Khan you see the hypocrisy?

by Daryl D. Tan

I'm not a big fan of Donald Trump, but if there’s one thing I absolutely abhor – it’s media bias. I agree, Donald Trump is boorish, offensive and rude, but Hillary Clinton on the other hand is someone who’s actually dangerous. She thrives on war, and that's a statement which can be backed up with facts. She is also terribly incompetent as Secretary of State as highlighted through her mishandling of classified information, her failure to protect American lives in Benghazi, and most notoriously the war in Libya (her doing) which created a vacuum of instability which in turn strengthened ISIS. The shadow of her incompetency will follow her all the way to the oval office if she does become the 45th president of the United States of America.

The media and most news sources have thus far unleashed an unrelenting barrage of blows on Trump’s campaign, but we only hear the chirping of crickets on the other side of the fence. This election has become a personality contest rather than one based on policy.

Trump’s campaign was especially dealt a huge blow after the statements he made about Mr Khizr Khan and his family last week after the Democratic National Convention. I don’t deny that his statements were terribly inappropriate. It appears he has paid the price as his poll numbers have taken a nose dive. But no. It isn’t over. At least not for Clinton and her band of puppets and sycophants. I just came across an article on Al Jazeera regarding the whole Khizr Khan vs Donald Trump saga, and I am astounded.

If Mr Khan had any credibility before, he definitely lost it now. This man is riding on the coattails of his son’s death all the way through, and he’s not even shy about it. It worked the first time, and most of the world felt greatly for his loss, but to push his son’s death as part of a political agenda is absolutely vile and disgusting.

Just because the media and most of the world took his side against Trump during their little spat before, Mr Khan – perhaps reeling from the after effects of his media-adjudged victory – has eagerly overestimated his credibility. Based on that one spat with Trump, he now thinks himself a morally superior human being, not just in comparison to Trump, but to everyone else who disagrees with him or share differing political views, even some of those who have condemned Trump’s statements; particularly Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell.

In the article, “Khizr Khan condemned the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, and Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, for failing to withdraw their endorsement of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.”

Khan goes on to say "They are being cowards in a moral sense,"

Asked if top Republicans would eventually withdraw their endorsement for Trump, Khan answered: "It is coming. I assure you ... The moral dilemma in his candidacy is coming full circle."

The sheer arrogance of his statements is shocking. I don’t even like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell to begin with, but this has more to do with Mr Khan’s inflating ego. He’s now telling politicians how they should behave, and who they should endorse, just because he believes he has the ‘moral high ground’?

Speaking of which, Mr Khan isn’t even a saint himself. It was recently discovered that Mr Khan is an immigration lawyer who engages in the procurement of EB5 immigration visas, and as stated on Breitbart news – “The EB5 program, which helps wealthy foreigners usually from the Middle East essentially buy their way into America, is fraught with corruption”. This is particularly highlighted by Sen. Chuck Grassley who is the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee chairman. Even better, after his identity was discovered by journalists, his Law firm’s website mysteriously vanished. Hmm. To top things off, this is also a man who has ties to the infamous Muslim Brotherhood. But of course, the mainstream media isn't going to highlight such information right? After all, the objective is to obliterate Trump. Forget everything else.

In the Al Jazeera article, Mr. Khan also goes on to say that Trump is "incapable intellectually and mentally of understanding how he has helped boost recruitment for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) group with his fear-mongering tactics”. If there’s anybody who’s “incapable of understanding” what actually boosts recruitment for ISIS, it is Mr Khan himself.

If anything, ISIS thrives on foreign intervention as a recruitment tool. ISIS would rather have Clinton bag the presidency so that more wars will be perpetuated and ISIS can tell the disenfranchised youth of war-torn countries in the Middle East – “See, western boots are on our hallowed grounds. We must liberate ourselves and fight them”. Mr Khan is absolutely wrong on this issue. Donald Trump, for what it’s worth, is less of a hawk and more of a non-interventionist. He has repeatedly stated that the Iraq war was an absolute failure and that he was never in favour of it, that he does not wish to put boots on Middle Eastern grounds, and that he wishes for the US to have an amicable relationship with Russia if he becomes the president.

Unfortunately, instead of analysing these more substantial issues, the media gravitates towards the trivial and the general populace soaks it all in.