Archive for the ‘Donald Trump’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Mainstream Media: ‘Trump Boots Baby From Rally!’ Non-Media Witnesses: ‘That’s Pure Propaganda’

August 3, 2016

Mainstream Media: ‘Trump Boots Baby From Rally!’ Non-Media Witnesses: ‘That’s Pure Propaganda’, PJ Media, David Steinbergg, August 3, 2016

trump and baby

A good proportion of the global media-consuming populace currently believes that Donald Trump, at a rally in Loudoun County, Virginia, this week, angrily booted a crying baby from the premises during his speech.

But it turns out the story is not that “Trump Hates Babies.” The story is that dishonest media professionals understood that variations of “Trump Hates Babies” make for fantastic headlines.

Read this Facebook post from Will Estrada, who attended the rally:

Today I went to the Donald Trump rally in Ashburn, VA. Since I know good people can disagree over whether or not to support Trump, I am just going to post some candid thoughts below. I report, you decide!Since I am the chairman of the Loudoun County Republican Committee, I was working with the campaign in advance of the rally. On Monday evening, a senior Trump staffer emailed me and asked me if I would be willing to give the invocation at the rally. I said I’d be happy to, but I also told him that as a born again Christian, I end my prayers with “I pray all of this in the name of Jesus.” Since I know that in this day and age mentionoing the name of Jesus can offend some people, I said I’d understand if they preferred that someone else give the invocation. His response to me was: “We know that’s how you pray, that’s why we asked you.”

After the welcome (by John Whitbeck), invocation (by yours truly), pledge (by Sheriff Michael Chapman), and National Anthem (by Briar Woods High School Teacher Nina Peyton), we waited back stage to get a photo with Donald Trump. And then – he was there, with a crowd of staff, Loudoun County Sheriff’s deputies, and Secret Service. I was immediately struck by his presence – he radiates confidence, but also I was struck by his soft spoken demeanor. He spoke softly and thoughtfully the entire time we were backstage.

The first person to get a photo with him was an older man. We had been chatting before-hand while all of us were waiting for Trump to arrive, and he introduced himself as Lieutenant Colonel Louis Dorfman and he had served in the 82nd Airborne. He shook hands with Donald Trump, and handed him his Purple Heart saying he wanted Trump to have it as thanks for standing up for wounded vets. Trump was surprised and said something like “I can’t take this!” We were all surprised and not expecting this. It was pretty cool to see the respect this veteran had for Trump.

Then it was my turn to shake hands with Trump and get my photo taken. I told Mr. Trump that I was the chairman of the Loudoun County Republican Committee and he immediately stopped and looked at me: “Will, how do I win Loudoun?” he asked me. We started talking and he called over one of his staffers. “George, these people here in Virginia know what we need to do to win Virginia.” And then – in a really cool turn of events – John Whitbeck, the GOP chairs of Prince William County and Arlington County, Trump’s campaign staffer, and me are all huddled in a corner, photos forgotten, strategizing on how Trump will win Virginia. Trump didn’t do a lot of talking. He listened to all of us, he made sure his staff had our emails, and he said that we would have everything we needed.

As we finished up the photos, Trump looked at all the Sheriff’s Deputies. “Let’s get them in the photo,” he said. And then he was taking group photos with all of the cops. They loved it. In fact, my favorite photo I took was all of the deputies with Trump (I’ll post it tomorrow). I was struck by how Trump didn’t forget the “little people.” Even though it was just a few of us and no media, he was relaxed and took the time to get photos with everyone.

The rally itself was super cool. Lots of energy, packed room (something like 2000 people had to be turned away because the auditorium was packed – and just on 24 hours notice!), everyone stood the entire time even though they all had seats. One thing I want to mention is the baby crying, because that has been national news. Contrary to news stories, it was a very funny thing, Trump was very supportive of the mom calling her and her baby “beautiful” and “wonderful”, and then when the baby kept crying he turned it into a joke. Everyone was laughing and it was actually very endearing and funny. Not at all anti mom or anti baby like the media has portrayed it to be.

Which brings me to the final point: I was there and saw and heard the entire event with the mom and baby. There was nothing to it. But then after I’m reading all the news coverage saying “Trump hates moms and babies!!!” I started to doubt myself. Did I really miss a huge story right in front of me? I started asking others who were there, including a husband and wife with young kids. And everyone in the room said the same thing: there was no story here. Trump was being funny and personable and going out of his way to make sure the mom wasn’t embarrased by making it a funny situation.

My conclusion is that the media is selling us a narrative. Be very skeptical of what the media is telling you, because I saw it with my own eyes and it was something very different.

Folks, that was a first-hand account from an attendee of the rally, who says he was unable to find another rally attendee who saw the exchange as anything but polite — and a forgettable, not-newsworthy event.

Meanwhile, the civilized world has since been informed by the media that didn’t bother to find a single rally attendee who saw the exchange as anything but polite.

Click to the next page to read what they instead chose to report.

Rolling Stone — Donald Trump Hates Babies: Why Bad Parents Make Bad Presidents:

Trump’s supporters were quick to dismiss the moment as a joke. But joke or not (it wasn’t), it was almost unfathomably cruel. He didn’t just humiliate a woman already dealing with the extraordinarily stressful situation of a crying baby in a public forum, he made it clear to a roomful of people he wants to vote for him in November that his needs always, always come first.

Rolling Stone — having learned nothing about checking multiple sources after Sabrina Erdely almost brought down the company — not only didn’t bother to see if any attendee witnessed the exchange differently, it jumped directly to the type of language that better fits the behavior of ISIS.

The Guardian — Donald Trump’s treatment of a crying baby reveals his total lack of empathy:

For a certain kind of Trump devotee, there’s nothing he can do that will repel them: as he himself has noted, he could stand on Fifth Avenue shooting people and they’d still vote for him.For others, though, it might play out differently. The most obvious group is women …

Well, it only “might play out differently” for women because the Guardian really wants it to play out differently for women, and thus attached the despicable headline.

Politico: Trump at rally: ‘Get the baby out of here’:

Later Tuesday afternoon, Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine couldn’t help himself from cracking a joke at Trump’s expense …

Politico printed a quote from the opposing vice presidential candidate, didn’t bother to print a quote from … a rally attendee.

CNN: Trump: ‘You can get the baby out of here’

NPR: Trump: ‘Get That Baby Out Of Here’

New York Times: Donald Trump Jousts With a Crying Baby at His Rally

Daily Beast: Donald Trump to Baby at Rally: Crying Is for Losers

US Weekly: Donald Trump Tells Crying Infant’s Mom to Leave His Rally: ‘Get the Baby Out of Here’

Categories: 2016 elections, Baby Gate, Donald Trump, Media, Trump rallies
Tags: , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Obama Speaks of What He Knows, Being ‘Unfit to Be President’

August 3, 2016

Obama Speaks of What He Knows, Being ‘Unfit to Be President’, Rasmussen, Charles Hurt, August 3, 2016

(Please see also, Carr: Hey, Obama! It takes one to know one. — DM)

Donald Trump is “woefully unprepared,” President Obama said Tuesday. “Unfit to be president.”

Well, at least this is one area where the president is a bona fide, qualified expert.

If ever there was a man who entered the White House woefully unprepared and unfit to be president, it was Mr. Obama.

Sure, he hummed a good tune about unifying the country, ushering America into a new “post-racial” era. And he spoke of calming the seas and easing global violence and sprinkling peace between Muslims, Jews and Christians in the Middle East and around the world.

Lord, if we could just have 2008 back again. Those were the good old days.

Back before cops were targeted for assassination on the street. Before every police action became viewed first and foremost through the lens of radical racialism. Before the leader of the free world saw it as his duty to routinely insert himself into police matters from Baltimore to Cambridge to Ferguson, Missouri, to Sanford, Florida.

Those were the days before the president denounced people as xenophobes and racists for wanting to enforce the nation’s duly enacted immigration laws. Before tens of thousands of haggard families, children and slaves came rumbling through Mexico on “death trains,” drawn by the president’s illegal invitation. Back in the good old days, before 2008, everyone — including Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton — all agreed on building a fence to secure our southern border.

And those were the days before America’s first half-Muslim president traveled the world to apologize for American exceptionalism. Before he traveled to Cairo and told Muslims that “it is part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” Still looking for that one in the Constitution.

Before 2008, civilized Americans had never heard of people being burned alive in cages. Drowned in cages. We were not familiar with the practice of throwing gay people off of rooftops for religious purposes. Priests were not beheaded on their own altar.

Yet it is this same president who has presided over all of this these past eight years who has the gall to declare Donald Trump “unprepared” and “unqualified” to be president.

“I said so last week,” he responded when a reporter asked if Mr. Trump is unqualified. “And he keeps on proving it.”

“The notion that he would attack a Gold Star family that had made such extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our country, the fact that he doesn’t appear to have basic knowledge around critical issues in Europe, in the Middle East, in Asia means that he’s woefully unprepared to do this job.”

Some gall.

And then on top of that, the president gives us his hand-picked successor, who is the one person in all of America who could possibly rival him for the blame of so many of our woes around the world today.

For 25 years, Mrs. Clinton has been part of the problem around here. For the first four years of Mr. Obama’s presidency, she helped craft his disastrous foreign policy.

Indeed, if Mrs. Clinton is what Mr. Obama considers “qualified” and “fit” for the presidency, we probably should settle for “unqualified” and “unfit.”

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Obama, Unqualified to be president
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Right Angle: Trumpskygate!

August 3, 2016

Right Angle: Trumpskygate! Bill Whittle Channel via YouTube, August 2, 2016

 

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton Foundation, Crooked Hillary, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Russia
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Mr. Kahn – The Con. This Is Purely About Money.

August 3, 2016

Mr. Kahn – The Con. This Is Purely About Money, Town Hall, Bryan Crabtree, August 3, 2016

Kahn con

But, First…

The reason we have to elect Donald Trump is because we need to numb the American people to the distortion and lies of the media and politicians. The more of this hysteria we experience, the tougher our emotional skin will become.

Trump commented on Tuesday in a campaign rally that he could essentially find the cure for a terminal disease and the reaction from the media and his opponents would be negative. Essentially, there is no accountability for lies in our culture and very little incentive for the truth any longer. Sensationalism sells.

Even worse, the distortion of reality is so horrendous that people are afraid to talk, to express their feelings and share their concerns any longer (for fear of attack). By electing Trump, we ensure that these frauds are left alone on their island of lies. At some point, the American people will no longer be willing to listen to the punditry of outrage created by a sentence or two uttered by Trump in a minutes-long discussion. It just takes time for us to arrive at that point.

In essence, Trump will make it acceptable again to be candid, to push back on the wrongs of society, and to force change. This will happen because he sets the “PC-bar” so much higher than our current standard of political correctness will allow.

As an example, Khizr Khan, who spoke very negatively about Trump at the Democratic National Convention, has become a media sensation. During an interview on Tuesday with Eric Trump, Gayle King read a statement, “when you question a mother’s pain by implying her religion, not her pain, you are attacking…”  This is out of context and false. Trump did not question her pain or grief. He pointed to the fact that she didn’t speak.

In an interview on CNN, Mrs. Khan stated that their beliefs were that the husband was in charge outside of the household and that she was in charge inside the household. This is incredibly important because we have now discovered that Mr. Khan operates an immigration law firm, has written extensively in his support of Sharia Law, has ties to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and has associations with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Captain Khan is a war hero who made the ultimate sacrifice –  Mrs. Khan is clearly a grieving mother. Mr. Khan appears to be a con who used his dead son as a political shield in order to attack Trump. At first she had a medical condition, then she spoke. I think Trump nailed it.

Why did Kahn attack? If Donald Trump institutes a ban on Middle Eastern immigration it would essentially put Mr. Khan’s law firm out of business. This isn’t about his son; it’s about money. But America is scantily interested in all of the details because we’d rather be outraged or optimistically delusional as opposed to enlightened.

I have frequently said that it is a bad idea to listen to the political ideas of grieving parents.  The only exception would be in the case of Patricia Smith, who is telling a story of how  she was treated by Hillary Clinton after her son was killed in Benghazi. She has direct experience with the character of the Democratic candidate for the presidency. Kahn does not.

The Kahn story has nothing to do with Trump except that Mr. Kahn’s law firm would be financially harmed by Trump’s proposed ban on certain countries’ immigration-ban. In other words, he could no longer sell citizenship to the highest bidder with a President Trump.

Americans are progressively using their tragedies as manipulations and cover for their financial, political and social aspirations. Monetizing a family tragedy is purely evil. At some point every tragedy will make most conversations off-limits.

In this case it was a Gold Star family. But, how about the parents who demand your guns be taken away because some crazy person killed their son or daughter at a school? Do we have to be silent while those parents conflate their pain and grief into taking away our rights?

How about the dad who wants to pressure local politicians to close the neighborhood bar because some drunk killed his child driving home at midnight? Are we supposed to ignore that as an ‘off-limits’ topic. After all, it was the drunk’s lack of personal responsibility that created the accident – not the bar!

How about actor Paul Walker’s daughter who decided to sue Porsche because he died in a fiery crash as a result of driving at roughly double the posted speed limit in California? Are we supposed to sit back, because of her grief, and say nothing while her lawyers slander a business due to her father’s irresponsible and reckless driving? His death is sad and tragic but regretfully, his fault.

Who was outraged about the fact that Black Lives Matters was chanting in the middle of a moment of silence for fallen police officers who were assassinated just prior to the DNC? Not the mainstream media!

The outrage and hysteria created by most of what Trump says is fascinating to me. It reveals an emotionally immature society who can’t handle even an ounce of candor.

I find it disgusting that Mr. Khan would use his hero son, Capt. Khan, as a political shield for his financial grievances (dragging his wife through such additional trauma) in the same way ISIS uses elementary schools full of children, as cover, to fire at our soldiers.

If you let situations like this affect your vote for Trump, you will be allowing the enemy to take control of your future.

Categories: 2016 elections, Democrat National Convention, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Hypocrisy, Islamic immigration, Islamic terrorism, Khan con, Media, Never Trumpers, Obama's America, Sharia law
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

CFR “terrorism theorist” Max Abrahms hits Trump for not distinguishing “law-abiding” Muslims from terrorists

August 2, 2016

CFR “terrorism theorist” Max Abrahms hits Trump for not distinguishing “law-abiding” Muslims from terrorists, Jihad Watch, , August 2, 2016

Max Abrahms, who describes himself as “#Terrorism Theorist / Northeastern Prof / Council on Foreign Relations / Center for Cyber & Homeland Security,” is the quintessential establishment foreign policy analyst, a hack fronting policies that have failed again and again and again, and that Abrahms, and the establishment in general, don’t even realize have failed.

Yesterday he joined the general establishment pile-on against Donald Trump, belatedly, since his colleagues, friends and allies have been noting this “undeniable” point for weeks and months before Max arrived on the scene, breathless with discovery:

Abrahms-no-distinction

When Trump first proposed his temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration, I was amazed to see otherwise clear thinking writers publishing articles with titles such as, “Don’t Ban Muslims, Just Ban Islamists.” This is is less surprising coming from as muddled and limited a thinker as Max Abrahms, but that he would express this view underscores that it has become the establishment line against Trump’s proposal, no doubt prevailing at the Council on Foreign Relations and at Northeastern University.

The problem is that while it sounds sensible to ban “Islamists” only, or “jihadis” only, rather than all Muslims, or at least those coming from rogue terror states, what none of those who have criticized Trump for this proposal have ever recognized is that it is impossible to distinguish Islamists and jihadis from among peaceful Muslims. This is especially true since the Islamic State has instructed jihadis not to appear overtly religious, but instead to be clean-shaven, wear Western dress, and appear to be exactly the “moderate Muslim” that is the object of all the West’s hopes. And so it’s easy to dismiss Trump as a bigot for suggesting this, but no one has ever offered an alternative suggestion for how to prevent jihadis from entering the country.

If Max Abrahms had a modicum of wit and understanding of the problem of which he purports to be a “theorist,” he would realize that it is not Donald Trump, but Islamic jihadis themselves, who have made sure that there is no distinction between “the vast, vast majority of Muslims who are law-abiding” and “Muslim terrorists.” Trump is not refusing to recognize that there are Muslims who are law-abiding, but acknowledging that it is impossible to identify the jihadis who are among them. Max Abrahms would rather see Americans die in jihad attacks than take politically incorrect steps to try to prevent those deaths.

Categories: Donald Trump, Islamic immigration, Islamists, Peaceful Muslims
Tags: , , ,

Comments: 3 Comments

Trumpism in International Context

August 2, 2016

Trumpism in International Context, Power Line, Steven Hayward, August 2, 2016

Manent-copyPierre Manent

Back at the end of June, I shared the insights of French political philosopher Pierre Manent about the significance of Brexit (which he was for). Yesterday, the good folks at First Things posted a translation of a recent interview Manent gave to the Italian newspaper Il Foglio about the lessons of the recent Islamist attack on the French church.

There’s one especially arresting question and answer that sounds like it could apply with equal measure to the United States. As you read this, simply swap out “America” for every mention of “France” or “Europe,” and see if you don’t agree:

Il Foglio: France looks exhausted. … What are France’s mistakes, especially those of the elite media and intellectuals, and what is the nature of its malaise?

