A perfect trap was set for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. His Democratic socialist opponent Hillary Clinton put in the Democratic National Convention last week Khizr Khan, a Muslim speaker, who viciously attacked Trump.
Hillary is not a match for Trump. This is why she needed to resort to a low trick. While Trump brought Peter Thiel, a Republican homosexual, to give a speech at the Republican National Convention to offend conservative Christians by saying that he is proud about his homosexuality, Hillary brought a Muslim to offend Trump by saying that he is proud about Islam.
In Khizr Khan he has finally met his match. In the convention, Khan said, “If it was up to Donald Trump he never would have been in America,” in reference to his dead son and Trump’s plans to ban non-American Muslims from the United States.
All the U.S. conservative and leftist media is attacking for days Trump, because Khan’s main argument was that his son, a captain in the U.S. Army, was killed in combat in the Iraq War in 2004. Hillary called the late soldier “the best of America.”
Democrats and Republicans are attacking Trump.
Socialists and conservatives are attacking Trump.
“I don’t know where the bottom is,” sneered Hillary, rejoicing that at last Trump was ensnared.
But the real bottom, said liberal journalist Piers Morgan addressing Hillary, “It’s using grieving parents who lost their son in an illegal, unethical, immoral war that YOU voted for, as a political weapon.”
The Iraq War that killed Khan’s son was approved by then Senator Hillary Clinton, who now uses Khan to attack Trump.
Morgan said about this war, “This was one of the biggest mistakes made in the history of modern America.”
Both George W. Bush and Hillary approved it. From a Christian and humanitarian perspective, this war was a total disaster for Christians.
Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, there were over 2 million Christians. Today, they number 300,000. The U.S. military presence in Iraq did not protect Christians and even after the genocide, the U.S. has massively opened its immigration doors to Muslims, not their Christian victims.
The ten Islamic terrorists who attacked the U.S. on 9/11 were not from Iraq. They were from Saudi Arabia. Why did not the U.S. invade and attack Saudi Arabia, which is, in fact, the biggest sponsor of worldwide Islamic terrorism?
Saddam Hussein was not a good man, but at least he protected Christian minorities much better than the U.S. did after the invasion of Iraq. The U.S. military mission in Iraq was a failure and eventually brought ISIS and chaos and genocide to Christians.
In no way Khizr Khan is an innocent “American” patriot. According to WND (WorldNetDaily), he “has deep ties to the government of Saudi Arabia—and to 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 Foundation.”
Now, Khan has deleted his law firm website that specialized in Islamic immigration to the U.S. in an attempt to hide his dark secrets. He was being paid to bring more and more Muslims to the U.S.
But the American public is so blind about the Islamic reality, especially when covered up by a supposed American patriotism, that they are attacking Trump.
Veterans of Foreign Wars, which was praising Trump, now attacks him and defends Khan.
Arizona Senator John McCain, who was a Republican presidential candidate in the 2008 election and a hawkish neocon who helped stir a revolution in Ukraine against Russia, told Khizr Khan, “thank you for immigrating to America,” while expressing how much he disagrees with Trump over his call to ban non-American Muslims from entering the United States.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Republican Catholic, also rebuked Trump, saying a “religious test for entering our country is no reflection” of American values. He does not know the history of his country! Actually, when America had such tests in the time of her founders, she was better and more Christian. Now she does not know what she is.
Trump tried to react to the massive attacks, which essentially defended Khan and his Islamic ideology, saying: “This story is not about Mr. Khan, who is all over the place doing interviews, but rather RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM and the U.S. Get smart!”
But it was to no avail. Everybody are united with Khan and against Trump. Conservatives, liberals, hard-core Marxists, hawkish neocons. Everybody.
Trump saw rightly. This is about Islam. While he was facing an Islamic trap set by Hillary, Pope Francis was saying, “It’s not true and it’s not correct (to say) Islam is terrorism.” But he did not face the massive hurricane of criticism Trump did.
The pope added: “I believe that in every religion there is always a little fundamentalist group. I don’t like to talk of Islamic violence because every day, when I go through the newspapers, I see violence, this man who kills his girlfriend, another who kills his mother-in-law. And these are baptized Catholics. If I speak of Islamic violence, then I have to speak of Catholic violence.”
