On the last night of the Democrat convention, the Clinton campaign introduced the parents of an American soldier Army Capt. Humayun Khan, who fell in Iraq a dozen years ago.

Mr. Khan, who was born in Pakistan, spoke in a thick accent of the sacrifice of his son while Mrs. Khan, in traditional Muslim dress, looked on, but what started as a tribute to his son soon turned into a savage attack on Clinton’s opponent in the presidential election, Donald Trump.

Khan dramatically drew a booklet version of the U.S. Constitution from his breast pocket, accusing Trump of having never read the founding document and offering to give him the copy.

The speech garnered massive media attention with some saying it was more memorable than Clinton’s acceptance speech.

The image of the older couple, Mr. Khan seeming to be slightly uncomfortable with English, was touching, and the Clinton campaign used them to tug at the heart-strings, but as the days passed and Trump responded with what he calls his “counter-punch,” more about Mr. Khan emerged that challenged the carefully crafted and unchallenged picture that was presented onstage.

Khan is no ordinary, simple immigrant seeking a better life and struggling with the language in a new country.

In fact, he is the wealthy senior partner in a New York law firm with ties to a D.C. firm that lobbies for Saudi Arabia and has bundled contributions to Clinton’s campaign.

Beyond these dubious associations, however is the irony of the Khans willingness to be used in a political campaign by a woman who, as a member of the U.S. Senate, voted for the very war that killed his son.

That simple fact apparently did not occur to the weeping delegates on the convention floor, nor the millions of Democrats watching at home.

Donald Trump bears no responsibility for that war.

Hillary Clinton does.

And, again, the liberal media was so enthralled with their chosen candidate that they failed to notice.



JOIN U.S. HERALD Subscribe for FREE today and find out what's REALLY happening in America!