They are not citizens.
What is one to
make of the Democratic Convention speech of Khizr Khan, a Pakistani-born
Virginia lawyer whose son Humayun was killed in action in Iraq in 2004?
According to Byron York: Khan's brief speech wasn't a finely-detailed case. But he
suggested that Trump's Muslim ban and Mexican border wall proposals are
unconstitutional. Specifically, Khan cited the words 'liberty' and 'equal
protection of the law' in suggesting that Trump's policies violate the
Constitution. But, in fact,
"there's simply no sense in which a border wall violates the
Constitution." There is also "nothing unconstitutional about
deporting people who are in the United States illegally."
York emphasizes
that "[a]s far as a Muslim ban is concerned, Trump ... amended his
proposal to focus on immigration from countries 'compromised by terrorism.' But
assume that Khan was addressing Trump's original, more extensive, proposal: a
temporary ban on foreign Muslims from entering the United States."
In fact, the 14th
Amendment of the Constitution applies to "all persons born or
naturalized" in the United States. It does not refer to foreign
persons in foreign countries. Trump made it clear that this ban
"would not apply to U.S. citizens, members of the U.S. military and others
with a legal right to be in the United States." Whether one approves
or disapproves of Trump's building a wall, deporting illegal immigrants, and
temporarily banning the entry of foreign Muslims, the fact is that Trump's
proposals are not unconstitutional.
In an effort
toward clarification, Donald Trump released a statement:
Captain Humayun Khan was a hero to our country and we should honor all who have
made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our country safe. The real problem here are
the radical Islamic terrorists who killed him, and the efforts of these
radicals to enter our country to do us further harm. Given the state of the
world today, we have to know everything about those looking to enter our
country, and given the state of chaos in some of these countries, that is
impossible.
Moreover, Trump reiterated that "Captain Khan, killed 12 years ago, was a hero,
but this is about RADICAL ISLAMIC TERROR and the weakness of our 'leaders' to
eradicate it!"
But is there even
more to the story about Khizr Khan? According to Theodore Shoebat
and Walid Shoebat, Mr. Khizr Muazzam Khan is a promoter of Islamic sharia law
and a co-founder of the Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law
(sharia). In fact, in the past, Khizr Khan has shown "his
appreciation for an icon of the Muslim Brotherhood" by the name of Said
Ramadan, who "wrote material for the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia, an
organization that has been promoting Islamic revivalism and indoctrination
to recruit young people in Malaysia to jihadism." Mr. Said Ramadan
was the son-in-law of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood
including Ahmad Bahefzallah, the boss of Huma Abedin (Hillary Clinton's aide)". Should this
connection give us pause? Shoebat writes that "Khizr Khan currently runs a
law firm in New York called KM Khan Law Office, a firm that specializes in
'immigration services.'"
According to
Shoebat, "to understand the inception of Muslim immigration one must study
the Muslim Minority Affairs, a paradigm created by Saudi jurisprudence which
sparked during the times Khan lived in Saudi Arabia while collaborating with
the Saudi kingdom. It is likely that Khan is a Muslim plant working
with the Hillary Clinton campaign, probably for the interest of Muslim oil
companies as well as Muslim immigration into the U.S."
Khizr M. Khan
used to work for Hogan & Hartson and Lovells, which has ties to the
Clinton Foundation. Accordingly,
"Hogan Lovells LLP, another U.S. firm hired by the Saudis, is registered
to work for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia through 2016, disclosures show.
Robert Kyle, a lobbyist from the firm, has bundled $50,850 for Clinton’s
campaign."
In fact, Shoebat
relates how "[m]any lawyers at Hogan Lovells remember the week in 2004 when
U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan lost his life to a suicide bomber. Then-Hogan
& Hartson attorneys mourned the death because the soldier’s father, Khizr
Khan, a Muslim American immigrant, was among their beloved colleagues."
Shoebat
emphasizes that "Saudi interests with using Khan to advance Muslim
immigration and advance Muslim Sharia is a lengthy subject [.]"
"Then there are the ... ties to Hillary Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin
as well. The House of Saud had used Huma’s father Sayed Zaynul Abedin’s
work regarding the Muslim Minority Affairs in the West, published in 1998
as part of 29 works to construct a plan to conquer the U.S. with
Islam."
Shoebat maintains
that "[i]t is obvious that Khan is upset, that a Trump victory will eliminate
and destroy decades of hard work to bring in Islamic immigration into the
United States which was spearheaded by agents in Saudi Arabia like Khan and
Huma Abedin’s father (Sayed Z. Abedin)."
Huma Abedin has
never been properly vetted,
and this takes on even greater urgency
now that Clinton is running for the presidency. The mainstream media
continues to cover up
the Muslim Brotherhood's enormous clout in the Obama administration. Each
day brings new revelations about the financial influence and "access"
the Saudis
have exerted on the Clinton team. Patrick Poole, a national security analyst, asserts that "[t]here
are massive conflicts of interest. It's beyond
comprehension."
So is it wrong to
impugn Khan's motives? He appears to be a man in mourning for his
son. Was Mr. Khan merely being used by the Clinton campaign to advance
Clinton's agenda? Or is there an even larger issue concerning the
influence such people as Abedin
and Khan exert concerning Clinton's bid for the highest office in the
land?
What is one to
make of the Democratic Convention speech of Khizr Khan, a Pakistani-born
Virginia lawyer whose son Humayun was killed in action in Iraq in 2004?
No comments:
Post a Comment