Khizr Khan As Democratic Hit Man
By Brother Nathanael Kapner
August 31, 2016
The con is on and Khizr Khan is the star of the show.
Khan, a Muslim immigrant from Pakistan, was suddenly transformed into a ‘hit man’ at the Democratic National Convention.
Put the hit on Trump…and Clinton ratchets up her flat campaign.
[Clip: “Like many immigrants, we came to this country empty-handed. We believed in American democracy — that with hard work and the goodness of this country, we could share in and contribute to its blessings.”]
You mean share in America’s wars on your own people, huh, Mr Khan?
[Clip: “Our son, Humayun, had dreams too of being a military lawyer. But he put those dreams aside the day he sacrificed his life to save the lives of his fellow soldiers. Hillary Clinton was right when she called my son “the best of America.”"]
Die in wars for Israel and you’re the “best” for Tel Aviv. Hillary knows what side her campaign bagel is cream-cheesed on.
And was Hillary “right” to vote for the Iraqi war that put your son six feet under?
If it were my son, I’d be blasting Clinton, not praising her.
[Clip: “Hillary Clinton was right when she called my son the best of America. If it was up to Donald Trump, he never would have been in America.”]
Maybe that’s a good thing, your son would’ve never died.
And besides, Trump was against the Iraq war in the first place.
[Clip: “Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims. He disrespects other minorities — women, judges, even his own party leadership. He vows to build walls and ban us from this country.”]
He’s not banning all Muslims.
Trump’s wants to “vett” immigrants to ferret out potential terrorists.
Many Muslims support this, even Louis Farrakhan.
[Clip: “Our government has gone into nations with money from our Congress to stimulate the dissatisfied and then arm them against a government that is their government. That’s what America did in Libya. That’s what they’re doing in Syria and the blowback now is they have created a refugee crisis that is destabilizing the countries in Europe.
So when Mr. Trump said, ‘We can’t allow these Muslim refugees into America,’ now a lot of people were upset with him but I know, sir, the hatred for America in the Muslim World is building as we told Mr. Bush: No Muslim leader could call for jihad and have it stick. No Muslim leader had the power to unite the whole Muslim World. I said, ‘But America’s policies will unite those people against the West’ and it is happening.
So in this way, Mr. Trump I think is wise to vett anyone coming from that area into America because the hatred for America is in the streets now. So if those people are refugees and America feels ‘I got to let 10,000 of them in,’ because America created the problem. Now, if you let them in and you don’t vett them carefully, you might be letting in your own destruction.”]
And that’s about America’s future.
[Clip: “Donald Trump, you are asking Americans to trust you with their future. Let me ask you: Have you even read the United States Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy.”]
Before you send it, please underline where it says a president can send troops abroad without Congress declaring war.
You can’t. Your son died in an unconstitutional war.
[Clip: “Have you ever been to Arlington Cemetery? Go look at the graves of the brave patriots who died defending United States of America.”]
Come off it.
Everyone knows Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction was a total neocon Jewish lie.
Your son defended a lie, not America.
[Clip: “You have sacrificed nothing and no one.”]
No one, including Trump, denies your son’s sacrifice for his men.
But face it, he was tricked into fighting a dirty war.
Maybe that’s why your wife was silent.
She knew your son was sent to Iraq to kill fellow Muslims in wars for Israel.
The con is on, your son died so Israel could live.
I see my race and culture (white Christian) hell bent on self destruction when it embraces Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, Muslims, homosexuals, feminists and kisses their feet.
One thing that needs to be done right away is for responsible parents to tell these young white girls to start chasing after very capable young white Christian boys instead of all kinds of nasty puke to waste their time and get them drugged up or pregnant out of wedlock.
Next in importance, is to tell their sons that nothing is wrong with being a pacifist or anti war if the alternative is to fight for the devil worshipping Jews that masterminded 911 and used stolen micro nukes to kill and make sick thousands of people on 911.
You wrote: “You attacked the parents of a man who died in war.”
I attacked Khan’s praising of KILLary Clinton and his trashing of Donald Trump.
Did you listen to my Video? Did you read my text I put up?
I said: “Was Hillary “right” to vote for the Iraqi war that put your son six feet under? If it were my son, I’d be blasting Clinton, not praising her.”
I said: “Your son died in an unconstitutional war. He defended a lie, not America.”
I said: “No one, including Trump, denies your son’s sacrifice for his men.”
I said: “Your son died so Israel could live. And for that, no Muslim should be proud.”
