When Lying To The FBI Wasn’t A Crime

Here is a large excerpt of the article by Daniel Greenfield at FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE:

“There’s always conflicting recollections of facts,” FBI Director Comey said.

It was a year ago and Comey was explaining why Hillary’s close aide, Cheryl Mills, not only received an immunity agreement in exchange for turning over her laptop, but a pass on lying to the FBI.

The FBI Director claimed that Mills had to receive immunity because the laptop might be protected by attorney-client privilege. Mills, like Hillary Clinton, had worked as a lawyer. But they were both government officials working for the State Department. Hillary wasn’t Mills’ client. The government was.

Comey and his people knew the law. They chose to ignore it to protect a key Hillary aide from rolling over. Mills was the woman Hillary would send in to clean up her dirty laundry. Mills had taken point on the email server cover-up. If anyone knew where the bodies were buried, she did. Instead not only did she get an immunity agreement, but the FBI also agreed to destroy the computers after the search.

Mills had told the FBI that she didn’t know about Hillary’s email server. But the FBI had notes and emails proving that Mills was lying. And when Comey was asked about it, he came out with, “There’s always conflicting recollections of facts.”

No doubt.

That is what the lawyer of the woman who had been caught lying to the FBI might have been expected to argue. But there were no charges, instead the FBI Director was presenting her defense.

George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn were charged with lying to investigators. But lying to investigators isn’t a crime when you’re Hillary Clinton.

Or one of her associates.

Hillary Clinton had told the FBI that she had no idea that the “C” stood for confidential. Instead of laughing in her face or arresting her, the FBI boss testified personally to her truthfulness.

Hillary Clinton, Mills and Huma Abedin made what appear to be false statements to the FBI.

Had Mills been working for Trump, the same number would have been run on Mills as on Flynn and Papadopoulos. But the men interviewing Mills didn’t want her to sing. They wanted her to keep quiet.

Mills and Abedin were interviewed by the FBI’s Peter Strzok and the DOJ’s David Laufman. Strzok was exchanging pro-Hillary and anti-Trump messages in an extramarital affair with a woman working for FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. McCabe’s wife had received a sizable amount of money from a Clinton ally. Laufman, whose counterintelligence section was heading the investigation, is an Obama donor.

Mills’ lie made it more urgent to hand her an immunity agreement on any pretext. The immunity agreement wasn’t leverage for her testimony. It was leverage to keep her from testifying. The obstruction of justice was coming from the inside.

Strzok received input on the Comey letter exonerating Clinton. The Mills interview killed two birds with one stone. A key Hillary aide got immunity and the evidence would be destroyed.

This wasn’t an interview. It was a cover-up.

It’s why Comey sounded like Mills’ lawyer. And why so many Clinton associates got immunity agreements. Why the FBI agreed to destroy evidence. Why there were no recordings of Hillary’s testimony. And why lying to the FBI wasn’t a crime when it came to Hillary and her aides.

But the double standard kicked in when the Clinton cover-up crew went after Trump.

While Mills received an immunity agreement based on an imaginary attorney-client privilege that didn’t exist, Manafort was denied attorney-client privilege with his actual attorney.

The double standard isn’t surprising when you look at who was doing the interviewing.

Strzok and Laufman had also interviewed Hillary. No recordings were made of the session. But Comey testified that it’s a “crime to lie to us”.

Not for the Clintons and their associates.

Hillary had told her interviewers that she hadn’t received training on handling classified information, but she signed a document testifying that she had. Hillary claimed that she hadn’t carried a second phone, but an aide, Justin Cooper, who made the server possible, testified that indeed she did.

Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills told the same lie.

These are the kinds of misstep that Team Mueller would have used to hang a Trump associate. But Comey testified that Hillary Clinton did not lie.

And that meant he was lying.

Not only did Clinton’s people lie to the FBI. But the head of the FBI had lied for them.

The fix had been in all along……..

(READ IT ALL)

I predict Flynn will be exonerated from all this. And with Mueller’s teams past, other cases he has and will put forward may fall apart. NOT because he is wrong, but because of the tactics used (like with Enron and the like).

The DNC Star ~ Khizr Khan (Hillary’s Close Associates to Wahhabism)

…Drip… Drip… Drip…

(The above is with a h-t to PowerLine)

As one learns to do after a political event such as the excellent speech and patriotic swelling up during the speech of Khizr Khan at the 2016 Democratic National Convention… wait.


By-the-by, if you have not watched Mr. Khan’s speech, I suggest doing so (HERE). COL. ALLEN WEST simply responds to it by saying, “Yes sir, Mr. Khan, I’ve read our Constitution[!]…”

Col West continues:

…and firmly recognize the preeminent responsibility of our federal government is to “provide for the common defense.” I also comprehend the relationship between the three branches of government…you know separation of powers, checks and balances, coequal branches of government.

I would offer a simple recommendation to Mr. Khan. Perhaps you should have asked President Barack Obama if he had read the Constitution — undoubtedly you would agree we have witnessed a few unconstitutional actions from him.

And while you were at it, Mr. Khan, perhaps you could have asked Hillary Clinton about handling classified information — since I’m quite sure your son, Captain Khan, had at a minimum a secret clearance.

I don’t think your son would have been able to, well, have his “careless” mishandling of classified materials and information simply excused. Perhaps Mr. Khan, you could have addressed the necessity for high standards of honor, integrity, and character in a commander in chief.Also, I found it interesting Mr. Khan, that you and your wife, an American Gold Star family, would take the stage to support a sitting president and one desiring to be president, who had abandoned Americans in a combat zone and lied about it…

(read it all)


WAIT

However, this simple response aside, and Trump’s atrocious response as compared to John McCaine’s response ALSO set side… AS WELL AS MIKE PENCE’S excellent response… I see much more information like the below coming out in droves. In other words, this is only the beginning.

Typically, just like in wartime theaters, the first reports are wrong. And more vital information gets added. We see this starting to happen, and I knew it would when the Khan’s asked to be out of the political limelight… as they made another appearance in the media.

The DAILY CALLER notes Khan is a proponant of Islamic Sharia Law, and promotes this in a way antithetical to U.S. interests in my minds eye. Robert Spencer connects some dots that the Clinton Cash documentary has alerted us to:

…Khizr Khan, and the Clinton campaign, have extensive ties to the Saudis – far more extensive than any possible connection that Donald Trump’s campaign may have had to Russia’s alleged involvement in the leak of emails that revealed that the entire Democratic Party presidential nominating process was rigged from the start. Not that the mainstream media will pause from speculating about Trump and the Russians long enough to tell you any facts about Khizr Khan, Hillary and the Saudis.

Intelius records that Khizr Khan has worked at Hogan Lovells Llp. According to the Washington Free Beacon, “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. Robert Kyle, a lobbyist from the firm, has bundled $50,850 for Clinton’s campaign.”

The Free Beacon added that the Saudi government has “supplied the Clinton Foundation with millions. 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.”

And so we were treated to the spectacle of an employee of a firm that is registered to work for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia lambasting Donald Trump at the Democratic National Convention, and then (lo and behold!) becoming a media darling as he excoriates Trump for his “black soul.”

(JIHAD WATCH)

In another JIHAD WATCH (JW) post it is mentioned that mentioned that “Khan specializes in visa programs accused of selling U.S. citizenship.” This is a controversial programme to say the least, JW continues via the Washington Examiner:

The father of a Muslim-American soldier killed in Iraq who is caught up in a war of words with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is an immigration lawyerwho specializes in a highly controversial program accused of letting immigrants buy their way into the U.S.

Khizr M. Khan’s website notes that he works to help clients with the E-2 and EB-5 programs that let overseas investors buy into U.S. companies and also provides green cards for family members.

It also said that he helps in the purchase of U.S. real estate and businesses. The website lists his ability to practice in New York, though it gives a Washington phone number for the lawyer who lives in Virginia. A man who answered the phone said the website was correct, though he would not identify himself.

“The E-2 and EB-5 are two of the most notoriously abused visa categories that essentially allow wealthy foreigners to buy their way to U.S. residency, and possibly citizenship, with a relatively modest investment,” said Jessica Vaughan, the policy director for the Center for Immigration Studies.

The EB-5 program has been caught up in multiple scandals and critics are pressing Congress to kill it.

“The EB-5 is literally a ‘citizenship for sale’ program in which a visa for a whole family can be bought for as little $500,000,” Vaughan told Secrets. “It is literally a ‘citizenship for sale’ program, and it’s an amazing deal. Compared to other countries, America is the Walmart of investor visa programs,” she added.

HumaAbedin

CREEPING SHARIA notes as well in their excellent culmination of Khan’s writings on Sharia Law, that Khan thanks a Muslim Brotherhood luminary/scholar. One must always keep in mind that “Sharia is in direct opposition to the US Constitution and they cannot co-exist,” period. Here is an excerpt from that post:

At the bottom of the page, Kahn [sic] shows his appreciation for an icon of the Muslim Brotherhood: “The contribution to this article of S. Ramadan’s writing is greatly acknowledged.” S. Ramadan is Said Ramadan, head of the Islamic Center in Geneva and a major icon of the Muslim Brotherhood.

...Other Boss?

The declassified “28 Pages” released by Congress Friday afternoon concerning 9/11, terror funding, and Saudi Arabia contains a bombshell piece of information: The World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY) is specifically named as having connections to terror funding and support for a number of worldwide terror groups…. (Breitbart)

[….]

On September 11, 2001 Huma Abedin — Hillary Clinton’s aide for twenty years and co-chair of her current Presidential run — was working for an organization located in the offices of Saudi Arabia’s Muslim World League.

That’s a Wahhabist Islamic group that Breitbart News recently reported was going to be put on a list of terror funders by U.S. government but was removed, reportedly under pressure from Saudi Arabia…. (Breitbart)

Ramadan was a writer who wrote material for the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia, an organization that has been promoting Islamic revivalism and indoctrination to recruit young people in Malaysia to jihadism. It is actually a Malaysian branch of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Ramadan wrote a book called, Islamic Law: Its Scope and Equity, and a version of it was published for the Malaysian Muslim Youth Movement (a branch of WAMY)…

[….]

World Association of Muslim Youth (WAMY) was created through the collaboration of the Wahhabist and Muslim Brotherhood led by Said Ramadan who was the son-in-law of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood including Ahmad Bahefzallah, the boss of Huma Abedin (Hillary Clinton’s aid) and her parents Mahmoud and Saleha Abedin. It was also financed by the wealthy Abdullah Omar Naseef, another boss of the Abedin family.

Said Ramadan, Kahn’s [sic] source for his writing, was major leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, according to the Islamic scholar, Kemal A. Faruki.

[….]

According to a recent report, Khan moved from Pakistan to the United Arab Emirates, a hotbed for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Kahn [sic] currently runs a law firm in New York City called KM Kahn Law Office. According to the website, the the law firm specializes in “immigration services.” Most likely Kahn [sic] was working to bring Muslims into the country.

(read it all)

WOW! And these people are gonna be in charge of the number one spot! So it seems that many people close to Hillary Clinton are Wahhabist influenced with direct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Of course this does not matter to a Democrat… because what Khan offered in his moving speech about his son, who is an American hero, is the emotive basis for all this to be ignored. They can never separate the son from the father. Because U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan is a hero, ergo, so to is his father… and no amount of ties to the same ideology that has influenced 29,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 will change their minds.

Military Hero Heroes Army Marine Navy Airfoce

In a equally moving open letter from another combat veteran (his bio can be found here) to the Khan family that should not be ignored:

Dear Mr. Khan,

I want to preface this letter by stating that I respect your son’s sacrifice for this great nation. By all accounts, he is a true hero that sacrificed himself in service to our country. For that I am thankful.

As a veteran, I watched your comments at the Democratic National Convention with a mixture of sadness, and anger. The United States has a military comprised of volunteers. Every single member has made the conscious choice to join the military and serve. There is not a single service member who has been forced into service. It is important for all service members (and apparently, their families) to understand that service to this great nation does not imbue one with special privileges or rights. I found your comments troubling when you said: “Have you ever been to Arlington cemetery? Go look at the graves of brave patriots who died defending the United States of America. You will see all faiths, genders and ethnicities. You have sacrificed nothing and no one.”

Does it matter whether Mr. Trump has sacrificed “…nothing and no one?”…has Ms. Clinton “..sacrificed” for this nation? How about Mr. Obama? Your comment stating that Mr. Trump “…has sacrifice no one” is alarming. Are you intimating that YOU sacrificed? Sir, your son willingly sacrificed himself. As a father I cannot imagine the pain you must feel but his sacrifice is his own. He was not forced to serve.

I am troubled that you would allow a party that has little more than contempt for the US Service Member to parade you into the DNC to denounce Donald Trump. Did you watch when protesters at the DNC booed and heckled Medal of Honor recipient Capt. Florent Groberg? Did you notice your party interrupting the moment of silence for slain police officers? Your own hypocrisy in not denouncing these acts and instead using the DNC as a platform to make a political point is disgraceful. The simple fact is that whether one served or sacrificed does not give greater power to their statements. One vote is as valuable as another. That sir, is why our Country is great. Your condemnation of one person for a statement while standing idly as your party disparages veterans and police officers is the height of hypocrisy.

To conflate the need to prevent potential terrorists from entering our country with the belief that ‘all Muslims’ should be banned is simply wrong and disingenuous. As a reminder, Mr. Trump said: ” “Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life,” The irony of your son’s own death at the hands of these very people in Iraq should not be ignored. I have little doubt that your son would have recognized the need to protect our country from these very people. In fact, he held is own troops back so that he could check on a suspicious car. Your son understood sacrifice and how to protect “his people”…’his soldiers’….’his fellow Americans’…

As you continue to make the media circuit and bask in the glow of affection cast upon you by a party that has little regard for your son’s own sacrifice, and veterans in general, I would ask you to consider your comments and your position more closely.

Respectfully,

Chris Mark

US Marine and Navy Veteran.

OF COURSE the typical reaction by the Left’s use of SIXHIRB (sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted) came into play about the above veteran’s viewpoint. You see, the only viewpoint allowed as genuine and reflexively caring is the Left’s position on all matters.

I want to share some of the comments from Hillary Clinton supporters [take note that Chris Mark had cleaned up the cuss words… I put them back to the original]:

  • The Republican Party is a terrorist group
  • Go FUCK Yourself
  • You are a Fucking racist
  • You are a Faggot
  • You are Uneducated
  • You believe Gays shouldn’t have any rights and everyone should carry an AR 15 to work
  • Do I really have to guess what you look like you inbred sister fucking hillbilly
  • You piece of garbage, trash, facist, racist, zenophobe
  • When did we become a nation of redneck hillbillies?
  • Trump and his supporters, the fact that they are a bunch of racist and bigots
  • You would not have made that comment if the Khans had been White and Christians
  • You all need to stop clinging to your God and guns
  • Please tell me where to meet you so I can spit in your face
  • I want to slap you
  • You are a traitor
  • You are retarded

The list goes on and on…these (including the physical threats) are from the ‘Tolerant left’ in response to the fact that I said I would vote for Donald Trumpover Hillary Clinton. With regard to the White and Christian comment I pointed out that I had written a blistering piece on Sarah Palin who is both White and Christian. This did not seem to matter. The coup de grace however is this gem:

  • “You are a fucking racist Chris.”

I responded politely asking the reader to query everything I have written and find where I was racist. Her reply?

  • “Just because your posts and other comments are not racist does not excuse you from being a racist.” (emphasis added)

So simply by virtue of supporting someone that this person does not agree with paints one as a racist. In short you are guilty of racism with zero evidence until they “excuse you” from that label? This is the height of intolerance from the tolerant Hillary Supporters.

I think Hillary Clinton’s campaign should consider adopting the 1980’s Rush song SubDivisions. One of the lyrics says:

“Conform or be cast out!”

Yep

`To Judge, Or Not To Judge` ~ Weiner Opts for the Later

Pragerism

“Most of the problems with our culture can be summed up in one phrase: ‘Who are you to say?’” ~ Dennis Prager.

(This comes via a h/t to Libertarian Republican) I thought this exchange between Weiner and a fellow Jew (who was very wise in his summation), but Wiener’s relativism comes screaming through. Let’s deal with this self-refuting statement first, and then let CARM jump in on the ethics wagon. The question becomes, if looking at Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s famous maxim, “If there is no God, all things are permissible,”

“If there IS a God, are all things still permissible?”

Even the right to walk the streets without consequences for one’s actions? This aside, let us unpack a bit the challenge with three mock conversations from, Relativism: Feet Planted Firmly in Mid-Air, and is taken from a larger paper incorporating a wide variety of sources on this:

First Person: “You shouldn’t force your morality on me.”

Second Person: “Why not?”

First Person: “Because I don’t believe in forcing morality.”

Second Person: “If you don’t believe in it, then by all means, don’t do it. Especially don’t force that moral view of yours on me.”


First Person: “You shouldn’t push your morality on me.”

Second Person: “I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that statement. Do you mean I have no right to an opinion?”

First Person: “You have a right to you’re opinion, but you have no right to force it on anyone.”

Second Person: “Is that your opinion?”

First Person: “Yes.”

Second Person: “Then why are you forcing it on me?”

First Person: “But your saying your view is right.”

Second Person: “Am I wrong?”

First Person: “Yes.”

Second Person: “Then your saying only your view is right, which is the very thing you objected to me saying.”


First Person:You shouldn’t push your morality on me.”

Second Person: “Correct me if I’m misunderstanding you here, but it sounds to me like your telling me I’m wrong.”

First Person: “You are.”

Second Person: “Well, you seem to be saying my personal moral view shouldn’t apply to other people, but that sounds suspiciously like you are applying your moral view to me. Why are you forcing your morality on me?”

Self-Defeating

  • “Most of the problems with our culture can be summed up in one phrase: ‘Who are you to say?’” ~ Dennis Prager. So lets unpack this phrase and see how it is self-refuting, or as Tom Morris[1] put it, self-deleting. When someone says, “Who are you to say?” answer with, “Who are you to say ‘Who are you to say’?” [2]

This person is challenging your right to correct another, yet she is correcting you. Your response to her amounts to “Who are you to correct my correction, if correcting in itself is wrong?” or “If I don’t have the right to challenge your view, then why do you have the right to challenge mine?” Her objection is self-refuting; you’re just pointing it out.

The “Who are you to say?” challenge fails on another account. Taken at face value, the question challenges one’s authority to judge another’s conduct. It says, in effect, “What authorizes you to make a rule for others? Are you in charge?” This challenge miscasts my position. I don’t expect others to obey me simply because I say so. I’m appealing to reason, not asserting my authority. It’s one thing to force beliefs; it’s quite another to state those beliefs and make an appeal for them.

The “Who are you to say?” complaint is a cheap shot. At best it’s self-defeating. It’s an attempt to challenge the legitimacy of your moral judgments, but the statement itself implies a moral judgment. At worst, it legitimizes anarchy.[3]


[1] Tom Morris, Philosophy for Dummies (IDG Books; 1999), p. 46
[2] Francis Beckwith & Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Planted in Mid-Air (Baker Books; 1998), p. 144-146.
[3] Via SCRIBD

Defining Relativism ~ Dr. Beckwith

Dennis Prager, quite a few years ago, points out quite well that what the Left wants is NOT to be judged, in contradistinction to a ethical norm in human behavior:

  • Personal responsibility means you could be judged guilty.

  • We never want to be judged guilty.
  • So we must stop people who make such judgments.
  • We stop them by calling them judgmental.

He continues

We have substituted normal and sick for good and evil, and that, again, means no personal responsibility. How can you be held responsible if you did what you did because you are sick?…. There is no one standard to which all people are accountable any more. And that’s what Race-Gender-Class does. It subverts responsibility.

CARM rightly makes the point that — especially those who believe in the Bible (as Wiener seemingly professes in the above video)

…Without a standard of morality, there is no way to judge what is good or bad. Atheists, for example, might decry what is the behavior of God in the Old Testament when he orders the destruction of people groups. But, by what standard does any atheist have to judge what is morally correct? At best, an atheist would only have the ability to express an opinion since he cannot offer any objective standard of morality.

Religious people can appeal to a higher power from which they can ascertain what is good and bad…. God does and he has communicated his standard of righteousness. This communication is found in the Bible. Take the 10 Commandments in Exodus 20. We see a codification of moral standards. We are told not to lie, not to commit adultery, not to covet, etc. These are standards given to us by God and though there are other cultures that don’t believe in the biblical God, they might have similar moral codes. But, for the Christian the Bible is the supreme authority that judges what is moral.

We can only judge what is moral if we have a standard given to us by God, not some standard that is based on emotion, opinion, or the changing morals of society. Even though atheists, agnostics, Muslims, and non-Christians might not approve of standards found in the Scriptures, we Christians believe that the Bible is the revealed and inspired Word of God and that within its pages are the moral standards by which we are to model our behavior. Therefore, the right to we have to judge what is moral comes from God as is revealed in his Word….

So Wiener’s summation in this back-and-forth show most of all his lack of deep thought on the important issue of public morality… and the consequences of violating it. Becoming a laughing stock!

Even Gay Patriot couldn’t pass this example of narcissism up!

It shows one of life’s classic moral confrontations.

  • The normal person (“normal” just meaning, “takes for granted that there are norms of personal behavior”) expresses a viewpoint like: There are norms; you are aware that you violated them when you repeatedly betrayed and humiliated your wife with your deviance, right? I’m not judging you, you can go home and have a good life, but you really don’t belong in the public eye. Have a nice life, but please stop bothering us here in the public square.
  • While the malignant narcissist expresses a viewpoint like: How DARE you tell me that I don’t belong in the public eye, being adored (e.g., voted for – and given power)?! You small person, you coward, you ignoramus, you self-appointed judge, you [insert names of choice]!

Hat tip, Michelle Malkin.

And Moonbat makes the point that some are attacking Obama’s positions just like they did Bush’s, but the difference this time is the media is ignoring it. Hmmmm… “naw, this isn’t more proof of a media bias” — says lemming:

Anthony Weiner Getting His Eschatology Mixed Up Between Christians and His Wife`s

A Revealing Hour in Harlem With Anthony Weiner (h/t, HotAir)

When one supporter invited Weiner and more than a dozen members of the media into his apartment, the candidate noted the Israeli flag the man had displayed in his living room.

“Are you Israeli?” Weiner asked.

No, the man answered, explaining that he is a Christian who believes in the central role Israel would play in paving the way for the second coming of Jesus Christ.

“Got it,” Weiner said. But don’t you also believe that we have to be wiped out before the Messiah can return?”

“No,” the man replied.

“OK, we’re cool,” Weiner said. “Thank you for inviting us into your home.”

A couple more door-knocks later and Weiner finally called it a day.

No, Christians believe Christ is coming back to stop Israel from being destroyed. But the saving power is stored in a Person beyond human power (God). In other words, Christians can not speed along or make God tarry, it — the providential nature of His involvement with history — is in His time-table, not ours.

However, I do wish to note, that while I post videos showing the failure of Anthony Weiner, really a life lived without Christ – prideful and bowing to human nature, he does seem to mixed up on his eschatology, and this is an important point.

You see, Huma, his wife, is intimately involved through her mother and father with the Muslim Brotherhood. Which calls for the destruction of Israel… right now… without a savior. Here for instance is a small bit about her mother, Anthony Weiner’s mother-in-law, the one standing next to Hillary Clinton below — standing to her left, our right:

Bedfellows

…Saleha Abedin is closely tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and to supporters of violent jihad. Among other things, she directs an organization – the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child. The IICWC, through its parent entity (the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief), is a component of the Union for Good (also known as the Union of Good), another formally designated terrorist organization. The Union for Good is led by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the notorious Muslim Brotherhood jurist who has issued fatwas calling for the killing of American military and support personnel in Iraq as well as suicide bombings in Israel. (As detailed here, the Obama White House recently hosted Qaradawi’s principal deputy, Sheikh Abdulla bin Bayyah, who also endorsed the fatwa calling for the killing of U.S. troops and personnel in Iraq.)

Like Sheikh Qaradawi, who helped write the charter for the IICWC, Saleha Abedin is an influential sharia activist who has, for example, published a book called Women in Islam that claims man-made laws enslave women. It reportedly provides sharia justifications for such practices as female-genital mutilation, the death penalty for apostates from Islam, the legal subordination of women, and the participation of women in violent jihad.

…read more…

So, the reality is that Weiner is married to someone who knows all too well who wants to destroy Israel. In fact, most conservative Christians would fight family and friends of Weiner’s to protect it.

Weinergate More Important Than You Know!

While the above is funny, there is a more serious side to this story… this comes from Libertarian Republican posting on it, I add more from the AIM.org article it comes from.

Let me say that I am personally glad Weinergate has entered into the 2.0 phase. It ruins any further political aspirations of power Weiner may have fancied himself advancing towards… which limit somewhat the ability of our nations enemies to infiltrate our institutions in this politically correct meleeafter, that is, this term for the Marxist, and yes, racist Obama.

“If God is ‘dead,’ somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Heffner” ~ Malcolm Muggeridge.

The press is complicit in this with worship of the political left:

Here is the AIM article:

…Sorry to interrupt the Best Enabler of a Sociopath Award ceremony but, to recap, Ms. Abedin worked for many years at a journal that promotes Islamic-supremacist ideology that was founded by a top al-Qaeda financier, Abdullah Omar Naseef. Naseef ran the Rabita Trust, a formally designated foreign terrorist organization under American law. Ms. Abedin and Naseef overlapped at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA) for at least seven years. Throughout that time (1996–2003), Ms. Abdein worked for Hillary Clinton in various capacities.

Ms. Abedin’s late father, Dr. Zyed Abedin, was recruited by Naseef to run the JMMA in Saudi Arabia. The journal was operated under the management of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, a virulently anti-Semitic and sharia-supremacist organization. When Dr. Abedin died, editorial control of the journal passed to his wife, Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin — Huma’s mother.

Huma`s Sweet Mum

Huma’s Pakistani-born mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin, PhD, is an associate professor of sociology at Dar Al-Hekma College in Jeddah. Huma Abedin. Born in Kalamazoo, Michigan, Abedin began working for Hillary Clinton as a White House intern in 1996 and now serves as the Secretary of State’s aide and “body woman.” In the October 25, 2010 issue of TIME, Huma Abedin was featured as a rising political star in our “40 Under 40” special. At the time, Abedin named AnthonyWeiner.com as her go-to political blog.


Saleha Abedin is closely tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and to supporters of violent jihad. Among other things, she directs an organization – the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child. The IICWC, through its parent entity (the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief), is a component of the Union for Good (also known as the Union of Good), another formally designated terrorist organization. The Union for Good is led by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the notorious Muslim Brotherhood jurist who has issued fatwas calling for the killing of American military and support personnel in Iraq as well as suicide bombings in Israel. (As detailed here, the Obama White House recently hosted Qaradawi’s principal deputy, Sheikh Abdulla bin Bayyah, who also endorsed the fatwa calling for the killing of U.S. troops and personnel in Iraq.)

Like Sheikh Qaradawi, who helped write the charter for the IICWC, Saleha Abedin is an influential sharia activist who has, for example, published a book called Women in Islam that claims man-made laws enslave women. It reportedly provides sharia justifications for such practices as female-genital mutilation, the death penalty for apostates from Islam, the legal subordination of women, and the participation of women in violent jihad. Dr. Abedin has nevertheless been hailed in the progressive press as a “leading voice on women’s rights in the Muslim world” (to quote Foreign Policy). What they never quite get around to telling you is that this means “women’s rights” in the repressive sharia context.

Back to daughter Huma. In the late mid to late Nineties, while she was an intern at the Clinton White House and an assistant editor at JMMA, Ms. Abedin was a member of the executive board of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at George Washington University, heading its “Social Committee.” The MSA, which has a vast network of chapters at universities across North America, is the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood’s infrastructure in the United States. Obviously, not every Muslim student who joins the MSA graduates to the Brotherhood — many join for the same social and networking reasons that cause college students in general to join campus organizations. But the MSA does have an indoctrination program, which Sam Tadros describes as a lengthy process of study and service that leads to Brotherhood membership — a process “designed to ensure with absolute certainty that there is conformity to the movement’s ideology and a clear adherence to its leadership’s authority.” The MSA gave birth to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the largest Islamist organization in the U.S. Indeed the MSA and ISNA consider themselves the same organization. Because of its support for Hamas (a designated terrorist organization that is the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch), ISNA was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, in which several Hamas operatives were convicted of providing the terrorist organization with lavish financing.

…WOW… read more…

Steve Emerson fills in blanks that just make your jaw drop!

….A little more background: At the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, Ms. Abedin [Huma’s Mom] was assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. The journal was the Institute’s main product. It promotes the fundamentalist version of sharia championed by the Muslim Brotherhood, by Abdullah Omar Naseef, and by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi. Ms. Abedin was assistant editor from 1996 through 2008 — from the time she began working as an intern in the Clinton White House, until the time shortly before she took her current position as Secretary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff.

The Institute was founded by Naseef in the late 1970s. He is a hugely influential Saudi who was then the vice president of the King Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia. Naseef recruited an academic colleague, Zyed Abedin — Ms. Abedin’s late father — to be the journal’s managing editor.

Zyed Abedin thus moved his family to Saudi Arabia from Kalamazoo, Michigan. Ms. Abedin was about two at the time. Her mother, Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is also an academic and worked for the journal from its inception. She would eventually take the journal over after her husband died in 1993. She remains its editor to this day. Huma Abedin’s brother Hassan, another academic, is an associate editor at the journal.

Not long after the journal started, Naseef became the secretary general of the Muslim World League. As the Washington Post has noted, the MWL was launched by Muslim Brotherhood activists with the financial backing of the Saudi royal family. It is often referred to as a charity, but it is really a global propagation enterprise — exporting the Brotherhood’s virulently anti-Western brand of Islamist ideology throughout the world, very much including in the United States.

There are few positions in Muslim Brotherhood circles more critical than secretary general of the Muslim World League. In fact, one of the MWL’s founders was Sa’id Ramadan, the right-hand and son-in-law of Hassan al-Banna, the Brotherhood’s legendary founder. The MWL is part of the foundation of the grand jihad — what the Brotherhood also calls its “civilization jihad” against the West.

Nevertheless, the MWL has a long history of deep involvement in violent jihad as well. It was under the auspices of the MWL that, in 1988, Naseef created a charity called the Rabita Trust. To direct the Rabita Trust, Naseef selected Wael Hamza Jalaidan. Jalaidan is not just a member of al-Qaeda. He was a close associate of Osama bin Laden’s and actually helped establish the al Qaeda terror network.

According to Osama bin Laden himself, the Muslim World League was one of al-Qaeda’s three top funding sources. Consequently, after 9/11, Naseef’s Rabita Trust was formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization under U.S. law. So were branches of the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation and the International Islamic Relief Organization, two other Saudi-backed “charities” spawned by the MWL.

Throughout the time that he ran the MWL and the Rabita Trust, Naseef kept his hand in at the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, where the Abedin family continued to run his journal. In fact, Naseef continued to be listed on the masthead as a member of the “advisory editorial board” at the IMMA’s journal until 2003.

We might hazard a guess as to why his name suddenly disappeared after that: Naseef’s involvement in funding al Qaeda was so notorious that, in 2004, he was named as a defendant in the civil case brought by victims of the 9/11 atrocities. (In 2010, a federal court dropped him from the suit — not because he was found uninvolved, but because a judge reasoned the American court lacked personal jurisdiction over him.)

So to summarize, Ms. Abedin had a very lengthy affiliation with an institute founded by a top figure at the nexus between Saudi terror funding, Brotherhood ideology, and al Qaeda’s jihad against the United States. Even if the only pertinent information we had was her personal tie to Naseef, that would be extraordinarily disturbing. But as the five House members pointed out, there is much more.

…lots more to read!…

Thank You C-SPAN for airing this, and a friend who had been on top of this info a while ago.

A presentation of new information concerning Muslim Brotherhood influence operations inside and aimed at the Obama administration and their impact on U.S. policy. The briefing will include additional revelations concerning Huma Abedin, Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Ever since five Members of Congress — Representatives Michele Bachmann (MN) Louie Gohmert (TX), Trent Franks (AZ), Lynn Montgomery (GA) and Tom Rooney (FL) — were attacked by their colleague, Rep. Keith Ellison (MN), for asking the Inspectors General of federal departments to investigate evidence of Muslim Brotherhood influence operations within the U.S. government, there has been much heat and relatively little light on the subject. The group that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has dubbed “the National Security Five” has been subjected to character assassination, had its motives and integrity impugned and been ridiculed for acting irresponsibly, without any basis for its request to the IGs. In fact, it has been the five legislators’ critics of both parties who have failed to do their homework. Fortunately one of the Nation’s most knowledgeable and respected authorities regarding the Muslim Brotherhood’s “civilization jihad” – former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy – has done his due diligence. In successive articles at National Review Online and PJMedia, Mr. McCarthy has explored some of the evidence that individuals with ties to the Brotherhood are working inside or advising the Obama administration. He shares — and, with his characteristic rigor, further validates — the concerns expressed by Mrs. Bachmann et al. that American policy may be influenced by such officials, advisors and “liaisons” to the Muslim-American community. (Huma’s father pictured)

The Wall Street Journal asks a while back, “So who is Huma Abedin?” And really, she has DIRECT ties to Al Qaeda. And National Review states plainly that:

America’s enemies are Islamic supremacists: Muslims adherent to a totalitarian interpretation of Islam who, like Soviet Communists, seek to impose their ideology throughout the world, very much including the United States.

While England Slept is a 1938 non-fiction book written by Winston Churchill. It highlighted the United Kingdom’s lack of military preparation to face the threat of Nazi Germany’s expansion. Similarly, even leftists have drawn their attention to the problem’s of a weak post-911 America (see: While America Sleeps: A Wake-up Call for the Post-9/11 Era). And it is, it is time to WAKE UP!

Walid Shoebat points out the following:

Once again, the facts about Huma Abedin are these:

  1. She is a devout Muslim.
  2. She grew up in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
  3. Her parents were placed in charge of an Institute founded by al-Qaeda financier Abdullah Omar Naseef.
  4. She served on the Board of that Institute for over a decade and with Naseef for a few of those years.
  5. Her mother is one of 63 leaders in the Muslim Sisterhood.
  6. No one has produced her Form 86.
  7. She is seeking to become the first lady of the city that was hit on 9/11 by the group her one-time boss funded (and she’s right on track).

Huma’s defenders will only acknowledge bullet items 1 and 2. Instead of acknowledging any of the other facts, they smear those who point to them.