For some odd reason, it has been one week since the start of the DNC and we find ourselves still talking about the DNC. The three major cable news outlets are still running soundbites from Bill and Barack and Michelle, and this week with Donald Trump's "botched" response, I have watched that now infamous clip of Mr. Khizr Khan dramatically tugging at his copy of the Constitution about a dozen times. This speech in particular has been making the rounds for liberals and phony conservatives alike to take another opportunity to condemn that big racist Donald Trump, clutching their pearls as they vicariously take umbrage for all those helpless people of color.
The Democrats brilliantly drummed up the perfect speaker. A speaker so sympathetic that a short six minute speech was enough to distract even the most staunch conservative from the 238 terror attacks by radical Islam in the month of June alone. He was a Muslim, check; gold star father, check; immigrant, check; and, what's this? A Constitutionalist?? Check, check, check! How irresistible to globalist neoconservatives like Paul Ryan and Fox News! Just like the Judge Curiel incident, here was a reasonably believable instance to opportunistically trot out "conservative principle" to take that populist schmuck down a peg. Watching Khan's speech for the first time, any Trump supporter would be hard pressed not to even slightly reconsider their position on their controversial champion. Khan had a pocket Constitution after all! But this intrepid journalist is not just any Trump supporter.
Behind this visually and rhetorically ingenious presentation lies a very sinister hypocrisy that is not readily apparent. At first glance, it seems almost impossible to refute Mr. Khan's message. As he endearingly grapples with the English language he demonstrates that all Muslims are not terrorists. He seemingly dismantles Ben Carson's totally Islamophobic remarks several months ago that the Constitution is incompatible with Sharia. Liberals will cite a man holding the Constitution as evidence that a 1400 year old religious doctrine cannot contradict the Constitution. He talks about the American dream and patriotism and sacrifice and, hey, you know what? Maybe this whole Muslim ban thing isn't what we're all about, huh? A touching Utopian sentiment, but tragically compassionate at the expense of reason.
Let's break down the sophistry and political theater and try to find some sense in all of this, as this is what conservatives do. The most misleading aspect of this speech is that the very concept is intended to construct and then deconstruct a straw man argument. The vast majority of conservatives weary of Islam are not ignorant bigots who believe that 1.6 billion religious nut-jobs are laying dormant for the biblical showdown between faiths. And yet Khan's performance implicitly attempted to disarm this nonexistent bigotry. Because us Republicans are constantly under siege by virtue signalling social justice warriors, the response to this Muslim patriot and his sacrifice in many minds was reflexively defensive. Even though every sensible person who saw this speech does not believe that all Muslims are fifth columnists, in a very subversive way Mr. Khan gets us thinking "well of course this man can be a patriot!" And he can be! But this red herring disorients a critical ear. The argument from Trump and from grassroots conservatives was never that Muslims are bad and we're going to have a reverse Holocaust against them, as the Huffington Post seems to have it; but by intentionally framing the dialogue in this context, we find ourselves already sympathetic to this disingenuous political operative.
Moreover, he is the father of a veteran. In this blessed country, veterans and their families are sacrosanct. In virtually no other country in the world is there a comparable reverence for military service and this is among our great strengths. But it can be our greatest weakness as an electorate for it has become so rhetorically easy to ruthlessly exploit blood for political gain. This gold star father decries Donald Trump from atop the grave of his fallen son. Shame on him. I do not have children, I have never lost anyone close to me (with the exception of Billy Mays). But it seems to me unfathomably callous and sick for a father to speak of the death of his son so cavalierly at a national political rally of all places. Shame on him.
Even more sickening is the cause for which this patriot was unceremoniously exhumed to endorse: Hillary Rotten Clinton and her pervert husband for President. Benghazi is but only the most famous example of the Clinton's flagrant disregard for the lives of American service men and women. At the RNC last week, in a perfect parallel, the mother of a Benghazi victim said that she personally holds Hillary Clinton responsible for the death of her son. Convenient how this clip ended up on the cutting room floor. Now I know what many liberals and some observant conservatives may be thinking at this point; but this mother is not comparable to Khan. Unlike him, she was personally misled and victimized by the woman she spoke against. If Trump was responsible for the IED that killed Khan's son and then conspired with the whole government to mislead the entire nation about the cause of death, this would be comparable; but that the father of a slain veteran can endorse those corrupt butchers only compounds the unforgivable sin of politicizing the death of his son.
And why exactly did his son die? That's the $64,000 question. Khizr Khan's son was killed by an IED in Iraq; and he and that IED found each other as a result of the failed neoconservative foreign policy of the globalist Bush family establishment. This interventionist foreign policy represents an ideology which Hillary Clinton continues to support in general and a disastrous war which she voted for in particular. A war for which she had no qualms casting a vote to send Khan's son to fight and die in America's great crusade to democratize the Middle East only to abandon him and that cause less than a decade later when it became politically inconvenient baggage. This flip flop betrays the most malicious form of political corruption. Obviously the great sacrifice that Khizr Khan talked about was not so great to Hillary. If there was any measured consideration for the worthiness of the cause of the Iraq War to spill American blood, it was apparently overridden by political ambition just five years later.