Then YOU wrote:”These people have pain and it was used by the DINOs…”
Wait a minute. The Khans AGREED to be used, at least Khizr did, (most likely his wife was forced to obey), and were apparently either PAID to be used or promised special favors by the Jew-funded Hellary campaign.
And, by the way, many Muslims are in concert with my “attack” on the Khans for allowing themselves to shill for Hellary, politicize their “pain,” and to praise a war that only benefited the Jews and murdered thousands of their own Muslim coreligionists.
I wonder if his son was a pedophile or mass murderer, would Khan have taken any responsibility the way he is taking credit for his son death now?
It was his son’s choice to join the military, not Khan’s, as this shill Pakistani’s wife cited earlier, She was against her son’s decision to enlist with military.
Khan is an immigration lawyer and knows if Hellary is selected he would profit millions from illegals coming from ME and Africa to US, and those already in US.
This creep knows Hellary was the hit-man and arms dealer that killed Moamer Qaddafi and thousands of Libyan Moslems, after Qaddafi disparaged Saudi king in Islamic summit by calling out the tin king of crappy Arabia stooge of US and being product of UK.
The Saudi king and entourage walked out the summit as Qaddafi was in middle of speech. I knew then Qaddafi was done, the same with Syria and President Assad was amused and concurring with late Qaddafi, laughing at his humorous speech at the summit.
Saudi rewarded Hellary millions thru her phony Foundation, and Wahhabis and Zionists are hand and glove in these together manipulating Hellary with money and presidency.
Their future joint-venture killing is going to Iran using US military as enforcer and let American goy soldiers like misguided Khan’s son die for Greater Israel expansion.
You need to tell Jews, Blacks, Mexicans etc. to stop hating White males and White Christian culture, and to stop committing nearly all the crimes and promoting chaos, and to stop being parasites and then maybe I’ll stop calling them “nasty pukes”!
I agree with everything you said in that video. However Trump was never against the Iraq War, there is no record of him ever opposing the war, in fact there is audio evidence of him (borderline) supporting the war on the Howard Stern show.
Trump is playing the old anti-establishment facade to get elected, he supported the intervention in Libya and openly called for Qaddafi’s assassination.
He acts like the hero America needs just so he can get elected but once he is in he will just be a white Obama.
He’s already talking about softening his immigration stance. Remember how Obama said he wasn’t going to bypass Congress on immigration?
War On the Rocks: NO MORE OF THE SAME: THE PROBLEM WITH PRIMACY
Editor’s Note: Welcome to the seventh installment in our new series, “Course Correction,” which features adapted articles from the Cato Institute’s recently released book, Our Foreign Policy Choices: Rethinking America’s Global Role. The articles in this series challenge the existing bipartisan foreign policy consensus and offer a different path.
A suicide bombing in Yemen kills scores of new military recruits. Uzbekistan’s President Islam Karimov has suffered a brain hemorrhage. Nuclear-armed North Korea tests ballistic missiles. Venezuela is in a political and economic death spiral. The civil war in Syria drags into its fifth year, and only seems to get worse.
In each case, a worried world asks: “What is the United States going to do?”
U.S. policymakers have invited this response. For decades, U.S. foreign policy has followed a quixotic goal of primacy, or global hegemony.
It presumes that the United States is the indispensable nation, and that every problem, in any part of the world, must be resolved by U.S. leadership or else will impact American safety.
But primacy has proved both difficult and costly. It is also frequently disconnected from American security needs.
An alternative approach to global affairs would concentrate on vital U.S. national interests and maintain the tools necessary to defend them. It would also reject the need for global hegemony.
The idea that we can only be safe once the world is remade in our image is riddled with logical fallacies.
Moreover, an interests-driven foreign policy would take seriously the consequences of our actions abroad and here at home — on our soldiers, our fiscal health, and our principles.
Instead of asking, whenever a distant crisis breaks, “What is the United States going to do?” we should ask, first, “How does this affect vital U.S. national interests?” and, second, “In light of recent developments, what can the United States do, while remaining prosperous and relatively safe, and what must others do to protect themselves?”
This might seem like common sense, but it runs counter to the foreign policy thinking among American elites. They argue that America’s dominant position in the international system is good not only for America but also for the world.
A large, expensive, and globally deployed military is designed to smother potential peer competitors and stop prospective threats before they materialize. Primacy also requires a globe-girdling array of allies and the active spread of liberal values.
It even means “resisting, and where possible, undermining, rising dictators and hostile ideologies” through frequent military interventions, as primacists Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol have argued.
They are comfortable going to war even “when we cannot prove that a narrowly construed ‘vital interest’ of the United States is at stake.”
