When you get up on a national stage and inject yourself into the political process\u00a0you are fair game and so is everyone you bring with you.<\/strong><\/p>\n This is\u00a0especially\u00a0<\/em>true when you are lying through your teeth and have a dubious history — including recent history.<\/p>\n Specifically,\u00a0<\/em>Khan is an attorney who has previously written in a law journal on the “purity” of the Quran and Sunnah.<\/a><\/p>\n It is due to this that Khan writes, \u201cto Muslims, the Quran being the very word of God, it is the absolute authority from which springs the very conception of legality and every legal obligation.\u201d Every<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0<\/strong>legal obligation?<\/p>\n There it is, folks. \u00a0Oh sure, CNN has said that he “doesn’t” support Sharia law, but\u00a0his own words\u00a0<\/strong>say otherwise. \u00a0If every legal obligation\u00a0<\/em>arises from the Queeran, then no obligation\u00a0in conflict with it\u00a0<\/em>is lawful in his mind. \u00a0This is in direct conflict with our secular government;\u00a0The Constitution, not Sharia, is the supreme law of the land — and attempting to change that by any means other than amendment (good luck)\u00a0is an act being taken by an enemy of the nation.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Is that bad enough? \u00a0Well, actually, no, that’s not the end of it. \u00a0There are allegations that he has ties to Muslim Brotherhood and….. drum roll please…\u00a0Saudi Arabia<\/em>. \u00a0If true that makes things even worse, but it doesn’t have to be true; Khan has\u00a0by his own words\u00a0<\/em>disavowed the legitimacy of our Constitutional Republic!<\/p>\n But let’s get right down to brass tacks — why would he want to attack\u00a0Trump<\/em>?<\/p>\n Well that one’s easy:\u00a0He runs a law firm that specializes in, among other things, E-2 and EB-5 Visa programs\u00a0that allow overseas investors buy into US companies and essentially buy US citizenship and green cards. \u00a0<\/em><\/strong>They are widely-regarded as\u00a0massively abused and rife with fraud\u00a0<\/em>by a number of academic and political critics (myself included.) \u00a0His presumed clientele for same is largely comprised of wealthy (oil-rich) muslims\u00a0from nations that are implicated in fomenting or sheltering islamic terrorism.<\/em><\/p>\n Trump would likely slam the door on such immigration — and with good cause. \u00a0Gee, that wouldn’t be bad for (his) business, would it?<\/strong><\/p>\n Did the media note any of this or call him on the apparent rank hypocrisy? \u00a0Nope.<\/p>\n Not. Oh, and once this started getting around on the Internet? \u00a0His website, kmkhanlaw.com, was blanked — presumably to try to prevent that from becoming the story.<\/p>\n But the Internet Wayback Machine (which archives sites) had copies<\/a>, and what did it say?<\/p>\n Areas of Practice<\/strong><\/p>\n I hate it when “nothing you say or do on the Internet ever really\u00a0<\/em>disappears”\u00a0happens…..<\/p>\n By the way, that required all of about 30 seconds of effort to find too. \u00a0Would it really have been that hard for some media outlet — if there were any in the country including Fox<\/strong>\u00a0who aren’t in the tank for Clinton — to look into this and report on it?<\/em><\/p>\n Now let me be clear: Khan’s\u00a0son,\u00a0<\/em>who died serving our nation, is a hero. \u00a0He wrote a blank check to Uncle Sam for any amount up to and including his life, and he got cashiered.<\/p>\n But just as I do not implicate a son in the deeds of his father I do not implicate a father or mother in the deeds of his or her son! \u00a0<\/strong>Neither is entitled, either under the law or otherwise, to bear the cross or enjoy the accolades of the other especially when they insert themselves voluntarily into the political process. \u00a0<\/strong><\/em>Indeed perhaps Khan’s son went into the military to assuage his own\u00a0guilt\u00a0<\/em>at being the son of a man who was rampantly abusing the US legal system\u00a0or even arguably laying forth a claim that Sharia was superior to the US Constitution!<\/em><\/p>\n As soon as Khan attempted to trade on the death of a man<\/strong> who clearly believed none of the above\u00a0on the stage of the DNC his blatant, raw and outrageous hypocrisy, along with that of his\u00a0wife\u00a0<\/em>who played the “religious submissive wife” role\u00a0on stage\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>(but has been photographed\u00a0in common American-style street clothes\u00a0<\/em>and thus it can be\u00a0reasonably<\/strong> concluded\u00a0that too was a ruse<\/strong>) became\u00a0fair game.<\/strong><\/p>\n Oh, and by the way, banning immigration\u00a0for certain classes of people is Constitutional. \u00a0Go ask Jimmy Carter who did\u00a0exactly that\u00a0<\/em>during the Iranian Hostage “incident”, and I bet you can figure out what class he banned too. \u00a0Let me help you:<\/p>\n Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Should you believe this was an abstract issue to me it most-certainly was not<\/em>; I had a very close personal friend\u00a0who is Iranian\u00a0<\/em>at the time this occurred. \u00a0If he had left the United States for any reason during that time\u00a0he could not have re-entered\u00a0<\/em>and he had (quite-valid!) concern that he might be forced to leave. \u00a0Let me remind you that as a young man at that time had he been forced to return to Iran\u00a0the odds were extremely high (essentially 100%) he would have been conscripted into the military and a huge percentage of such conscripts were killed in action during the Iran-Iraq war which was, I also remind you, raging at that time. \u00a0<\/em>There are those who say this ban and what Trump has proposed are not similar; I say bee-ess. \u00a0Trump has said he intends to stop said immigration\u00a0until the nation is capable of properly vetting those who come into the country for malicious intent. \u00a0<\/em>Carter imposed this ban\u00a0on persons who he had no rational belief might hold personal malicious intent\u00a0<\/em>as a means of pressuring the Iranian government into releasing unaffiliated<\/em>\u00a0hostages! \u00a0If anything Carter was the one who acted with improper motive as there was\u00a0nothing<\/em><\/strong> a young Iranian coming here to study could do to change his or her government’s course of conduct and said sanction had exactly zero\u00a0<\/em>economic or political impact\u00a0within\u00a0<\/em>the government of Iran! \u00a0<\/strong>But the fact of the matter is that both Carter’s action, and Trump’s proposed action, are Constitutional\u00a0and\u00a0<\/em>within the proper exercise of Executive Department power.<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nOne.
\nWord.<\/p>\n\n
![\"smiley\"](\"http:\/\/market-ticker.org\/smilies\/rofl2.gif\")
<\/p>\n