Khizr Khan, the Media and the Rest of the Story
When Khizr M. Khan took to the stage at this year’s Democratic National Convention, he was a virtual unknown. But his message struck a chord with many people.
On stage Khan challenged Donald Trump’s knowledge of the U.S. Constitution and said that “You have sacrificed nothing and no one.”
Khan’s comments struck a chord with anyone who ever had a son, daughter, husband or wife, or parent who ever served overseas in a war zone. He and his wife lost a son who died performing a heroic act to save his fellow soldiers in Iraq. Democrats opportunistically saw this as yet another cudgel to use against Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, to undermine his influence among Americans, particularly the military. The media saw a great opportunity to finally bury the candidacy of Trump. But as with many of these stories, the Khans turned out to be more than initially meets the eye. In this case, much more.
Trump, ever supremely confident, stepped into the media minefield, and agreed to an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, who, as we’ve previously pointed out, worked for the Clintons for years as one of their hit men. He was the communications director for Bill Clinton. And as the host of ABC’s This Week, Stephanopoulos failed to reveal an obvious conflict of interest—namely that he was a donor to the Clinton Foundation, and a featured speaker at their events. Despite these circumstances, Stephanopoulos attempted to discredit Peter Schweizer and his book, Clinton Cash, which documents many of the deals and pay-for-play that led to the Clintons raising about $3 billion. Yet the Clinton Foundation uses about 10 percent of its revenues for the causes they claim to be helping, or “direct charitable grants.”
Trump joined Stephanopoulos on his show, and was unprepared. “How would you answer that father? What sacrifice have you made for your country?” queried Stephanopoulos. As a result of his comments Trump is now accused of attacking Mrs. Ghazala Khan—but what he questioned was why she stood by silently. He actually called the Khans’ son a hero on Twitter, and said to Stephanopoulos that Khizr Khan looked like a “nice guy.” Trump’s criticisms were aimed at Islam, where women and gays are second class citizens—at best.
“Okay—so Trump’s remarks, which arguably were touching upon the whole Islamic submission of women angle, were terrible,” writes Matt Vespa for Townhall. “Yet, let’s not forget that Hillary Clinton also criticized a Gold Star mother. During the Democratic debate on March 9, Clinton pretty much called Patricia Smith, mother of slain U.S. Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, a liar….”
Here was that exchange during the March debate between moderator Jorge Ramos of Univision and Mrs. Clinton. But first a video clip was shown of Patricia Smith, the mother of information officer Sean Smith, who died along with Ambassador Christopher Stevens in the terrorist attacks at the Special Mission Compound in Benghazi on September 11, 2012:
PATRICIA SMITH: Hillary and Obama and Panetta and Biden and all of—and Susan Rice, all told me it was a video, when they knew it was not the video. And they said that they would call me and let me know what the outcome was.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RAMOS: Secretary Clinton, did you lie to them?
CLINTON: You know, look. I feel a great deal of sympathy for the families of the four brave Americans that we lost at Benghazi. And I certainly can’t even imagine the grief that she has for losing her son, but she’s wrong. She’s absolutely wrong.
Actually, three other family members of the Benghazi heroes remember Mrs. Clinton’s words similarly to Patricia Smith.
Mr. Khan went on CNN’s State of the Union and described Trump as having a “black soul,” and being unfit for the presidency. While Mr. Khan quickly became a cause célèbre for the Democrats and the liberal media, Patricia Smith says that she “was treated like dirt. I don’t think the Khan family was treated that way. But I was treated like dirt, I was called a liar.”
Information has now started coming out about Khan’s own background. Amid the heightened scrutiny, Mr. Khan took down his website, which showed that he specializes in “E2 Treaty Investors, EB5 Investments & Related Immigration Services.” He explained to CNN’s Anderson Cooper that the website came down because “there is a risk that somebody will damage it, somebody may hack it. I asked them [the web host] what do you suggest. They said under such circumstances, we normally keep it offline when this madness will go away, we will bring it back. I asked them to do that.”
“The EB-5 is literally a ‘citizenship for sale’ program in which a visa for a whole family can be bought for as little $500,000,” Jessica Vaughan, policy director for the Center for Immigration Studies, told The Washington Examiner.
Khan’s website indicates that he used to work for the law firm Hogan & Hartson in Washington, DC from 1998 to 2007. Hogan & Hartson became Hogan Lovells in 2010. “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,” writes Matthew Boyle for Breitbart. The law firm, “as Breitbart News has demonstrated is highly connected with the Clinton apparatus and with the Saudi government.”
New York Times reporter Nick Confessore accused Breitbart of conducting an “oppo dump,” or opposition research for one of its articles on Khan. New York magazine’s Annie Lowery also tweeted that the Breitbart research was an “oppo dump.”
Is it opposition research to look into the background of those in the media spotlight? I thought that was called good reporting.
It also turns out that Mr. Khan supports Sharia law, which runs counter to the meaning of the U.S. Constitution.
“In 1983, for example, Khan wrote a glowing review of a book compiled from a seminar held in Kuwait called ‘Human Rights In Islam’” in which he singles out for praise the keynote address of fellow Pakistani Allah K. Brohi, a pro-jihad Islamic jurist who was one of the closest advisers to late Pakistani dictator Gen. Zia ul-Haq, the father of the Taliban movement,” reports Paul Sperry for Breitbart News.
“Khan speaks admiringly of Brohi’s interpretation of human rights, even though it included the right to kill and mutilate those who violate Islamic laws and even the right of men to ‘beat’ wives who act ‘unseemly,’” continues Sperry. “Of course, such cruel and unusual Sharia punishments, ranging from stonings and floggings to beheadings, would be a flagrant violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
Mr. Khan aimed to lecture Trump about a Constitution which he himself apparently believes should yield to Islamic Sharia law. Khan’s 1983 paper, “Juristic Classification of Islamic Law,” states that “The invariable and basic rules of Islamic law are only those prescribed in the Shari’ah. …All other juridical works… must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah.”
In that same previously referenced CNN interview with Anderson Cooper, Khan stated that “I do not stand for any Sharia Law because there is no such thing.”
“No one believes all Muslims represent an inherent threat to the safety and security of the American people. That would be foolish,” writes Joseph Farah for WorldNetDaily. “But to ignore the global pattern of violence and terrorism perpetrated on a daily basis by radical Islamic terrorists and state agents—not to mention oppressive tyranny of the most repulsive kind by many nation-states that deprive women, religious minorities and others of all their human rights—is simply the worst kind of disingenuousness.”
How did the folks at Breitbart discover these facts about Khan? Google. Apparently other media organizations didn’t take the time, or make an effort to find out who Khan is. Or maybe they did and just don’t care. I also want to recommend reading Allen West’s powerful message to Mr. Khan. Mr. West is a retired U.S. Army Lt. Colonel and former U.S. congressman from Florida, as well as a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi.
Top 6 on BarbWire.com