Primacists hold that it would simply be too dangerous to allow allied countries to defend themselves or independently assert their interests; therefore, the United States must do it for them.
Though such a strategy encourages free riding, primacists are more worried by the prospect that allies’ self-defense efforts might fail, necessitating more costly U.S. intervention later and under less favorable circumstances.
U.S. security guarantees, the primacists say, tamp down the natural inclination of states to want to provide security for themselves, thus preventing allies from engaging in arms build-ups that might unsettle their neighbors, perhaps even unleashing regional arms races.
Unfortunately — but predictably given what theory and history teach us — primacy has been neither easy to implement nor cheap to sustain. When the U.S. military is called upon to fight wars across the globe, the human toll is considerable.
Since 9/11 and through 2014, nearly 7,000 U.S. troops have been killed, 52,000 have been wounded in action, and close to a million veterans have registered disability claims.
The fiscal burdens of primacy are severe as well. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost the United States trillions of dollars, some of which we will be paying for many decades in the form of additional debt servicing and veteran care. And primacy guarantees more fighting in the future — and the bills that come with it.
Of course, we ought to have a strong defense. But, under primacy, the U.S. military is expected both to stop threats from materializing and to stomp out any fires it fails to prevent.
That expectation requires us to maintain the world’s largest and most active military. Notwithstanding the false claims that the Budget Control Act is responsible for “gutting national defense”, or the widespread belief that the U.S. military has been hollowed out and needs to be rebuilt, the U.S. military is the preeminent fighting force in the world.
No state can match U.S. global power-projection capabilities. And U.S. military spending remains near historic highs. In inflation-adjusted dollars, military spending — both war and non-war — averaged $612 billion per year during President George W. Bush’s two terms in office. Under President Barack Obama, it has averaged $675 billion.
The United States will have spent nearly $500 billion more on the military in the Obama years than during the Bush years.
The United States spends at least as much on its military as the next eight countries worldwide and nearly three times more than China and Russia combined. Although not all of that money is spent wisely, it still buys incomparable capabilities.
No sensible American should wish to trade places with any other country on earth. The U.S. military is second to none, and our massive economy is a solid foundation for generating military power when it is needed..
In the current strategic environment, the United States could easily spend less and still safeguard America’s vital interests. It could do so through smarter spending, eliminating wasteful gold-plated programs such as the F-35, and demanding greater burden-sharing from allies.
At present, U.S. security guarantees to wealthy allies cause them to underprovide for their own defense, meaning they have less capacity to help us deal with common security challenges.
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen warned that debts and deficits represent threats to not just our fiscal health but our national security as well.
Although military spending is not the primary driver of the nation’s massive and unprecedented fiscal imbalance, primacy’s high costs undermine our economic security.
Such expenditures might still be justified if they were instrumental in keeping Americans safe. But, in fact, primacy is based on a number of faulty premises, including:
(a) that the United States is subjected to more urgent and prevalent threats than ever before;
(b) that U.S. security guarantees reassure nervous allies and thus contribute to global peace and stability; and
(c) that a large and active U.S. military is essential to the health of the international economy.
Primacists hold that the United States cannot adopt a wait-and-see attitude with respect to distant trouble spots. They believe that the security of all states are bound together and that threats to others are actually threats to the United States.
Primacists believe that instability and crises abroad will adversely affect American interests if they are allowed to fester.
“The alternative to Pax Americana—the only alternative—is global disorder,” writes the Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens, with emphasis.
Because any problem, in any part of the world, could eventually threaten U.S. security or U.S. interests, primacy aims to stop all problems before they occur.
This assumption is based on a very selective reading of world history, grossly exaggerates the United States’ ability to control outcomes, and underplays its costs. It also miscasts the nature of the threats that are facing us.
Technology has not evaporated the seas, allowing large land armies to march across the ocean floor.
Meanwhile, potential challengers like China face more urgent problems that will diminish their desire and ability to project power outside of their neighborhood. They can cause trouble in the South China Sea, but that does not mean they can or will in the South Pacific or the Caribbean.
China’s economic troubles and rising popular unrest, for example, could constrain Chinese military spending increases and focus Beijing’s attention at home. Causing problems abroad would threaten critical trading relations that are essential to the health of the Chinese economy.
Primacists argue that we cannot rely on oceans to halt nuclear missiles that fly over them or cyberattacks in the virtual realm. And terrorists could infiltrate by land, sea, or air, or they could be grown right here at home.
But our own nuclear weapons provide a powerful deterrent against state actors with return addresses, and a massive, forward-deployed military is not the best tool for dealing with terrorists and hackers.
