A Trap for Trump
Democrats use Muslim to ruin Trump’s candidacy
By Julio
Severo
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.
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. to try
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 (https://youtu.be/fSSjmMwQNn4)
and this evangelical video (https://youtu.be/oZ8fzSkiB5A)
on my case.
Definitely,
it was not cool for Hillary to use Khan to provoke Trump. And it was not cool
for Trump to let 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
Source: Last Days Watchman
Recommended Reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment