RUTHFULLY YOURS

Huma Abedin is back in the spotlight again, as her husband Anthony Weiner has announced that he is running for mayor of New York City.  The Daily Mail of the United Kingdom claims that “Huma Abedin [is] deemed her husband’s greatest political asset.”  Michael M. Grynbaum, et al. of the New York Times claim that “it is Ms. Abedin, a seasoned operative well versed in the politics of redemption, [who] has been a main architect of her husband’s rehabilitative journey[.]”   

The word “operative” is a word that needs careful examination.  If Weiner were to win the mayoral election in New York, could this bring the Muslim Brotherhood closer to the inner security workings of New York City?

Almost one year ago, Walid Shoebat exposed Huma Abedin’s connections to the Brotherhood.  Michele Bachmann and four other Republican congressional representatives requested that “no Muslim Brotherhood-associated entity or individual [be] placed into a position of honor or trust within the programs and operations of the Department of State unless he or she has publicly condemned and disclaimed the previously stated goals of the Muslim Brotherhood.”  Yet such condemnation was never forthcoming from Abedin.          

The five Republican congressional representatives were lambasted by Senator John McCain and Rep. Keith Ellison for entertaining the notion that someone closely connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, as Ms. Abedin is, might not be the best candidate to hold the job of deputy chief of staff for the State Department. 

Couple this with the fact that in 2011 the “Obama administration formalized ties” with the [Muslim Brotherhood], and in 2013 “the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a group with Muslim Brotherhood origins and an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror-financing trial, toured the White House and met with multiple officials,” thus signaling a major “policy formulation” by the White House.

Such overlapping groups all stem from the Muslim Brotherhood, and the issue of infiltration may now have a new twist as Weiner runs for office.  It is critical to recall that the Brotherhood’s objective is to “destroy the Western civilization from within.”  As Claire Lopez explains:

… the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) functions as a kind of umbrella organization for many hundreds of offshoot Islamic Societies across North America.  Yet, in spite of its DoJ status as a front group for the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, ISNA still has been granted a coveted advisory role with the National Security Council (NSC) of the Obama White House.  ISNA’s president, Muhammed Magid, is not only the Director of the All-Dulles Area Muslim Society Center, but also an A-list invitee to White House iftar dinners and a member of the Department of Homeland Security ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ Advisory Council.

Notwithstanding the New York Times whitewash of the evidence, Huma Abedin was, in fact, an assistant editor for the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs from 1996 to 2008.  Her mother works to advance the Brotherhood agenda against Western interests and policies.  Her brother has had a “strong working relationship with Abdullah Omar Naseef and Yusuf Qaradawi.”  Naseef “ran a charity front for terror,” and Qaradawi has stated that:

… he would not deny women the right to engage in suicide bombings, a position he articulated in a 2004 fatwa that read: ‘[t]he committed Muslim women in Palestine have the right to participate and have their own role in jihad and to attain martyrdom.’ The following month, Qaradawi said, ‘[t]here is no dialogue between us [Muslims and Jews] except by the sword and the rifle.’ In an October 2010 interview with Al-Jazeera, Qaradawi was asked whether Muslims should try to acquire atomic weapons ‘to terrorize their enemies.’ He replied that such an objective was permissible[.]   

Yet none of these connections raised any red flags concerning Huma Abedin’s security clearance. 

In his book entitled The New Muslim Brotherhood In the West, author Lorenzo Vidino, writes that “participationist Islamic organizations are by default the main candidates to become privileged interlocutors of Western governments.  Is their stated desire to participate in the democratic process genuine, or simply tactical?  Do they meet the criteria of reliability and moderation required by Western governments?”

In July 2012, Cliff Kincaid explained that all the controversy about Huma Abedin and her security clearances could be resolved simply by “demanding access to Abedin’s Standard Form 86, which she was supposed to fill out before getting her State Department job. Did she disclose her family connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as to Saudi Arabia, where she once lived and was raised?”

And more recently, Andrew McCarthy writes that Ms. Abedin “spent her last months at the State Department not really at the State Department.”  Thus, while receiving her “$135,000 as a ‘special government employee’ Abedin was also permitted to moonlight as a ‘strategic consultant’ for Teno, a firm founded by Doug Band, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton.”  In addition, Abedin did consultant work for the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation as well as help to head up Hillary Clinton’s transition office from secretary of state to private individual.  Yet Abedin did not disclose her consultant income on government financial disclosure forms. 

This non-disclosure of activities seems to be a habitual occurrence with Ms. Abedin.

When Wiener released their 2012 tax returns, it showed that the two of them made just shy of a half-million dollars last year.  Yet it is unclear how much comes from Abedin’s “extracurricular activities while she was still on the government payroll.”

Also unsettling is that “Clinton cronies like the Saudis and Qataris are multi-million dollar donors to the William Jefferson Clinton foundation who do mega business with the Sate Department.”

Which brings me back to Weiner’s bid for one of the most important jobs in the country.  Given the sinister associations to the Muslim Brotherhood, the disturbing connection of the Clintons to shady deals and opportunistic exploits, and the ability of Muslim governments — e.g., Saudi Arabia — to funnel money to influence, it becomes more critical than ever that the issue of Huma Abedin and her security clearance be made transparent.

Is it inappropriate to connect certain dots?  On May 23, 2013, President Obama stated that “he’ll lift a ban on sending up to 90 Yemeni detainess home and will initiate other stalled transfers out of the [Gitmo] compound.”  This, despite the fact that, as John Bolton has explained, “at least a third will return to the battlefield against us and probably much more than that.”  Does this have the potential to launch more Benghazis here and abroad, as Michelle Malkin queries?

Concerning the latest horrific jihadist terrorist attack in London, Daniel Kochis explains that the “Obama Administration’s response has been to avoid calling the attack terrorism, let alone terrorism motivated by a radical Islamic ideology. Instead the Administration, via the State Department, said it stood with the U.K. in the face of ‘such senseless violence.'”  Kochis maintains that:

… ‘senseless violence’ is the Administration’s catch-all phrase loyally called upon whenever motivations for a despicable act should not be ascribed, lest someone take offense. Particularly troubling is that ‘senseless violence’ is the same terminology the Administration used when describing the terrorist attack in Benghazi[.]

And then there is the latest news that Obama is “urging the repeal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the 2001 law that essentially authorized the War on Terror.”

Andrew McCarthy has asserted that “to perceive no correlation between the Islamists’ fervid anti-assimilation program and the United States government’s stunning accommodation of the Brotherhood and its agenda is to be willfully blind.”

Unless it is not willful blindness at all.

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.