From Breitbart (hat-tip to Vincie Metcalf). Read yesterday’s post for additional background.
Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father that the mainstream media and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been using to criticize Donald J. Trump, has deep ties to the government of Saudi Arabia—and to international Islamist investors through his own law firm. In addition to those ties to the wealthy Islamist nation, Khan also has ties to controversial immigration programs that wealthy foreigners can use to essentially buy their way into the United States—and has deep ties to the “Clinton Cash” narrative through the Clinton Foundation.
Khan and his wife Ghazala Khan both appeared on stage at the Democratic National Convention to attack, on Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s behalf, Donald Trump—the Republican nominee for president. Their son, U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan, was killed in Iraq in 2004. Khizr Khan, in his speech to the DNC, lambasted Donald Trump for wanting to temporarily halt Islamic migration to America from countries with a proven history of exporting terrorists.
Since then, Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos—who served as a senior adviser to the president in Bill Clinton’s White House and is a Clinton Foundation donor as well as a host on the ABC network—pushed Trump on the matter in an interview. Trump’s comments in that interview have sparked the same mini-rebellion inside his party, in the media and across the aisle that has happened many times before. The usual suspects inside the GOP, from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to House Speaker Paul Ryan to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to Ohio Gov. John Kasich, have condemned Trump in one way or another. The media condemnation has been swift and Democrats, as well their friends throughout media, are driving the train as fast as they can.
But until now, it looked like the Khans were just Gold Star parents who the big bad Donald Trump attacked. It turns out, however, in addition to being Gold Star parents, the Khans are financially and legally tied deeply to the industry of Muslim migration–and to the government of Saudi Arabia and to the Clintons themselves.
Khan, according to Intelius as also reported by Walid Shoebat, used to work at the law firm Hogan Lovells, LLP, a major D.C. law firm that has been on retainer as the law firm representing the government of Saudi Arabia in the United States for years. Citing federal government disclosure forms, the Washington Free Beacon reported the connection between Saudi Arabia and Hogan Lovells a couple weeks ago.
The full article also contains extensive reportage on Khans business connections to the EB5 Immigration program.
Gary Bauer at Campaign for Working Families holds forth on the constitutionality of selective immigration.
Khan And The Constitution (Aug. 2, 2016, — graphic not in original))
An important point that has been lost in all the controversy over Khizr Khan’s speech at the Democratic National Convention and Donald Trump’s response to it is that Khan’s main point was shockingly wrong. He suggested that Trump’s proposal to temporarily halt Muslim immigration is unconstitutional. He even brandished a pocket copy of the Constitution to punctuate his point and accused Trump of never having read it.
It was an amazing moment. Does Mr. Khan not realize that he was speaking at the nominating convention of Hillary Clinton, who has endorsed unconstitutional restrictions on religious liberty and promised to severely curtail the First Amendment right to free speech, to appoint judges that would gut the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms and to sign more constitutionally dubious executive orders than President Obama? Apparently not.
Khan’s suggestion that it is unconstitutional to limit immigration based on religion may be taken for granted by Democratic convention goers and liberal journalists, but it’s incorrect. The response often heard last week in the wake of the speech was that the Constitution says religious tests are not permissible. The religious tests provision appears in Article VI of the Constitution. It states that no office holder or government employee can be required to adhere to a particular religion.
That provision has been misinterpreted in several ways, including to suggest that a voter may not take religion into account when choosing whom to vote for. But that’s not what the article says. It says that the government cannot take religion into account, but voters certainly can. More to the point, the provision says nothing about whether lawmakers can take religion into account when deciding who may enter the country.
For example, during the Iranian hostage crisis, the U.S. banned Iranians from entering the country unless they opposed the Shiite Islamist regime. Who issued the order? Oh yeah, it was that radical right-wing demagogue Jimmy Carter. . . .