The hard part is finding them and stopping them before they act. That is a job for the intelligence and law enforcement communities, respectively. And small-footprint military units like special operations forces can help as needed.
There have always been dangers in the world, and there always will be.
To the extent that we can identify myriad threats that our ancestors could not fathom, primacy compounds the problem.
By calling on the United States to deal with so many threats, to so many people, in so many places, primacy ensures that even distant problems become our own.
Primacy’s other key problem is that, contrary to the claims of its advocates, it inadvertently increases the risk of conflict.
Allies are more willing to confront powerful rivals because they are confident that the United States will rescue them if the confrontation turns ugly, a classic case of moral hazard, or what MIT’s Barry Posen calls “reckless driving.”
Restraining our impulse to intervene militarily or diplomatically when our safety and vital national interests are not threatened would reduce the likelihood that our friends and allies will engage in such reckless behavior in the first place.
Plus, a more restrained foreign policy would encourage others to assume the burden of defending themselves.
Such a move on the part of our allies could prove essential, given that primacy has not stopped our rivals from challenging U.S. power.
Russia and China, for example, have resisted the U.S. government’s efforts to expand its influence in Europe and Asia. Indeed, by provoking security fears, primacy exacerbates the very sorts of problems that it claims to prevent, including nuclear proliferation.
U.S. efforts at regime change and talk of an “axis of evil” that needed to be eliminated certainly provided additional incentives for states to develop nuclear weapons to deter U.S. actions (e.g., North Korea).
Meanwhile, efforts intended to smother security competition or hostile ideologies have destabilized vast regions, undermined our counterterrorism efforts, and even harmed those we were ostensibly trying to help.
After U.S. forces deposed the tyrant Saddam Hussein in 2003, Iraq descended into chaos and has never recovered.
The civil war in Syria, and the problem of the Islamic State in particular, is inextricable from the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq.
The situation in Libya is not much better — the United States helped overthrow Muammar al-Qaddafi in 2011, but violence still rages.
The Islamic State, which originated in Iraq, has now established a presence in Libya as well, provoking still more U.S. military action there.
It is clear that those interventions were counterproductive and have failed to make America safer and more secure, yet primacists call for more of the same.
Lastly, primacists contend that U.S. military power is essential to the functioning of the global economy. “U.S. security commitments,” explain leading primacists Stephen G. Brooks, G. John Ikenberry, and William C. Wohlforth, “help maintain an open world economy and give Washington leverage in economic negotiations.”
The United States sets the rules of the game and punishes those who disobey them.
If the United States were less inclined to intervene in other people’s disputes, the primacists say, the risk of war would grow, roiling skittish markets.
But such claims exaggerate the role that U.S. ground forces play in facilitating global trade, especially given the resiliency and flexibility of global markets in the face of regional instability.
Moreover, primacists ignore the extent to which past U.S. military activism has actually undermined market stability and upset vital regions.
Smart alternatives to primacy feature a significant role for the U.S. Navy and Air Force in providing security in the global commons while avoiding the downsides of onshore activism.
In conclusion, America’s default foreign policy is unnecessarily costly and unnecessarily risky.
Its defenders misconstrue the extent to which U.S. military power has contributed to a relatively peaceful international system, and they overestimate our ability to sustain an active global military posture indefinitely.
The United States needs an alternative foreign policy, one that focuses on preserving America’s strength and advancing its security, and that expects other countries to take primary responsibility for protecting their security and preserving their interests.
America’s leaders should restrain their impulse to use the U.S. military when our vital interests are not directly threatened while avoiding being drawn into distant conflicts that sap our strength and undermine our safety and values.
I don’t expect that if Trump wins that all of America’s problems will disappear or that much will fundamentally change on the international front.
Jewry insinuates itself into every political sphere and their power is unbreakable unless there is some collective action on the part of people who have political power.
However, I think it’s preferable that Trump wins and not Hillary Clinton. A Clinton presidency will be nothing but a creeping Jewish Marxist/Socialist agenda that will seep into American life even further than it has under Obama, perhaps much further.
More illegal immigration, attempts to censor the internet and free speech generally, more racial strife and another war are among the bad things likely to come to pass under Clinton.
With Trump, we can hopefully thwart a good part of the Jewish agenda here at home and avoid a war.
A Clinton presidency would just be a complete disaster.
If you want to be a big wheel in this evil world which Satan rules, just bow down to Satan. Jesus rejected Satan’s offer, so Satan had Jesus crucified and made the deal with the Zionist Jews who still rule.
Judas sold out Jesus to the Zionists for 30 shekels. It was Judas who Satan entered when Satan prompted Judas to betray Jesus.
Satan prompted Judas to tell the leading Jews, the sanhedrin, where Jesus was camped on the mount of olives. The Jews secretly arrested Jesus at night where there were few people to see the dark deed or interfere, just what the Jews wanted.
The Zionist Jews want to rule the kingdoms of this world with such a bad lust that they bow to Satan for the power.
For more free gift income for your foundation, you might try to apply to the many foundations whose business it is to simply give away free grant money each year to the many people who make applications to them each year for receiving free grant money.
Your many years of demonstrated success with your foundation should be a very great help for you to be eligible to receive possible free grant money.
Maybe you could find a number of these foundations that will support you every year, but you have to submit an application request each year in order to be considered.
The local public library reference department possibly could help you to find a directory list of these many free money grant foundations.
There may possibly be a centralized foundation grant assistance organization somewhere, that may help you to apply in the right direction.
Khan’s wife was up there to match his tie perhaps. Nice blue. And maybe to humanize all Muslims (and Jihadis).
Mr. Khan must have been paid a handsome sum to present his profound loss up there on behalf of Hitlery. This is terrible and a shame. Mr. Khan can’t be stupid. (Where does the propaganda and the exploitation of people end?)
First thing tomorrow morning I’m off to the library to look up all those “many foundations” whose business is to “give away” free grant money. My problems are over! Thank you, and again, I say, Thank you!
I can’t wait to see those 100s of thousands of dollars made out in checks to The Brother Nathanael Foundation from these many foundations.
Of course, I plan on living until I’m 130 years old so I can wait a lifetime for those checks to come rolling in.
One thing for certain, as soon as these foundations see that I write over and over again that JEWS have RUINED this country and continue to wreak havoc all over the world, then FOR SURE, those bucks are going to come in droves to me.
Truth does not win any popularity contests, and unlike Killary, I will not compromise morality, ethics, or honesty, or sell my soul, in order to get rich. +BN
And by the way, dear B, if I put out an Appeal to over 5,000 regular viewers and readers and only 8 respond, how can I expect Jew-loving foundations to support my ministry?
Alternatively the maxim “you can’t take it with you” would to me for those CHRISTian elderly folk who are fortunate enough to have some “nest egg” to seriously consider benevolence to the Foundation when the Pearly Gates draw nigh.
The Jews who run the Treasury department and Federal Reserve are always looking for more ways to increase the national debt. Jews run the game and debt slavery is the name.
Unfortunately, the Fed Jews prefer to waste money on anti-christian activities. As +BN points out, these Jews want to promote JWO purposes, not expose them or shut them down. So, what +BN does would be disapproved immediately.
For +BN to have any chance of hitting the Jew controlled jackpot with a grant application, he would have to apply through a front group and beat the Jews with their own club.
Give the front group a name that sounds politically correct, something like Jewish Justice League JJL, assuming that name isn’t already taken.
The JJL website would repeat the same propaganda as the legions of other Jew run organizations such as the ACLU, ADL, AJC, Jerusalem Post, NAACP, etc, so that the grant money would keep flowing in.
Ostensibly, the JJL would appear as just what Zionist Jews love.
The grant money from the JJL must never be transferred directly to RJN because the gig is up once that happens.
The US military accounted for well over half of the entire US budget by 1991, according to former C.I.A. Station chief (turned whistle-blower) John Stockwell.
According to Stephen Lendmen’s article on VeteransToday.com “Washington’s Bloated Military Budget” it is now over 60% of every drop of blood sucked out of this country.
Unfortunately, we are the world’s largest killing machine, so morally degenerated that we’re actually proud of it - mindless drones marching to the fear spun by corporate engineered, military patriotism. The cold, hard truth is that American soldiers have not fought a war in the people’s interest since the war of 1812.
“The question was how much we should maneuver them (Japanese) into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.” Henry Stimson, Secretary of War (Journal Entry dated November 25, 1941).
Roosevelt’s administrative assistant at the time of Pearl Harbor, Jonathan Daniels, recorded Roosevelt’s reaction to the attack: “The blow was heavier than we had hoped it would necessarily be. … But the risks paid off; even the loss was worth the price. … ”
“I want no prisoners” and “I wish you to kill and burn; and the more you burn and kill, the better it will please me.” . . . “kill everyone over ten!”. US Brig. Gen. Jacob (Howling Jake) Smith during the US military’s ethnic cleansing of over one million people in the Philipines, c. 1901-1902.