Welcome to my blog. Here you will find information that is both interesting and useless. You can even see how Steve, my camera, sees the world through my eyes, or get your hands on my latest novel, Jihad Joe at:


Thanks for visiting. Hope you enjoyed the coffee and cake. Sorry we ran out of donuts.

Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Khizr Khan believes Sharia overrules the Constitution

Khizr Khan lost his son in the Iraq war. That's very sad, but it doesn't mean that Donald Trump, or anyone else who didn't lose a child in a war, hasn't sacrificed, as Khan said of Trump. 

The same would apply to the Clintons, but hey, that's asking too much.

Using the death of one's son for political reasons really sucks, and that's what Khan did, and he did it to challenge Trump on his stance over the immigration of Muslims. 

Trump wants a temporary ban on Muslims entering the U.S."until we can figure things out," and Khan has consistently worked on getting as many Muslim immigrants to the U.S. as possible.

Kahn, a Harvard lawyer, said that he believes Donald Trump never read the Constitution and offered him his pocket version. He alluded to the false premise that the Constitution does not allow for a religious test for immigration. That simply isn't true, and a lawyer like Khan or Hillary, should know that fact.

The truth is, there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids a religious test for foreigners from entering the country.

 The 'No Religious Test Clause' within Article VI, Clause 3 states that "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution, but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. [Italics mine.]
It was never about immigration. And if any religion (such as Islam) poses a threat to the United States, it is the duty of the President to protect the nation, which Trump's [temporary] plan would do.

In 1983, Khan gave rave reviews to a book titled "Human Rights In Islam" which was compiled from a seminar in Kuwait. In the review, Khan praised the keynote speaker, fellow Pakistani Allah K. Brohi (his friends call him God) to the sky. 

Brohi is a pro-jihad Islamic jurist who was a close adviser to the late Pakistani dictator General Zia ul-Haq, the daddy of the Taliban (pronounced "Tahleebahn" by President Obama) terrorist group.

Khan gets all hot and bothered by Brohi's interpretaton of human rights, including the right to kill and mutilate those who violate Sharia as well as the right of men to 'beat" their wives who act "unseemly." 

Khan was 'all in' for that Sharia garbage.

When Brohi was Pakistan's minister of law and religious affairs, he created hundreds of madrassas and brought back Sharia punishments (such as amputations for theft and demanding that women who were raped produce 4 male witnesses or face adultery charges which could lead to a stoning if she couldn't get witnesses to bear her out). 

Insulting the Muslim prophet Mohammed, became a crime punishable by death (see Charlie Hebdo). Judges in Pakistan were required to consult a mullah before making a judgment. 

All of this was praised by Khan. Not so much by abused women.

After Khan was outed by Walid and Ted Shoebat and Robert Spencer, he took down his website. That was after the Trump attack by Khan.

Kind of like deleting emails, right?

Hillary Clinton either doesn't care about Khan's history or that he advocates women being beaten by their husbands or doesn't care about the death sentences given to those who violate Sharia . .  or she never vetted Khan before she used him as her attack Muslim. 

In either case, it is clear that if anyone is not "fit to be president'," it's Hillary Clinton.

And if anyone is going to be nominated for "Father of the Year," it should be Donald Trump before Khizr Khan any day.