From 8-1-16 episode of The Rob Zicari Show LIVE 10-1pm M-F
So I guess we’re time traveling now.
That’s what we’re doing with Khizr Khan and his wife. We’re saying if Donald Trump’s Muslim ban had been in place, the Khans never would have been allowed into the U.S. where they would have a son who would go on to serve in the military and die saving the lives of his fellow American soldiers.
You could also time travel back to pre-9/11. If Trump’s Muslim ban had been in place, the 9/11 hijackers would not have been allowed into the country to take flying lessons. In San Bernardino, Syed Farook would not have been able to bring his Pakistani terrorist wife into the U.S. via Saudi Arabia.
I would gladly trade the American soldiers whose lives Humayun Khan saved for the over 3,000 lives lost on 9/11, or the 14 people gunned down in San Bernardino. Since we’re time traveling, we have to consider what else a Muslim ban would have prevented besides Khizr Khan not being able to come to America.
This wouldn’t have been a story if Hillary Clinton had not paraded Khan and his wife in front of the DNC convention. It was a political move. It wasn’t done to celebrate the life of a war hero, it was done specifically to play the Muslim angle against Trump. It was done to create what is happening now. It’s made-up controversy.
How do you stand on stage and attack someone, especially Trump, and not expect some kind of response? The irony of the whole thing is that Humayun Khan was killed during the Iraq War, a war Hillary Clinton voted for. If you want to play the time travel game, you could go back to 2002 and prevent Hillary and the rest of Congress from authorizing the Iraq War and Humayun Khan wouldn’t have died.
If you think this situation and the controversy are organic and spontaneous, you’re nuts. It’s manufactured outrage. Khizr Khan has ties to the Clinton campaign. The guy is an immigration lawyer. His job is to help Muslims emigrate to this country. The law firm Khan works for is tied to the Clintons.
Khizr Khan has all sorts of financial, legal, and political connections to the Clintons through his old law firm, the mega-D.C. firm Hogan Lovells LLP. That firm did Hillary Clinton’s taxes for years, starting when Khan still worked there involved in, according to his own website, matters “firm wide”—back in 2004. It also has represented, for years, the government of Saudi Arabia in the United States. Saudi Arabia, of course, is a Clinton Foundation donor which—along with the mega-bundlers of thousands upon thousands in political donations to both of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2016—plays right into the “Clinton Cash” narrative.
This is all legit. The narrative that Trump just woke up one morning and decided to talk about Khizr Khan and question why his wife didn’t speak is preposterous. This is an orchestrated hit that is being prolonged by the media so that no one talks about Hillary Clinton lying about her emails and the revelations in the book and movie Clinton Cash. CNN refuses to talk about anything in Clinton Cash, but they will devote hours to discussing a made-up controversy like Khizr Khan.
Trump didn’t criticize Humayun Khan or question his heroism. All he did was ask why Khizr’s wife was silent. That’s it. That’s all it took for the media to bring the hammer down and for Khizr Khan to make the rounds on all the news talk shows slamming Trump. Was Trump not supposed to respond?
What Khan said in his DNC speech wasn’t even accurate. From AmericanThinker.com:
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.
This basically backs up what I’ve said. Trump’s Muslim ban does not apply to Muslims who are here legally. Deporting people who are here illegally is 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.
Of course, the media isn’t focusing on Trump’s statement. According to them, Trump should just shut up and let Khizr Khan go from talk show to talk show and trash him. It’s insane.
Here’s the meat of the American Thinker article:
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.'”
As you can see, banning Muslims sort of messes with Khizr Khan’s business. It makes it a little harder for Khan to get his Muslim Brotherhood friends into the country. Now they would have to be properly vetted. Not that half-assed Obama vetting that lets in people like San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik.
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.”
This is plausible. The Saudi government has given the Hillary Clinton campaign more money than any other presidential candidate.
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.”
As you can see, this controversy didn’t spring out of nowhere. Trump didn’t randomly run into Khizr Khan at a hotel or a golf course or at Mar A Lago. It’s obvious that Khan has ties to the Clinton camp.
The media has given this more attention than Pat Smith, whose son was killed in Benghazi and who spoke at the RNC convention a week earlier. Hillary Clinton lied to her about how it happened. Then Hillary lied again and said she never told Smith that her son was killed because of outrage over an anti-Muslim video. All Trump did was respond to Khizr Khan and ask why his wife was silent. What the hell is he supposed to apologize for? Trump didn’t authorize the Iraq War. Trump didn’t lie to the mother of a fallen soldier.
Here’s how much more airtime Khizr Khan has gotten over Pat Smith. According to the Media Research Center, from July 19 to Aug. 1, ABC, CBS, and NBC devoted only one minute and 10 seconds to covering Smith. However, the same networks managed to spend 55 minutes and 13 seconds covering Khan.
Here’s the breakdown:
Coverage of Pat Smith:
ABC: 13 seconds
CBS: 3 seconds
NBC: 54 seconds
TOTAL: 1 minute, 10 seconds
Coverage of Khizir Khan:
ABC: 14 minutes, 21 seconds
CBS: 9 minutes, 13 seconds
NBC: 31 minutes, 39 seconds
TOTAL: 55 minutes, 13 seconds
Are you still gonna tell me there no media bias? A manufactured outrage about Trump and Khizr Khan fits the Democratic agenda, so it gets pushed. The Pat Smith story made Hillary look bad, so it gets ignored. Sad!
Don’t fall for the Khan-job. Donald Trump didn’t disparage a Gold Star family. He didn’t dishonor a fallen hero. It’s all made up by Hillary Clinton and the media her party controls.