Pierre Manent: The French are exhausted, but they are first of all perplexed, lost. Things were not supposed to happen this way. … We had supposedly entered into the final stage of democracy where human rights would reign, ever more rights ever more rigorously observed. We had left behind the age of nations as well as that of religions, and we would henceforth be free individuals moving frictionless over the surface of the planet. … And now we see that religious affiliations and other collective attachments not only survive but return with a particular intensity. Everyone can see and feel this, but how can it be expressed when the only authorized language is that of individual rights? We have become supremely incapable of seeing what is right before our eyes. Meanwhile the ruling class, which is not a political but an ideological class, one that commands not what must be done but what must be said, goes on indefinitely about “values,” the “values of the republic,” the “values of democracy,” the “values of Europe.” This class has been largely discredited in the eyes of citizens, but it occupies all the positions of institutional responsibility, especially in the media, and nowhere does one find groups or individuals who give the impression of understanding what is happening or of being able to stand up to it. We have no more confidence in those who lead us than in ourselves. It is neither an excuse nor a consolation to say it, but the faults of the French are those of Europeans in general. . .

We invite catastrophe by falling for an ideological representation of the world such as the one that is ours today. We invite catastrophe by sincerely believing that the religious affiliation of a citizen has no political bearing or effect. We invite catastrophe by excluding from authorized debate on Turkey’s possible joining the European Union the fact that Turkey is a massively Muslim country. We invite catastrophe when we confuse the obligation to rescue a person who is drowning with that person’s right to become a citizen of our country. We invite catastrophe when, in the name of charity or mercy, we require old Christian nations to open their borders to all who wish to enter.(Emphasis added.)

Take it away, Donald Trump.

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Ideology, Islam, Ruling elite
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Khan-flict: Freedom Fighter Son, Sharia Supremacist Father

August 2, 2016

Khan-flict: Freedom Fighter Son, Sharia Supremacist Father, PJ Media, Andrew G. Bostom, August 2, 2016

(If elected President, would Ms. Clinton appoint Mr. Kahn as her principal human rights adviser? — DM)

Kahnstitution

With all due respect for his deprivation, we must review Mr. Khan’s published articles asserting the supremacy of Sharia over other politico-legal systems. His opinions are antithetical to the principles in the Constitution that he waved at Americans during his DNC convention address, and that his own son died fighting to preserve.

***************************

Army Capt. Humayun Khan was killed in action during an extended tour in Iraq. Deployed at Baquabah, Khan served in a force protection role and oversaw a unit securing and maintaining his base.

On June 8, 2004, Khan died after ordering his soldiers to stay back, and “hit the dirt,” when he approached a suspicious taxi. While Khan was moving towards the vehicle and motioning for it to stop, two men in the taxi detonated their explosives, killing themselves, Khan, and two Iraqi soldiers. Because of his heroic sacrifice, none of Khan’s soldiers were killed in the blast.

When Khan was laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery, he received full military honors at the burial, and his commanding officer observed in a letter:

He died selflessly and courageously, tackling the enemy head on. We will not forget him and the noble ideas he stood for.

Simply put, Humayun Khan died defending the uniquely Western conceptions of freedom articulated in the U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

All Americans must acknowledge and honor the Khan family’s grief as parents of a heroic soldier killed in action. Their anguished perspective requires special deference. But we should also take seriously the assertions made by Khizr Khan, Humayun’s father, and a lawyer, about the Constitution, at the Democratic National Convention (DNC), which are contradicted by his own earlier published opinions.

Many Americans have their own copies of the Constitution (readers can get your own pocket Constitution here, for free, via Hillsdale College), and they know that Khizr Khan egregiously misrepresented what our founding document states regarding immigration in the 14th Amendment, as discussed recently by Byron York.

It was no doubt unintentional on Khizr Khan’s part that he appeared to attack the large majority of ordinary Americans who are concerned about the DNC’s support for admitting immigrants into the U.S. without background checks — even from countries with known risks for harboring jihad terrorists (i.e., like Syria). As a prime example, adequate databases for vetting Syrian Muslim refugees don’t exist.

Americans want to disagree without being disagreeable, and being hectored that we have “black souls” or lack compassion. We can have genuine, deep sympathy for the Khan family’s loss, and still disagree with Khizr Khan’s misrepresentation of the Constitution.

With all due respect for his deprivation, we must review Mr. Khan’s published articles asserting the supremacy of Sharia over other politico-legal systems. His opinions are antithetical to the principles in the Constitution that he waved at Americans during his DNC convention address, and that his own son died fighting to preserve.

Before examining Khizr Khan’s writings which extol the Sharia, a brief, unbowdlerized overview of Islam’s religio-political canon “law” is in order. The Sharia is traceable to Koranic verses and edicts (45:18, 42:13, 42:21, 5:48; 4:34, 5:33-34, 5:38, 8:12-14; 9:5, 9:29, 24:2-4), as further elaborated in the “hadith,” or traditions of Islam’s prophet Muhammad and the earliest Muslim community, and codified into formal “legal” rulings by Islam’s greatest classical legists.

Sharia is a retrogressive development compared with the evolution of clear distinctions between “ritual, the law, moral doctrine, good customs in society, etc.” within Western European Christendom, and it is utterly incompatible with the conceptions of human rights enshrined in the U.S. Bill of Rights.

Some liberty-crushing and dehumanizing Sharia sanctions: open-ended jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian Islamic order; rejection of bedrock Western liberties — including freedom of conscience and speech — enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death; discriminatory relegation of non-Muslims to outcast, vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to subservient chattel; and barbaric mandatory “hadd” punishments which violate human dignity, such as amputation for theft, stoning to death for adultery, and lashing for alcohol consumption.

Compounding these fundamental freedom and dignity-abrogating iniquities, “matters of procedure” under Islamic law are antithetical to Western conceptions of the rule of law: “evidentiary proof” is non-existent by Western legal standards, and the Sharia doctrine of siyasa (“government” or “administration”) grants wide latitude to the ruling elites, rendering permissible arbitrary threats, beatings, and imprisonments of defendants to extract “confessions,” particularly from “dubious” suspects.

