Why Khan’s Background Matters
At the Democratic National Convention, Khizr Khan and his wife spoke about their son, Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq in 2004. There is no question to me that Mr. and Mrs. Khan’s son died bravely and that he is a hero. I certainly respect and honor his service. I would have stood beside him and fought with him myself had that need arisen. That is not the point of this blog. What has drawn my ire is the background of Mr. Khan and the seedy nature of his appearance at the convention. Being a very politically natured person, I tend to look at every thing critically and I have to ask myself, “didn’t they know that he would look bad? Didn’t they know that we would Google him? How can they be so stupid?”
There have been approximately 3,500 Muslim soldiers who have been deployed to combat areas. Approximately seven have been killed. Do you mean to tell me out of those seven, this is the only family the DNC could find to speak at the convention? One without deep ties to the Saudi Arabia, the Clinton Foundation,the Islamist Nation and who advocates for Sharia Law over our Constitution? I find that hard to believe. Mrs. Clinton would have better served herself by not even going there in the first place. However, she did and now she has opened Pandora’s Box.
Since that time much has been said and done on both sides. Most of those on the left are simply trying to deflect it away. Mr. Khan, according to Breitbart, deleted his law firm’s website that dealt with immigration of Muslims from the Middle East. According to Matthew Boyle of Breitbart, Mr. Khan’s firm assisted wealthy Muslims in obtaining EB5 visas. He quotes U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) who has detailed such corruption over the past several months, and in February issued a blistering statement about it. “Maybe it is only here on Capitol Hill—on this island surrounded by reality—that we can choose to plug our ears and refuse to listen to commonly accepted facts,” Grassley said in a statement earlier this year. “The Government Accountability Office, the media, industry experts, members of Congress, and federal agency officials, have concurred that the program is a serious problem with serious vulnerabilities. Allow me to mention a few of the flaws…The memo identifies seven main areas of program vulnerability, including the export of sensitive technology, economic espionage, use by foreign government agents and terrorists, investment fraud, illicit finance and money laundering.” ( http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/02/khizr-khan-deletes-law-firm-website-proving-financially-benefits-pay-play-muslim-migration/)
Additionally, Mrs. Clinton and others continue to attack Mr. Trump. God bless him, he makes it easy. He needs to listen to his advisors before he opens his mouth and puts his shoe in. It does make it easy for the Democrats to deflect the attention away from Mr. Khan’s attachment at the hip to the Clinton Foundation and their pay-to-play schemes. Also noted on the website Mr. Khan has deleted, there was noted another previous law firm where he was employed Hogan & Hartson (now Hogan & Lovell). Hogan & Hartson located in Washington, D. C., was retained by the Kingdom of Saudia Arabia. As we all now know by now, the Saudi government has made over $35 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation and this was at the time Mr. Khan was employed there. It is also interesting to note, that Hogan prepared the tax returns for Mrs. Clinton, and according to the Breitbart article cited above, “and helped acquire the patents for parts of the technology she used in crafting her illicit home-brew email server that the FBI director called “extremely careless” in handling classified information.”
And on top of all of this what Mr. Khan alleged in his speech about what Donald Trump wants to do wasn’t even true. Donald Trump does not want to permanently keep all Muslims out of the United States. It makes me ill every time I hear a Democrat make this allegation because he has not said this. He only wants to temporarily keep out Muslims until there is a viable method of vetting people who will ensure that terrorists will not get in. We want to keep out terrorists, right? I am assuming we can agree that would be a good idea. Right now there is no way to do that. Homeland Security has said it over and over again. In the past few months, there has been a terrorist attack somewhere in the world almost once a week. With this in mind, does it not make sense to proceed from a place of conservatism in regard to immigration? It doesn’t mean it must be permanent. Just a temporary measure to ensure the protection of our nation.
I asked a question on Facebook not long ago, and it was this, “Is there any benefit to being an American citizen any more?” I only received response. Today in this country we give more rights to the people who come here illegally, who don’t pay a dime in taxes, but take more from us in benefits than we do the citizens of this country. Why do we do that? Why do we believe that we come second? Our government’s first responsibility is to US, to protect and defend US its citizens. When it does not do that, then it has broken the social contract with the People and the People have the right to redress its grievances with that government. That government only exist ONLY because the People allow it to exist, NOT the other way around, and our government needs to remember that. This current government seems to have forgotten that, and therein lies some danger that it is too large, too powerful, and must be put in check. Sharia Law is completely incompatible with our Constitution and we cannot allow this continued trend towards allowing it to creep into our courtrooms. It stands in complete opposition to the First Amendment. It would deny every Christian his/her rights, and so we must stand strong against those like Mr. Khan and for the DNC to trot him out on a stage and have him speak hoping we never find out his backstory, is disturbing.
Let me know your thoughts!