Is There a Backstory about Khizr Khan and Donald Trump? By Eileen F. Toplansky
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 (Islamic 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, “[t]o 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 their own 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 Read more: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3455099/posts Word count 967 email@example.com