Clearly, Sharia “standards” — which do not even seek evidentiary legal truth and allow threats, imprisonment, and beatings of defendants to obtain “confessions” while sanctioning explicit, blatant legal discrimination against women and non-Muslims — are intellectually and morally inferior to the polar opposite concepts which underpin Western law.

Khizr Khan’s 1983 essay in the fall edition of the Houston Journal of International Law, “Juristic Classification of Sources of Islamic Law,” focused entirely on the “structural” features of the Sharia’s “origins,” scrupulously avoiding its actual contents. But Khan did pay homage to the Sharia understandings of Said Ramadan, who was “gratefully acknowledged,” citing specifically Ramadan’s Islamic Law—Its Scope and Equity. Said Ramadan (d. 1995) was a notorious Muslim Brotherhood ideologue, and a founding member of the Muslim World League, a mammoth Saudi global missionary organization.

From his Geneva, Switzerland home (where he moved in 1961), Ramadan personally established the Islamic Center, a combined mosque, Muslim community center, and think tank. Swiss investigative journalist Sylvain Besson included “The Project,” a 14-page manifesto dated 1982, and discovered by the Swiss secret service in 2001, in his La conquête de l’Occident: Le projet secret des Islamistes (Paris: Le Seuil, 2005, pp. 193-205.)

“The Project” — a blueprint for installing Sharia-based Islamic regimes in the West by propaganda, proselytization, and if necessary, jihad war — is believed to have been authored by Said Ramadan.

Proudly and unmistakably, Said Ramadan was the author of Islamic Law—Its Scope and Equity(re-published in 1970). With apposite comparison to the Communist “movement,” Ramadan,whose Sharia treatise was lauded by Khizr Khan, offered these pellucid observations on Islam’s totalitarian Sharia “movement,” from the book’s December 12, 1958, preface:

The need to take an interest in Islamic Law … the drive to implement it, is the principal objective of a widespread movement which aims at totally changing the decadent status of almost all Muslim countries. There is nothing more expressive of the strong influence of this movement—a movement which demands the implementation of Islamic Law… the urge to implement the basic ordinances of Islamic Law in the Qur’an and the Sunnah (the authentic Traditions of the Holy Prophet) … [W]hat is known as the “Islamic Movement” throughout the Muslim world — is a movement that demands the actual implementation of Islamic Law … When we take into consideration the fact that the Islamic Movement, with this juridical concept, is matched in the Muslim world only by the Communist movement all others are mere national blocs that have no ideological background.

Ramadan saw the unanimous 1951 endorsement by 31 Pakistani jurists of the “Basic Principles of an Islamic Constitution” as properly enshrining the rights of non-Muslims in “every sphere.” He cited approvingly articles 7 and 11, which stated, respectively:

The citizens shall be entitled to all the rights conferred upon them by Islamic Law … All obligations assumed by the State, within the limits of the Sharia, towards the non-Muslims, shall be fully honored.

Predictably, Ramadan concluded:

[T]he only differentiation in political rights lies in the confinement of supreme authority to Muslim subjects … [T]he allegiance of subjects is twofold: that of Muslim subjects, which is established on the basis of their faith in the ideology of the State, and that of non-Muslim subjects, which is established on the covenant of dhimmah.

Notwithstanding the apologetic interpretations of devout, traditional Sharia supremacist Muslim religious scholars such as Said Ramadan — or his modern lay acolyte, Khizr Khan — an extensive and irrefragable doctrinal and historical record establishes the following: the “dhimmah” covenant, or pact, relegated non-Muslims to permanent, “sacralized” inferiority, insecurity, and debasement under the Sharia.

Shlomo Dov [S. D.] Goitein (d. 1985) was a historian of Muslim/non-Muslim relations whose seminal research findings were widely published, most notably in the monumental five-volume work A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza (1967–1993). Goitein was professor emeritus of the Hebrew University and a scholar at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. The New York Times obituary for Professor Goitein (published on February 10, 1985) noted, correctly, that his renowned (and prolific) writings on Islamic culture, and Muslim/non-Muslim relations, were “standard works for scholars in both fields.” Here is what Goitein wrote on the subject of non-Muslim dhimmis under Muslim rule — that is, “the dhimmi covenant” — circa 1970:

[A] great humanist and contemporary of the French Revolution, Wilhelm von Humboldt, defined as the best state one which is least felt and restricts itself to one task only: protection, protection against attack from outside and oppression from within … in general, taxation [by the Muslim gov­ernment] was merciless, and a very large section of the population must have lived permanently at the starvation level.From many Geniza letters one gets the impression that the poor were concerned more with getting money for the payment of their taxes than for food and clothing, for failure of payment usually induced cruel punishment. … [T]he Muslim state was quite the opposite of the ideals propagated by Wilhelm von Humboldt or the principles embedded in the constitution of the United States. An Islamic state was part of or coincided with dar al-Islam, the House of Islam. Its trea­sury was mal al-muslumin, the money of the Muslims.

Christians and Jews were not citizens of the state, not even second class citizens. They were outsiders under the protection of the Muslim state, a status characterized by the term dhimma, for which protection they had to pay a poll tax specific to them. They were also exposed to a great number of discriminatory and humiliating laws. . . . As it lies in the very nature of such restrictions, soon additional humiliations were added, and before the second century of Islam was out, a complete body of legislation in this matter was in existence. . . . In times and places in which they became too oppressive they lead to the dwindling or even complete extinction of the minorities.

Finally, Khizr Khan also opined gushingly on a seminal, if full-throated abrogation of U.S. and Western human rights law, published as “Human Rights in Islam.”