And what has since happened to Iraqi Republic? Surely Khizr Khan's son did not die for nothing. Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War and in doing so put American men and women in harms way, surely she fought to secure their gains as Secretary of State when she presided over then a thriving and stable democracy in Baghdad. Of course we know all too well that presuppositions of Democrat integrity are soon punctuated by the vicious thrust of a knife to the back. The spoils of the Iraq War won by George Bush were eagerly surrendered by Barack Obama and Crooked Hillary in exchange for their exalted pedestal on "the right side of history." All it cost was the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of beating hearts, son and daughters, mothers and fathers, and the immortal souls of two of the most malevolent Alinskyites to enter American politics. But hey, what difference at this point does it make? Right Khizr?
Khizr Khan is a hypocrite and a bad man, so what? He still made a valid point about Islamophobia and the Constitution! Still woefully wrong. If we investigate further, we get to the real meat and potatoes of the issue: Islam itself. Sure we can blame George W Bush for having a bad foreign policy. He was a good man with good intentions and the wrong idea. We can point fingers at wretched Democrat villains who see veterans as no less disposable than cigars and interns. What else is new? But the true antagonist of this whole affair dates back to a small caravan town in 7th century Arabia.
Oh yeah, I'm going there. Kizr Khan died for his country because 19 Islamist zealots slaughtered 2,996 innocent Americans in the name of their prophet and their god; and if Saddam Hussein had it his way, there would be a smoldering radioactive hole in the middle of Manhattan delivered by the same menace. This is not to say that all Muslims are terrorists, they're not. This is not to say that all Muslims are radicals (this is an important distinction), they're not. There are many millions of Muslims and sects of Islam who express their faith peacefully and have adjusted to life after medieval times; but many millions haven't. Hillary Clinton knows this, Khizr Khan knows this, Donald Trump knows this, and the American people know this. This fact is the root of Donald Trump's proposed moratorium on Muslim immigration and why the silent majority supports it.
Because in June of 2016 alone, 2,055 innocent lives were taken in the name of the Prophet. We see week after week on our Facebook feeds the mangled bodies, the grieving widows, the bloodied stuffed animals. There is a terror proto-state the size of the United Kingdom in the heart of the Muslim world that has declared war on the United States and promised to raise their black flag of Islamist barbarism over the White House. They have terror cells operating in all 50 states and they are sending more. ISIS operates in nearly every Islamic nation from Morocco to Indonesia and it is somehow Islamophobic to temporarily suspend immigration from those countries? Would it not be anything but prudent to handle the apocalyptic death worshiping cult with a country and an army before we import one more potential operative? Kizr Khan, whose son exploded with an IED laid by a radical Islamist, should understand more than most that we are at war and the nature of the enemy; that drastic times call for drastic measures. Radical Islam took his son and yet Islamophobia seems to be the only real blip on his radar.
Then Mr. Khan produces the pocket Constitution to dramatic effect, probably supplied to him by a Democratic politico who never read the damn thing, as if there is a real commitment the rule of law in the Muslim world. As I casually noted earlier, one man holding a piece of paper does not discount a millennium of Islamic jurisprudence which speaks directly to the contrary. Here is a thorough and helpful examination by the Center for Security Policy for a step by step comparison of the Constitution and the Quran. The important point is that on the most fundamental level Islam calls its followers to reject man-made law in favor of God's law, the Sharia. This is not some crackpot, tin foil hat, uncle racist theory cooked up on Fox News, this is textbook Islam as Allah dictated and Muhammad wrote. In fact, the greater the geographical proximity to the two holy mosques and historical continuity of Muslim rule, the more rigorously Sharia law is applied. The most obvious cases are Saudi Arabia and Iran, the capitals of the respective Sunni and Shia sects which enforce some of the most brutal provisions of Islamic law; provisions which if even spoken of at the DNC would incite a riot.
On just about every count, this speech is hypocritical or dishonest or both. The scandal is not that Democrats are dishonest hypocrites, this has always been the case. The scandal is that this liberal minstrel show put on year after year by George Soros and the moneyed puppet masters is shamelessly broadcast and consumed without objection by millions. Nobody thought the disabled girl with cerebral palsy was overkill? The pandering to the "Taco Bowl vote" (DNC leak found that this is code for Hispanics to Democrats) in Spanish and with illegals is acceptable? Khizr Khan's revisionist Islamic rendition of Yankee Doodle Dandy is a pandering, dishonest, hypocritical, misleading, and soullessly careless attempt at framing Donald Trump as a threat to democracy. It won't work.