Untrue bulls***t!
On 8/5/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Breitbart? Isn't that the right wing guy who promoted falsified videos of
the national poverty organization in order to destroy it? Its name flashed
through my mind and left. And didn't he also go after Planned Parenthood?
He's about as trustworthy as Trump!
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Driscoll
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 3:40 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] And Here's The Rest Of The Story
This came to me from a very good friend of mine. I found it to be
interesting so I am sending it on for your perusal.
________________________________
THERE ARE ALWAYS TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY........JUST
ANOTHER DEMOCRATIC SPIN ON THE TRUTH!
Subject: And Here's The Rest Of The Story
The bull shit never stops bunch of crooks helping each other
For those of you who like to follow current events in detail......
when will this BS ever stop? All confirmed by Breitbart and other sources.
WHO IN THE HELL CAN WE TRUST?
BREAKING: Bombshell Connection Between Khizr Khan and Radical Islam
Revealed. Spread This
When Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father of slain U.S. Army
Capt. Humayun Khan, delivered a pointed address at the Democratic National
Convention largely aimed at attacking Republican presidential nominee
Donald
Trump, the media cheered, praising this good man for coming forward to
share
his sad tale.
The narrative put forward by the media seemed to imply that the
relatively unknown Khan reluctantly agreed to publicly share his story, if
only to denounce what he viewed as the egregious policy proposed by Trump
to
temporarily suspend immigration from largely Muslim-populated countries
suffering extreme Islamist terrorism.
But according to Breitbart, Khan may not have been an "unknown," and
his motives for speaking out may not have been as pure as the media have
seemingly implied.
It turns out that Khan has several connections to Democratic
presidential nominee Hillary Clinton through the government of Saudi
Arabia,
a prestigious law firm associated with the Clinton Family Foundation, and
even his own personal law firm, which assists wealthy Muslims with
immigration to the U.S.
Khan used to work for the prestigious D.C. law firm Hogan Lovells,
LLP, formerly known as Hogan & Hartson, which is on retainer as the primary
law firm representing Saudi Arabian interests in the U.S. As we all know,
the Saudi government, and numerous individuals within that government, have
donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation.
On top of that, one of Hogan Lovell's lobbyists bundled more than
$50,000 in donations to Hillary Clinton's campaign this year. In case one
would dismiss this as a mere coincidence, one lawyer among many, Khan is
still greatly revered at the firm, where he was a beloved colleague joined
in mourning over the death of his son in 2004 in the Iraq War.
It has also been revealed that the same law firm handles the taxes
of Bill and Hillary Clinton, specifically, a lawyer named Howard Topaz, who
is alleged to have worked with Khan in the past.
Furthermore, the Hogan law firm handled the patent for a special
spam-filtering program known as MX Logic, which, coincidentally, was the
spam filter program used on Hillary Clinton's private email server.
As a side note, adding just another layer of coincidence, is the
fact that Hogan & Hartson used to employ one Loretta Lynch, now attorney
general of the U.S., and the one most responsible for Clinton seemingly
escaping accountability for her use of a private email server to handle
classified documents while serving as secretary of state.
As icing on the cake of "coincidental" connections, Khan's own
personal law firm focuses largely on assisting in the immigration process
for wealthy Muslims who wish to invest money in the U.S. through a highly
questionable and suspicious visa program known as EB5, which has been
thoroughly ripped for its many flaws by GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley.
It would appear as if Khan was not simply plucked randomly by
Democrats to deliver a heartfelt speech about his son's death and Trump's
immigration proposals, but was instead a known quantity to Clinton with an
agenda of his own to push, an agenda that happens to be in line with that
of
Clinton's.
Please share this on Facebook and Twitter to help spread the word
about who Khizr Khan really is, and why he was chosen by the Democrats to
deliver a speech against Trump at the DNC.
Dems Go Nuts Defending Muslim US Soldier's Family, Then Chilling
Truth Comes Out
It was the speech that the media can't stop bringing up as the
latest gambit against Donald Trump: The appearance of a Muslim Gold Star
family at the Democratic National Convention, blaming Donald Trump
<http://conservativetribune.com/trump-iran-mocks-parade/> for "sacrificing
nothing and no one."
During the speech, Khizr Khan, father of Army Capt. Humayun Saqib
Muazzam Khan, lambasted Donald Trump's temporary pause on immigration from
countries with links to terrorism, arguing his son "loved America."
In the media's coverage of the incident, one fact seemed to
predominate: That Khan was one of 14 Muslims killed in action after 9/11
<http://conservativetribune.com/first-responder-trump-story/> .
However, there was one thing that they didn't point out: namely,
that this is the same number of non-Muslim U.S. soldiers killed by Muslim
U.S. soldiers in terror-related attacks during the same period.
This is according to a report
<https://www.commentarymagazine.com/american-society/military/rep-king-musli
m-american-military-statistics/> by House Homeland Security Chair Peter
King, who notes two major terror attacks conducted by Muslim U.S. military
members.
Perhaps most famously was the attack by then-Army Maj. Nidal Hasan
at Fort Hood, Texas, back in 2009, which killed 13, including 12 soldiers.
Sometimes forgotten is the attack at the start of the Iraq War in 2003,
when
then-Army Sgt. Hasan K. Akbar killed two and wounded 14 in an attack
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Hasan_K._Akbar> at Camp
Pennsylvania in Kuwait.
Let's be clear: Capt. Humayun Saqib Muazzam Khan was a hero, and our
deepest condolences go out to his family. However, his sacrifice is not
proof that there isn't a problem with Islamic terrorism, and this is the
fact that proved it.
The blame here doesn't lie with Trump
<http://conservativetribune.com/isis-statement-nice-attack-trump/> or the
Khans, but instead the Democrat politicians who willfully exploited this
man's loss for cynical gain. The logic behind the messaging - that one
Muslim died for our country, so therefore there is no problem with Islamic
terrorism - is prima facie absurd.
But logic wasn't what Democrats were going for. They were going for
emotion. And at the end of the day, the Islamic State group grows stronger,
and our power to fight it both abroad and within our borders grows weaker.
