Turns out the guy was a major advocate for Sharia law and heaped praise upon Islamic leaders who absolutely abused human rights. Maybe Anchor is right, he WOULD be denied if Trump's temporary immigration ban from Islamic nations was enacted due to his radical beliefs.

 

So truly, if the best thing that can be said of someone is that their son or daughter died admirably serving the US, that's not saying anything positive at all about that parent's own character.  Or lack thereof.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

So truly, if the best thing that can be said of someone is that their son or daughter died admirably serving the US, that's not saying anything positive at all about that parent's own character.  Or lack thereof.

 

Along with that, they apparently sold their son's honor for $375,000.


 

http://www.govtslaves.info/375000-deposi...oundation/

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Along with that, they apparently sold their son's honor for $375,000.


 

http://www.govtslaves.info/375000-deposi...oundation/

 

Maybe so, maybe not.

 

A little fact checking here and there raises more questions about the accusations than it does Khizr Khan.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Along with that, they apparently sold their son's honor for $375,000.


 
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.govtslaves.info/375000-deposited-to-the-khan-law-account-from-the-clinton-foundation/'>http://www.govtslaves.info/375000-deposited-to-the-khan-law-account-from-the-clinton-foundation/</a>

True or not. Anyone with a shred of honor doesn't accept a soldiers Purple Heart. No one!

This young man died for his country. The other guy accepts something he didn't earn, in fact takes credit for a wounded vet. Takes credit? He accepted it. He's a [BLEEP].

---

Blakes Life Matters

Maybe so, maybe not.

 

A little fact checking here and there raises more questions about the accusations than it does Khizr Khan.

 

Which is why I used the word "apparently." What is gained by posting a link of Snopes saying they don't know one way or the other?


 

If it's true, would your opinion change?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Which is why I used the word "apparently." What is gained by posting a link of Snopes saying they don't know one way or the other?


 
If it's true, would your opinion change?

Yet you answered someone who started their post with... So truly...and then answered..along with...but then added apparently. Verrrry Trumpish I must say.


If it's not true, would your opinion change?

" Apparently" not.


Apparently his current wife was an illegal immigrant.

Man..that word apparently is great.

---

Blakes Life Matters

Mr. Khan wants liberty and equal protection for people that are banned from entering the country? Congratulations! You've finally admitted that he wants to give our constitutional rights to people outside of our country!!!

No, that's not what Khan wants.

 

He wants us to recognize that the first amendment of the United States Constitution states that:

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

 

Apparently, many of us don't make the connection that providing a religious test for immigration to the United States is, in itself, establishment of a state religion that does not recognize one practiced by about a 5th of the world's population.

 

Despite what the Trumpettes are saying, if the US establishes a true religious test like the one Donald called for on December 7, 2015, it will be in violation of the First Amendment and the Supreme Court will rule so.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/d...migration/

 

So maybe the Khan family (or our own Khan family) would have made it through Donald's ban, maybe not.

 

Here's the key:  If Donald called for a ban on ALL immigration "until our country's representatives can figure out what's going on" then it might have passed the Constitutional test.  But he didn't.  And from what I've learned in the past 16 years, our country's representatives will NEVER figure out what' going on, because they can't even agree that it's hot outside.  So, "believe me" the ban would be permanent.

---

Which is why I used the word "apparently." What is gained by posting a link of Snopes saying they don't know one way or the other?


 

If it's true, would your opinion change?

 

There was nothing apparent, it was a heavily redacted document with no year in the date. If anything, it was apparently a forgery as much as it was real.

 

The "maybe so, maybe not" wasn't Snopes' conclusion, it was rhetorical.

 

"Apparently" you didn't read the linked article. If you had you'd know Snopes had a earlier version of the document with conflicting law firm names, which were magically (almost) matching in a later version.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

No, that's not what Khan wants.

 

He wants us to recognize that the first amendment of the United States Constitution states that:

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

 

Apparently, many of us don't make the connection that providing a religious test for immigration to the United States is, in itself, establishment of a state religion that does not recognize one practiced by about a 5th of the world's population.

 

Despite what the Trumpettes are saying, if the US establishes a true religious test like the one Donald called for on December 7, 2015, it will be in violation of the First Amendment and the Supreme Court will rule so.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/d...migration/

 

So maybe the Khan family (or our own Khan family) would have made it through Donald's ban, maybe not.

 

Here's the key:  If Donald called for a ban on ALL immigration "until our country's representatives can figure out what's going on" then it might have passed the Constitutional test.  But he didn't.  And from what I've learned in the past 16 years, our country's representatives will NEVER figure out what' going on, because they can't even agree that it's hot outside.  So, "believe me" the ban would be permanent.

 

It won't stop there, either, because even with a ban attacks will happen. When they do, there will be a call for expulsion or confinement of Muslims here already.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

No, that's not what Khan wants.

 

He wants us to recognize that the first amendment of the United States Constitution states that:

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

 

Apparently, many of us don't make the connection that providing a religious test for immigration to the United States is, in itself, establishment of a state religion that does not recognize one practiced by about a 5th of the world's population.

 

Despite what the Trumpettes are saying, if the US establishes a true religious test like the one Donald called for on December 7, 2015, it will be in violation of the First Amendment and the Supreme Court will rule so.

 
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/'>http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/</a>

 

So maybe the Khan family (or our own Khan family) would have made it through Donald's ban, maybe not.

 

Here's the key:  If Donald called for a ban on ALL immigration "until our country's representatives can figure out what's going on" then it might have passed the Constitutional test.  But he didn't.  And from what I've learned in the past 16 years, our country's representatives will NEVER figure out what' going on, because they can't even agree that it's hot outside.  So, "believe me" the ban would be permanent.

Except he didn't bring up the First Amendment, he brought up a clause of the Fourteenth. I have no reason to believe Mr. Khan isn't a smart man, and he's got his pocket constitution for reference, so I'm going to go with the speech he gave and not the one y'all are trying to say he meant to give. Freedom of religion is one of the most well known parts of the constitution, even people that haven't read it know that one. Don't you think a man that has his own copy of the constitution knows what part of it he wanted to bring up?

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

People think it's anti American to burn the flag, but that's not unconstitutional either.


Trump never claimed it would be a permanent ban on Muslims, just until further vetting is done. Since you love context so much, the context here is that while the Khans might have been delayed in entering the country, upon being properly vetted, they would have been allowed to enter the country thus still resulting in Khan Jr.'s military service. The only way they would have not been allowed to enter the country is if there was something shady in their background that would have precluded them from being approved. Since no one is making those claims, there wouldn't have been an issue.

 

I can see your point...  But I think there's a difference between banning a race/religion from entering and burning the flag in a protest.  

 

As far as something shady in thier background, being "muslim" or from a "muslim country" shouldn't be an indication of shadyness...  But that's just my opinion.  I know alot of muslims.  Some are total tools.  Most are normal people that aren't shady at all.  None are terrorists or sympathetic to ISIS.

 

And do you honestly believe that there is no vetting process in terms of our immigration policy right now?  I mean, I know trump said it, so it must be true (sarcasm).  But you realize that trump is not the best person to get facts on reality from...

---

I can see your point... But I think there's a difference between banning a race/religion from entering and burning the flag in a protest.


As far as something shady in thier background, being "muslim" or from a "muslim country" shouldn't be an indication of shadyness... But that's just my opinion. I know alot of muslims. Some are total tools. Most are normal people that aren't shady at all. None are terrorists or sympathetic to ISIS.


And do you honestly believe that there is no vetting process in terms of our immigration policy right now? I mean, I know trump said it, so it must be true (sarcasm). But you realize that trump is not the best person to get facts on reality from...

My point was just because something is seen as "anti American" doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.


Who said there absolutely no vetting going on right now? Saying that a more thorough process needs to be in place is totally different than saying there wasn't one at all. I'd think even you would be able to tell the difference between the two, but I guess not...