As for the Islamic State group, he said it “presents itself with a violent identity card, but that’s not Islam.”
The European and U.S. media have not attacked the pope for such remarks. Hillary, Obama, John McCain and hawkish neocons have not attacked the pope for such remarks.
But all of them want Trump to soften his stance on Islam. And all of them want him to harden his stance on Russia.
After the daily, relentless attacks by all of them using Khan against Trump’s hard stance on Islam, they are now targeting his “soft” stance on Russia. Besieged by all sides by a powerful media hurricane supporting Khan, Trump seems to be willing to make some sacrifices and backtrack on Russia for the sake of Khan and Islam.
The whole media is attacking him over Russia. When he was asked on ABC whether he would support the Crimea annexation, Trump said: “I’m going to take a look at it. But, you know, the people of Crimea, from what I’ve heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were.”
Most of Crimea is populated with ethnic Russians. But, for geopolitical interests and neocons’ ambitions, the Obama administration has refused to recognize the legitimacy of Russian referendums in Crimea.
Trump, though, suggested the U.S. should accept Russia’s annexation if it would lead to better relations with Russia and stronger cooperation in fighting ISIS militants.
Obama imposed economic sanctions against Russia for annexing Crimea two years ago. But according Dr. Scott Lively, this was a pretext. Actually, Obama provoked and used the Ukrainian chaos to chastise Russia for defying his homosexual imperialism.
The United Nations also doesn’t recognize Crimea as part of Russia, and some top hawkish Republicans staunchly defend the U.S. geopolitical interests in Crimea against what they consider Russian “aggression,” when in reality there was no aggression.
Under Trump, the Republican Party platform softened a stance on military involvement in Ukraine. Although the platform is not pro-Russia, Trump supporters succeeded in preventing a neocon reference to arming Ukraine from being added.
Many in the U.S., in the conservative and leftist camps, are displeased by his focus on Islam, not Russia. Neocons are working hard to change his focus. And the Khizr Khan case is helping both camps.
In a searing denouncement on defense of Khan, President Obama castigated Trump as “unfit” and “woefully unprepared” to serve in the White House. He challenged Republicans to withdraw their support for their presidential candidate, declaring “There has to come a point at which you say ‘enough.’”
“I think the Republican nominee is unfit to serve as president,” said Obama, who noted his opposition to Trump replacing him goes beyond policy differences with his 2008 and 2012 opponents, John McCain and Mitt Romney.
“I didn’t have a doubt that they could function as president,” he said. “I think I was right and Mitt Romney and John McCain were wrong on certain policy issues, but I never thought that they couldn’t do the job.”
If the U.S. is to have a Republican president, Obama supports Romney or McCain. Trump, never.
If Khan were Russian, Obama, McCain, Romney, the whole Democratic Party, the whole Republican Party and the whole (liberal and conservative) media would be supporting Trump. But he is Muslim, and this grants him special privileges.
Hillary introduced Muslim Khan in the elections to ensnare Trump, and Trump seems to have fallen into the trap. Why did Trump introduce Peter Thiel, the PayPal founder? To ensnare conservatives? To lead the conservative moment to fall into a trap? In 2011, I was victim of Thiel’s abusive power favoring the homosexual movement.
You can watch this Catholic video about my case:
And this evangelical video on my case:
Definitely, it was not cool for Hillary to use Khan to provoke Trump. And it was not cool for Trump to allow the Republican Party and his staff use Thiel to provoke conservative Christians.
While neocons want everybody worried and panicked over Russia, so that they may keep profiting from arm trade and wars, it is Islam that is showing a formidable capability of defeating Trump through democratic weapons used by liberals and misguided or false conservatives and blind patriots.
If Trump does not follow neocons’ interests, they will have everybody worried and panicked over him. From Hillary’s trap to neocons’ trap.
They want him to make certain sacrifices. Russia will be one of them. Islam? Never.
With information from DailyMail, WND and Associated Press.
Portuguese version of this article: Uma armadilha para Trump
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.