This compilation of conference proceedings included a keynote address titled, “The Nature of Islamic Law and the Concept of Human Rights,” by Mr. A.K. Brohi, former minister of legal and religious affairs, and jurist of the Supreme Court in Pakistan. Brohi declared plainly his — and the Sharia’s — unwavering support for full application of hadd punishments (death for apostasy, stoning to death for “adultery,” amputation for theft, lashing for alcohol consumption):

Divinely ordained punishments have to be inflicted and there is very little option for the judge called upon to impose Hadd if facts and circumstances are established that the Hadd in question has been transgressed to refuse to inflict the punishment. The Human duties and rights have been rigorously defined and their orderly enforcement is the duty of the whole of organized communities and the task is specifically entrusted to the law enforcement organs of the state.The individual if necessary has to be sacrificed in order that the life of the organism be saved. Collectivity has a special sanctity attached to it in Islam.

Khizr Khan riveted upon Brohi’s speech in his review of “Human Rights in Islam” (see Book Review — Human Rights in Islam, Texas International Law Journal, 1983; Volume 18, pp. 239-240), providing this effusive praise for the Pakistani jurist’s championing of brutal Sharia totalitarianism, unmollified:

 The keynote speech of Dr. A.K. Brohi, former Pakistani Minister of Legal and Religious Affairs, is a hallmark in this book. It successfully explains the Islamic concepts of “right” and “just” in comparison to their Christian and Judaic counterparts. Brohi argues convincingly for the establishment of a moral value system before guarantees can be given for any kind of rights … the contribution made by Islam fourteen hundred years ago can be seen as representing the manifestation of the Divine Element that somehow will not let man devalue man.

It is indeed a tragic irony that Khizr Khan’s past apologetic promulgation of Sharia supremacism does more to negate his son’s ultimate sacrifice for true freedom than any utterance by any politician. If in the interim Khizr Khan came to view Sharia as the threat to U.S. liberties it remains, now that he is in the public spotlight he must reiterate such condemnation, without qualification.

Categories: 2016 elections, Democrat National Convention, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Human rights, Islamic immigration, Islamists in America, Khan-Gate, Sharia law
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Panic Mode: Khizr Khan Deletes Law Firm Website that Specialized in Muslim Immigration

August 2, 2016

Panic Mode: Khizr Khan Deletes Law Firm Website that Specialized in Muslim Immigration, Breitbart, Matthew Boyle, August 2, 2016

the great Kahn

Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father that Democrats and their allies media wide have been using to hammer GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump, has deleted his law firm’s website from the Internet.

This development is significant, as his website proved—as Breitbart News and others have reported—that he financially benefits from unfettered pay-to-play Muslim migration into America.

A snapshot of his now deleted website, as captured by the Wayback Machine which takes snapshots archiving various websites on the Internet, shows that as a lawyer he engages in procurement of EB5 immigration visas and other “Related Immigration Services.”

The website is completely removed from the Internet, and instead directs visitors to the URL at which it once was to a page parking the URL run by GoDaddy.

The EB5 program, which helps wealthy foreigners usually from the Middle East essentially buy their way into America, is fraught with corruption. U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) 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.”

Grassley’s statement even noted that the program Khan celebrated on his website has posed national security risks.

“There are also classified reports that detail the national security, fraud and abuse. Our committee has received numerous briefings and classified documents to show this side of the story,” Grassley said in the early February 2016 statement. “The enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security wrote an internal memo that raises significant concerns about the program. One section of the memo outlines concerns that it could be used by Iranian operatives to infiltrate the United States. 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.”

Khan spoke alongside his wife Ghazala Khan at the Democratic National Convention last week in Philadelphia, and they were honoring their son U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan—a hero who lost his life to a suicide bomber in Iraq in 2004. On behalf of Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president, Khizr Khan ripped into Donald Trump’s policies on immigration—specifically bashing his plan to bar Muslim migration from regions afflicted with rampant terrorism into America temporarily until the United States can figure out what’s going on.

Khan even brought out a pocket Constitution, claiming inaccurately that Trump’s plans were unconstitutional. That’s not true, as Congress has already granted such power to the president under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952—allowing the president to bar migration of any alien or class of aliens the president sees as a threat to the United States for any reason at any time. Such a class of aliens could be Muslims, or it could be people from a specific region of the world, or any other class—such as someone’s race, weight, height, age, national origin, religion, or anything else.

The media, along with Hillary Clinton and her supporters throughout the Democratic Party establishment, has pushed the line of attack against Trump for days. Now on Tuesday, President Barack Obama has said that Trump is “unfit” to serve as President over the matter. Even a group of anti-Trump congressional Republicans has gone after Trump on the matter.

But as Breitbart News and other new media have exposed Khan’s various deep political and legal connections to the Clintons—and to Muslim migration—the attack line has crumbled. Now, with Khan deleting his website in an apparent effort to hide his biographical information, the attack is falling apart even more.

What’s perhaps interesting is that also on this website that he has now deleted, Khan revealed that he spent nearly a decade working for the mega-D.C. law firm Hogan & Hartson—now Hogan Lovells LLP—which connects him directly with the government of Saudi Arabia and the Clintons themselves. Saudi Arabia, which has retained the firm that Khan worked at for years, has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation. Hillary Clinton, despite the repeated urging of Trump, has refused to return the Clinton Cash money to the Saudis. What’s more, Hogan Lovells also did Hillary Clinton’s taxes—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.

What’s more, the entire mainstream has proven negligence with regard to this matter as none of them even thought to look into this Khan guy’s law practice before bandying him about as some kind of magic elixir that cures the country of Trump. 

Categories: 2016 elections, Democrat National Convention, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Islamic immigration, Khan-Gate
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Election Fraud Should Support Hillary’s Presidential Victory

August 2, 2016

Election Fraud Should Support Hillary’s Presidential Victory, The Daily Bell, August 2, 2016

(How do we make it stop? — DM)

orchestrated

Donald Trump: ‘I’m Afraid the Election Is Going to Be Rigged’ … Donald Trump on Monday night repeated his earlier assertion that the 2016 general election will be “rigged” against him …  “I’m telling you, Nov. 8, we’d better be careful, because that election is going to be rigged,” Mr. Trump said in the Fox News interview. “And I hope the Republicans are watching closely or it’s going to be taken away from us.” –Wall Street Journal

Trump’s vote-rigging concern, expressed in this Wall Street Journal article, above, is reported on without much commentary.

