Crooked Clinton and Democrats use Gold Star Family as Political Tool

3344

As an example of Trump’s alleged racism, one point of contention used as evidence by the Huffington Post noted: “He attacked Muslim Gold Star parents”.

The Khan family, who are Pakistani, attacked Trump during the Democratic National Convention. Trump responded by saying Ms. Khan probably wasn’t even allowed to speak. While Trump’s statement may not have reflected the personal relationship of the Khans, Ms. Khan did not speak and sat on the sidelines. The Khans later stated that she was too distraught to speak, which is understandable, although their son was killed as far back as 2004.

It is also understandable that Trump made the statement or the assumption that Pakistani women are often silenced and abused.

Consider a recent article in The Atlantic, in which the plight of Pakistani women was depicted; “more than 1,000 women and girls are murdered in ‘honor killings’ every year” as well as “a reported 90 percent of Pakistani women suffer from domestic violence”. Although Trump made the assumption, how can we honestly blame him for assuming that this sort of silencing and violence against Pakistani women doesn’t occur?

It is certainly bad to make assumptions.  Sometimes assumptions speak to greater truths that linger out in the open; sometimes assumptions are simply not the full picture.

Khan family addresses DNC audience
Khan family addresses DNC audience

Khriz Khan stated,

“Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims. He disrespects other minorities, women, judges, and even his own party leadership. Donald Trump loves to build walls and ban us from this country.”

In which case it is evident that the speech’s focus was an attack on the Republican presidential candidate.

But who asked the Khans to speak at the DNC and write a speech directed at Trump? It is unfortunate and disrespectful to their son’s honor, whether they realized it or not, for the Khans to be used as a political tool by the Democratic party and its leadership.

Shortly after the speech, a U.S. army veteran close to Humayun S.M. Khan, wrote a letter to Khriz Khan, in which he expressed his feeling about Mr. Khan using his son’s death as a political tool. The U.S. army veteran stated,

As a veteran, I watched your comments at the Democratic National Convention with a mixture of sadness, and anger […] I am troubled that you would allow a party that has little more than contempt for the US Service Member to parade you into the DNC to denounce Donald Trump. Did you watch when protesters at the DNC booed and heckled Medal of Honour recipient Capt. Florent Groberg? Did you notice your party interrupting the moment of silence for slain police officers?”

You can make a speech that honors your son, or you can make a speech against Donald Trump. 

You can’t make both with equal sincerity, but you can make one serve the other. In which case, the sacrifice of Army Capt. Humayun S.M. Khan was the delivery of the message, a tool for the rhetoric of the Democratic party, through the mouth of Mr. Khan. Something which is low, even for their dirty tactics. It seems like the DNC used the Khan’s distress and their political leaning in order to get at Trump and make headlines. Trump may use inflammatory rhetoric like stating “a carpet ban on Muslims,” which the U.S. army veteran addressed by stating,

“To conflate the need to prevent potential terrorists from entering our country with the belief that ‘all Muslims’ should be banned is simply wrong and disingenuous;”

But Trump’s statements are precisely meant to protect Americans, and save American service men from assuming the ultimate sacrifice.  

To quote the U.S. army veteran,

As a reminder, Mr. Trump said: “Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life,” The irony of your son’s own death at the hands of these very people in Iraq should not be ignored. I have little doubt that your son would have recognized the need to protect our country from these very people. In fact, he held his own troops back so that he could check on a suspicious car. Your son understood sacrifice and how to protect “his people’ his soldiers’ ’his fellow Americans’”

 

disqus-arrow
You Might Like