis-a-vis Muslims. Trump has correctly called for a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants until they have been properly vetted, while Clinton has called for the immigration of hundreds of thousands of Muslim Syrians, who presently cannot be vetted for obvious reasons. A look at Germany and France is instructive.
In 2009 at Fort Hood, Khan's fellow-Muslim and his son's fellow-soldier, U.S. Army Major Hasan, screamed Allah Akbar and slaughtered 13 innocent Americans, wounding more than thirty more. He, not Trump, represents a “black soul,” as did each airline-hijacker on 9/11, killing 3,000. In political-correctness equity, the DNC should have had the Christian father of a fallen Christian son onstage to wave a copy of the Koran in Hillary Clinton's face. She, not Trump, voted for the war, in which both sons died.
Clinton got UN “permission,” not Congress's, for Obama to attack defenseless MUSLIM Libya, where innocent Libyans died in the streets for over seven months in 2011. Would Khan agree that she, too, is a “black soul?” What cheap, small-minded democrat hypocrisy!
And so it goes.