Report it and forget about it. And maybe people won’t notice. That’s the way the mainstream media tries to deal with these issues in order to support a Hillary victory.

Hillary’s upcoming victory, if it occurs, is part of a larger scenario of “directed history.”

Elite dominant social themes are circulated to ensure that a given outcome is justifiable. In this case, the themes center around Hillary’s lack of trustworthiness. This is something she “needs to overcome” in order to win the election.

The election won’t necessarily focus on policy anymore but on whether or not Hillary is regaining voter trust. Thus, this election is being cast as even more of a popularity contest than usual. The issues are secondary to personality.

Interestingly, the presence of Trump has furthered this electoral approach. If Trump hadn’t appeared as a candidate you could argue the Democrats would want to invent him. Or someone would have invented him.

The election is merely a kind of story-telling. We don’t believe these federal contests are decided on election day. It’s been a long time since an important American election was waged openly or honestly. We can see how this election is being positioned and re-positioned.

Just recently three “billionaires” endorsed Hillary: Warren Buffett, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban and Michael Bloomberg. At least Bloomberg’s support was solicited.

Questions were raised regarding Trump’s tax returns and “documented record of bankruptcies.” These show clearly how the election is revolving around “trust.”

Endorsements are one part of the “trust dialogue” taking place in this election. The next part is polls.

We’ve already written about how polls are being manipulated in Hillary’s favor HERE.The process continues. A recent Reuters poll reconfigured questions in such a way as to de-emphasize positive Trump responses.

Reuters tweaked the way it polled. HERE. Reuters added in the option of “neither” candidate, which diminished the pro-Trump response.

A new CNN/ORC poll gave Hillary a seven percent convention bounce and put her ahead of Trump.

But we checked the ORC methodology. Here’s what we found:

Interviews with 1,003 adult Americans conducted by telephone by ORC International on July 29-31, 2016 … This sample includes 601 interviews among landline respondents and 402 interviews among cell phone responders,

Why would land-lines be predominant? Certainly it is possible that land-line  audience might be less affluent than cell-phone responders.

The make up of a given polling audience is extremely important and can influence a poll in numerous ways. In a previous article about polling HERE, we found that pollsters were trying to contact younger people who would skew Democratic.

After a point one concludes these polls are virtually worthless because they can be directed in so many ways.

Whatever narrative the mainstream wishes to portray can be buttressed by positioning poll results in particular ways via the audience approached.

If polls, endorsements and favorable media coverage doesn’t provide an appropriate direction, there is always outright election fraud.

HERE, from John Rappoport’s blog:

US election shocker: is this how the vote will be rigged?  Votes are being counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers …

As we know, there are a number of ways to rig an election. Bev Harris, at blackboxvoting.org, is exploring a specific “cheat sheet” that has vast implications for the Trump vs. Hillary contest.

It’s a vote-counting system called GEMS …

“Our testing [of GEMS] shows that one vote can be counted 25 times, another only one one-thousandth of a time, effectively converting some votes to zero.”

Fractional voting software is embedded in voting results  but can reportedly be rendered invisible.

These methods provide the “directed history” that may lead to Hillary’s victory: skewed media coverage, calculated, solicited endorsements, manipulated polls and fraudulent voting.

Conclusion: The media, being part of the problem, will not provide significant coverage of these issues. As a result, while Hillary’s victory is not by any means ordained, it is certainly more likely than not.

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Election fraud, Hillary Clinton
Tags: ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Clinton Cash: Khizr Khan’s Deep Legal, Financial Connections to Saudi Arabia, Hillary’s Clinton Foundation Tie Terror, Immigration, Email Scandals Together

August 1, 2016

Clinton Cash: Khizr Khan’s Deep Legal, Financial Connections to Saudi Arabia, Hillary’s Clinton Foundation Tie Terror, Immigration, Email Scandals Together, Breitbart, Matthew Boyle, August 1, 2016

Khizr Khan, father of fallen US Army Capt. Humayun S. M. Khan waves as he stands near the podium before speaking during the final day of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia , Thursday, July 28, 2016. (AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill)

Khizr Khan, father of fallen US Army Capt. Humayun S. M. Khan waves as he stands near the podium before speaking during the final day of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia , Thursday, July 28, 2016. (AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill)

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.

“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,” Joe Schoffstall of the Free Beacon reported.

The federal form filed with the Department of Justice is a requirement under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which makes lobbyists and lawyers working on behalf of foreign governments and other agents from abroad with interests in the United States register with the federal government.

The government of Saudi Arabia, of course, has donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation.

“The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has given between $10 and $25 million to the foundation while Friends of Saudi Arabia has contributed between $1 and $5 million,” Schoffstall wrote.

Trump, of course, has called on Hillary Clinton to have the Clinton Foundation return the money.

“Saudi Arabia and many of the countries that gave vast amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation want women as slaves and to kill gays,” Trump wrote in a Facebook post back in June, according to Politico. “Hillary must return all money from such countries!”

“Crooked Hillary says we must call on Saudi Arabia and other countries to stop funding hate,” Trump posted in a separate Facebook posting at the time. “I am calling on her to immediately return the $25 million plus she got from them for the Clinton Foundation!”

Of course, to this day, Hillary Clinton and her Clinton Foundation has kept the money from the Saudi Arabian government.

Schoffstall’s piece in the Washington Free Beacon also notes how Hogan Lovells lobbyist Robert Kyle, per Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, has bundled more than $50,000 in donations for Clinton’s campaign this year.

Khan’s connections with the Hogan Lovells firm run deep, according to a report from Law.com written by Katelyn Polantz.

“Many lawyers at Hogan Lovells remember the week in 2004 when U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan lost his life to a suicide bomber,” Polantz wrote. “Then-Hogan & Hartson attorneys mourned the death because the soldier’s father, Khizr Khan, a Muslim American immigrant, was among their beloved colleagues.”