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

There was nothing apparent, it was a heavily redacted document with no year in the date. If anything, it was apparently a forgery as much as it was real.

 

The "maybe so, maybe not" wasn't Snopes' conclusion, it was rhetorical.

 

"Apparently" you didn't read the linked article. If you had you'd know Snopes had a earlier version of the document with conflicting law firm names, which were magically (almost) matching in a later version.

 

Snopes conclusion was "unproven." That's the same as maybe so, maybe not.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Snopes conclusion was "unproven." That's the same as maybe so, maybe not.

 

i think when you have one document that had 2 different names for a law firm, then another that was changed but still not consistent, and neither have a complete date, there was no justification for saying anything was apparent. It's a forged document. Unproven, in this case, means probably not.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

My point was just because something is seen as "anti American" doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.


Who said there absolutely no vetting going on right now? Saying that a more thorough process needs to be in place is totally different than saying there wasn't one at all. I'd think even you would be able to tell the difference between the two, but I guess not...

 

LOL, you're funny and I like how you hedged there, very smart. You're right, he didn't say there was "absolutely no vetting".  He said that we don't know what we're doing in vetting immigrants.  Because, you know, Donald Trump is very imformed.  Again, trusting trump's analysis of reality is not something I'd recommend.  

 

Also...I'm curious...  Where in the Constitution does it say liberty and equal process under law is only reserved for Americans only?

---

Even the clearly racist ones?

Show me any country or culture at any point in time without them.


Your bitterness is ozzing

---

I can see your point...  But I think there's a difference between banning a race/religion from entering and burning the flag in a protest.  

 

As far as something shady in thier background, being "muslim" or from a "muslim country" shouldn't be an indication of shadyness...  But that's just my opinion.  I know alot of muslims.  Some are total tools.  Most are normal people that aren't shady at all.  None are terrorists or sympathetic to ISIS.

 

And do you honestly believe that there is no vetting process in terms of our immigration policy right now?  I mean, I know trump said it, so it must be true (sarcasm).  But you realize that trump is not the best person to get facts on reality from...

 

What is the vetting process for refugees from a country we have no diplomatic ties with?  How do we verify any claims they make, or if they are even Syrian?

---

Show me any country or culture at any point in time without them.


Your bitterness is ozzing

What you on about? We have plenty of racist folks here too, who probably love what trump has been saying. Not saying otherwise.

---

LOL, you're funny and I like how you hedged there, very smart. You're right, he didn't say there was "absolutely no vetting".  He said that we don't know what we're doing in vetting immigrants.  Because, you know, Donald Trump is very imformed.  Again, trusting trump's analysis of reality is not something I'd recommend.  

 

Also...I'm curious...  Where in the Constitution does it say liberty and equal process under law is only reserved for Americans only?

I'm curious as to who is claiming it is for Americans only. The constitution applies to anyone within our borders. I think even you can admit that if you've been banned from entering the country you're not within its borders. And now we've fully circled back to the original point of why did Mr. Khan bring up our constitution when talking about people that have been banned from our country.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

I'm curious as to who is claiming it is for Americans only. The constitution applies to anyone within our borders. I think even you can admit that if you've been banned from entering the country you're not within its borders. And now we've fully circled back to the original point of why did Mr. Khan bring up our constitution when talking about people that have been banned from our country.

 

I know, I know.  I'm beating a dead horse with you.  But I still think you don't fully get it.  So here's the portion of the Constitution I think Mr. Khan was referring to.  You think it's a clear cut thing.  But as I have said, which you seem to ignore, is that the Constitutionality of this issue has never been fully played out.  Denying access into the USA because of your religion is basically denying liberty and due process under our laws if you are targeting a specific class of people.  So, again, you may think it's clear cut.  It's not.

 

What is clear cut is that trump clearly has no true thought process on this other than to denegrate an entire group of people.  It's what he does best and what his supporters like about him.  But it's clearly not something that speaks to the ideals and aspirations of our country.

 

 

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

---