JANESVILLE, WI — Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan opted to join in on Hillary Clinton’s latest attack against his party’s nominee.
In recent days, the establishment media has devoted a great deal of coverage to Khizr Khan, a Muslim father whose son died serving in Iraq and who spoke at the Democratic National Convention. During his DNC speech, Khan attacked Donald Trump for wanting to curb the record-high rate of Muslim immigration into the U.S.
Following the media’s practically round-the-clock coverage of Khan’s attacks against Trump, Speaker Paul Ryan decided to join in on the pile on.
Ryan issued a statement on Sunday in which he, once again, disavowed the use of a religious test for admitting foreign migrants.
Ryan wrote: “As I have said on numerous occasions, a religious test for entering our country is not reflective of these fundamental values. I reject it. Many Muslim Americans have served valiantly in our military and made the ultimate sacrifice. Captain Khan was one such brave example. His sacrifice — and that of Khizr and Ghazala Khan — should always be honored. Period.”
In his statement, Ryan did not mention that Trump has recently made clear that his plan to curb Islamic migration will focus on geography and regions. Nor did Ryan mention that — as many, including Jeff Sessions and Andrew McCarthy, have pointed out — religious screening is, in fact, constitutional.
Ryan’s decision to comment on Khan’s statement is interesting as Ryan issued no similar statement condemning Hillary Clinton after grieving parents whose children were murdered by illegal aliens spoke at the Republican National Convention and explained how Clinton-backed policies were directly responsible for their children’s deaths.
Both the Democratic and Republican national conventions featured grieving parents who linked their suffering to the policies of their opponents. For instance, the RNC featured a mother whose son was killed in Benghazi, as well as parents whose children were killed by illegal aliens that were allowed to remain in the country because of Obama-Clinton immigration policies.
Similarly, the Democratic National Convention, despite taking place in the wake of the recent attacks against police officers, featured parents of individuals killed in confrontations with police — including the mother of Michael Brown, a man who held up a convenient store, assaulted the store clerk, and allegedly attacked a police officer in an attempt to confiscate his firearm. In fact, it was that event — or rather the portrayal of the event by the left — that spawned the Black Lives Matter movement, which provided the intellectual foundation for recent attacks on police officers.
The DNC also featured the appearance of the Khan family, whose son died in 2004 in Iraq, even though Trump’s policies had no connection whatsoever with their son’s death. In fact, Hillary Clinton voted for the war in which their son died, whereas Trump opposed it.
Yet, while the media whipped itself into a frenzy over the Khan family’s testimony, the media completely ignored — and even cut away from — the speeches of the victims whose children’s deaths were the exclusive result of policies supported by Obama and Clinton. In fact, the media even went so far as to rebuke Republicans for giving a venue to the mother of a Benghazi victim to speak — condemning her speech as inappropriate and “wrong.”
The crux of the Khan family’s argument appears to be that because Trump’s interpretation of the constitution differs from their own, that Trump has somehow dishonored the memory of their son’s death. While some may find this to be a rather circuitous argument, it has been embraced by the establishment media.
The argument from the Khan family and their media boosters seems to be that because their son died in Iraq, and also happened to be Muslim, that the U.S. is morally obligated to admit an unlimited number of Muslim immigrants in the future with no examination or scrutiny paid to their religious beliefs — even though it is precisely this lax policy that allowed 3,000 Americans to die on 9/11 and many more to die in subsequent attacks.
Interestingly, as Gateway Pundit has pointed out, the number of Muslim soldiers who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan is the same number of those who have been killed by Muslim soldiers in America — Nidal Hasan and Hasan K. Akbar collectively killed 14 American soldiers on U.S. soil.
This means that, if you include attacks on military recruiting bases, the number of American soldiers killed on U.S. soil by Muslims is greater than the number of Muslim soldiers killed on foreign soil wearing America’s uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan.
While Donald Trump called Khan a hero, Trump explained that at the same time the nation must fix its immigration policy.
The notion put forth by the media that a less restrictive immigration policy would somehow damper America’s armed services is not supported by reality. Indeed, if Muslim immigration were an essential feature of U.S. military recruiting, in just the last 14 years alone, the U.S. has resettled a domestic pool close to the size of 1.7 million.
However, none of this stopped Paul Ryan from piling on in support of the Clintons’s anti-Trump narrative. And Ryan put out no statement whatsoever following the testimony of the American victims whose children were killed by open borders.
In fact, when several mothers, whose children died as a result of the open borders immigration policies, came to Ryan’s guarded estate to share their stories and to try to give Ryan a letter, Ryan fled from the mothers.
Ryan’s security detail similarly rejected the grieving mothers when they asked if his security personnel would accept the letter on Ryan’s behalf.
Ryan’s refusal to acknowledge these grieving parents, or offer a statement in support following their testimony at the RNC, appears to be contributing to the media’s narrative, in which an American death is only considered newsworthy to the extent that it supports a left-wing narrative about either the unique benefits of diversity or the hardships imposed by institutional racism.
Many have pointed out that Ryan’s recent statements seem designed to undermine Trump and the Republican Party’s chances of electoral success in 2016.
Indeed, several reports have documented that Ryan would likely accomplish more of his legislative goals on foreign trade, foreign migration, and foreign wars if Hillary Clinton were in the White House than if Donald Trump were president.
The Ryan-Clinton agenda on crime, trade, and immigration also aligns with the views of the Koch brotherss.
Ryan will face Wisconsin voters at the polls on August 9th. Should Ryan win his re-election and Trump lose, it is likely that — as Tim Kaine has predicted — amnesty will be enacted within the first 100 days, the TPP will be implemented, and criminal sentencing laws will be reduced, potentially resulting in an increase in the amount of violent crime and recidivism in U.S. communities.
All of these policies are supported by Paul Ryan, the Koch brothers, and the globalist special interests who fund both the Clinton campaign and Ryan.
Thus far, Speaker Paul Ryan has massively outspent his Republican primary opponent, Paul Nehlen. Unlike Dave Brat, Nehlen has received virtually no support from Washington conservatives. Indeed, some professional conservatives, such as Mark Levin, have appeared to be sidetracked, devoting their time and energy to criticizing Donald Trump’s trade policies.
Nehlen could deliver a surprise performance on August 9th because the election is an open primary. However, the local media has given Nehlen substantially less coverage than Dave Brat received. Nehlen is also running in a district where the residents are far removed from the effects of Ryan’s immigration policies.
In other words, while Paul Ryan frequently talks about returning home to Janesville to recharge his batteries, Janesville — which remains a picture of Norman Rockwell’s America — increasingly has no resemblance to the rest of the country that is living under the immigration and refugee policies championed by Speaker Ryan. Yet inevitably, if Ryan is able to continue enacting his policies of mass immigration, they will eventually have the same transformative effects on his own community.