Polantz wrote that Khan worked at the mega-D.C. law firm for years.

“Khan spent seven years, from 2000 to 2007, in the Washington, D.C., office of then-Hogan & Hartson,” Polantz wrote. “He served as the firm’s manager of litigation technology. Although he did not practice law while at Hogan, Khan was well versed in understanding the American courts system. On Thursday night, he described his late son dreaming of becoming a military lawyer.”

But representing the Clinton Foundation backing Saudi Arabian government and having one of its lobbyists bundle $50,000-plus for Clinton’s campaign are hardly the only places where the Khan-connected Hogan Lovells D.C. mega-firm brush elbows with Clinton Cash. 

The firm also handles Hillary Clinton’s taxes and is deeply connected with the email scandal whereby when she was Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton set up a home-brew email server system that jeopardized classified information handling and was “extremely careless” according to FBI director James Comey.

“A lawyer at Hogan & Hartson [Howard Topaz] has been Bill and Hillary Clinton’s go-to guy for tax advice since 2004, according to documents released Friday by Hillary Clinton’s campaign,” The American Lawyer’s Nate Raymond wrote in 2008, as Hillary Clinton ran for president that year. “The Clintons’ tax returns for 2000-07 show combined earnings of $109 million, on which they paid $33 million in taxes. New York-based tax partner Howard Topaz has a broad tax practice, and also regularly advises corporations on M&A and executive compensation.”

Breitbart News’ Patrick Howley, in a deep investigative piece on Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, late last year uncovered how Topaz’s firm—which employed Khan while Topaz did Hillary Clinton’s taxes—is also connected to the email scandal.

“Topaz was a partner at Hogan & Hartson, which later merged to become known as Hogan Lovells, where Topaz continues to practice. The firm’s lawyers were major donors to Hillary Clinton’s first presidential campaign,” Howley wrote.

For her private email system, Clinton used a spam filtering program MX Logic.

“Hogan & Hartson handled the patent for MX Logic’s email-filtering program, which McAfee bought the small company for $140 million in 2009 in order to acquire,” Howley wrote. “The MX Logic company’s application for a trademark for its SPAMTRAQ program was filed in 2004 on Hogan & Hartson stationery and signed by a Hogan & Hartson attorney. Hogan & Hartson has been responsible for MX Logic annual reports. The email company’s Clinton links present more evidence that Clinton’s political and legal establishment was monitoring her private email use.”

If that all isn’t enough, that same Hogan & Hartson law firm—now Hogan Lovells—employed Loretta Lynch, the current Attorney General of the United States. Lynch infamously just a few weeks ago met with Bill Clinton, Hillary’s husband and the former president, on her private jet in Phoenix just before clearing Hillary Clinton of any wrongdoing when it came to her illicit private email server system.

Khan’s own website for his own personal law firm KM Khan Law Office shows he represents clients in the business of buying visas to enter the United States. One of his specific areas of practice, according to the website, is “E2 Treaty Investors, EB5 Investments & Related Immigration Services.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee, has detailed how the EB5 immigration program is “riddled with flaws and corruption.”

“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.”

From there, Sen. Grassley listed out several of the “flaws” with the EB5 immigration program that Khan works in:

– Investments can be spent before business plans are approved. 

– Regional Center operators can charge exorbitant fees of foreign nationals in addition to their required investments.  

– Jobs created are not “direct” or verifiable jobs but rather are “indirect” and based on estimates and economic modeling.

– Jobs created by U.S. investors are counted by the foreign national when obtaining a green card, even if EB-5 money is only a fraction of the total invested.

– Investment funds are not adequately vetted. 

– Gifts and loans are acceptable sources of funds from foreign nationals.

– The investment level has been stagnant for nearly 25 years.

– There’s no prohibition against foreign governments owning or operating regional centers or projects.

– Regional centers can be rented or sold without government oversight or approval.

– Regional centers don’t have to certify that they comply with securities laws.  

– There’s no oversight of promoters who work overseas for the regional centers.

– There’s no set of sanctions for violations, no recourse for bad actors.

– There are no required background checks on anyone associated with a regional center.

– Regional centers draw Targeted Employment Area boundaries around poor areas in order to come in at a lower investment level, yet the jobs created are not actually created in those areas.

– Every Targeted Employment Area designation is rubberstamped by the agency.

– Adjudicators are pressured to get to a yes, especially for those politically connected. 

– Visas are not properly scrutinized. 

– Visas are pushed through despite security warnings.

– Files and applications lack basic and necessary information to monitor compliance.

– The agency does not do site visits for each and every project.

– There’s no transparency on how funds are spent, who is paid, and what investors are told about the projects they invest in.

That’s not to mention the fact that, according to Sen. Grassley, there have been serious national security violations in connection with the EB5 program that Khan works in and around already. In fact, the program—according to Grassley—was used by Middle Eastern operatives from Iran to attempt to illicitly enter the United States.

“There are also classified reports that detail the national security, fraud and abuse. Our committee has received numerous briefings and classified documents to show this side of the story,” Grassley said in the early February 2016 statement. “The enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security wrote an internal memo that raises significant concerns about the program. One section of the memo outlines concerns that it could be used by Iranian operatives to infiltrate the United States. 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.”

Maybe all of this is why–as Breitbart News has previously noted–the Democratic National Convention made absolutely no mention of the Clinton Foundation or Clinton Global Initiative. Hillary Clinton’s coronation ceremony spent exactly zero minutes of the four nights of official DNC programming talking about anything to do with perhaps one of the biggest parts of her biography. 

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton character, Clinton cover ups, Clinton e-mails, Clinton Foundation, Corruption, Democrat National Convention, Democrat Party, Department of State, Donald Trump, Foreign policy, Hillary and media, Hillary Clinton and immigration, Hillary Clinton and Islam, Islamic immigration, Islamic terrorism, Khan-Gate, Saudi Arabia
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »