US President Barack Obama offered a warm personal tribute to Hillary Clinton’s close aide Huma Abedin, who some conservative Republicans claim has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama used the occasion of a dinner celebrating the Muslim holy month of Ramadan to pour praise on his “good friend” Abedin, a Muslim American, in a highly public and strong statement of presidential support.
David Barton is accurate, the call to discredit his book on Jefferson is the Left's attempt to keep rewritten history alive to sway the public to their opinion. God bless David Barton, an honest man and great patriot.
Sign the Muslim Brotherhood investigation petition Join the Backing up Bachmann Facebook Page
(Star Tribune) -- Just as the controversy over Michele Bachmann's allegations of Islamist government infiltration had begun to subside, the Minnesota Republican is distributing a speech by a prominent supporter that attempts to connect a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the al-Qaida terrorist network.
Bachmann's office sent out a speech Friday given by conservative scholar and former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who argues that Bachmann and four other Republicans in Congress "actually understated the case" against Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
The accusation represents a significant escalation of Bachmann's original allegations tying Abedin to the Muslim Brotherhood. McCarthy's speech was followed by a "Bachmann Bulletin" redistributing a recent Star Tribune opinion piece she wrote describing her concerns about radical Islam.
McCarthy's speech, however, represents the most detailed public account that has been provided by any of Bachmann's supporters so far to substantiate her accusation against Abedin.
The State Department did not immediately comment, though earlier a spokesman called Bachmann's allegations "vicious and disgusting lies."
Abedin, according to the McCarthy speech, "had a very lengthy affiliation with an institute founded by a top figure at the nexus between Saudi terror funding, Brotherhood ideology, and al-Qaida jihad against the United States."
McCarthy gave the speech at the National Press Club Wednesday at the invitation of the Center for Security Policy, the organization cited by Bachmann in June when she requested an investigation of Abedin and other top government officials.
Bachmann's request met with a firestorm of criticism from Democrats as well as top Republicans.
McCarthy's allegations dwarf those laid out by Bachmann, who described Abedin as an "example" of her concerns about Muslim Brotherhood "influence operations" in the federal government.
Bachmann's congressional critics, notably Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison, have termed the allegations against Abedin "guilt by association." Bachmann also has accused Ellison of Muslim Brotherhood associations, which he denies.
Asked for evidence of Abedin's influence over Clinton - one of the concerns cited by Bachmann - McCarthy replied that Abedin "managed to get Mrs. Clinton to appear at a college that her mother founded in Egypt."
Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, who questioned McCarthy after the speech, noted that George W. Bush adviser Karen Hughes also spoke there.
"If Abedin is in fact a Muslim Brotherhood plant spreading Shariah law in the United States," Milbank wrote later, "she's using unorthodox methods: posing provocatively for a Vogue spread, then marrying and having the child of a Jewish congressman (former New York Rep. Anthony Weiner) who sent out a photo of his genitals on Twitter. As Clinton's personal aide, helping her boss with suits and handbags and logistics, she has not been in an ideal position to advance the alleged cause."
In his speech, McCarthy acknowledged that Abedin is "not a policymaker."
CAIR's Jihad against Mitt Romney Andrew McCarthy: My speech on the MB The Abedin Family’s Pro-Jihadist Journal Bachmann, King & anti-Sharia campaigns Egyptian Sociologist: MB Most Dangerous Islamists Huma Abedin and Form 86 Congressman Ellison continues lying Michele Bachmann: Beware of Radical Islam GOP leaders ignorant of MB's American influence Why Is the Pentagon listening to Hamas-Linked CAIR? FBI, DOJ sued for info on Mueller’s secret meeting In Egypt, Panetta Declares Support for Islamofascism American Islamist groups shape Arab revolutions Rep Gohmert on MB letters, DHS, & terrorists in the WH (Video) Backing up Bachmann & Beck CAIR's Information Momentum Warfare CAIR targets former CIA spy Reza Kahlili (Video) Blasphemy laws coming to America CAIR targets law enforcement and Sam Kharoba (Video) Re: CAIR's Jihad against the SEALs FBI Tracking 100 Suspected Jihadis in US Military Quebec: Islamophobia activist charged with terrorism California Gets Its First Jihadist Judge CAIR: Anti-Muslim Rhetoric Echoes Nazi Rhetoric US & MB Sponsored "Islamophobia" Workshop (Map) Stealth Jihad from Coast to Coast
Sign the MB investigation petition Join the Backing up Bachmann FB Page
(National Review) - I gave a speech yesterday morning at the National Press Club on the Muslim Brotherhood and why we need to worry about our government’s growing coziness with it. I spoke for almost an hour and then there was an extensive Q&A. C-SPAN covered it, and you can watch here. (The text of my speech is here.)
Dana Milbank, the leftist columnist of the Washington Post, covered the event — though you can judge for yourself whether his account of it in the paper today accurately reflects what I actually said. It would take too long, and is not worth the time, to react all of Mr. Milbank’s meanderings. I do want to address two contentions he makes, however:
1. Ms. Abedin is an inconsequential official being subjected to “guilt by association.”
I guess we’ve come a long way since John McCain first claimed that the concerns about Huma Abedin’s ties to Islamists were “unspecified and unsubstantiated.” Those concerns have now been so overwhelmingly proved that apologists have to change tacks. So now the argument is, “Well, all right, there are many connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists, but Ms. Abedin is a victim of ‘guilt by association.’” Mr. Milbank tries to make that fly today.
Remember, we are not talking about an indictment here. When people are being evaluated for their suitability for appointment to high public office and access to national-security information, the whole process is about associations – that’s why, for example, the form all candidates for security clearances have to fill out exactingly probes a person’s background, relations and associations. I don’t expect Milbank to agree with me on this point — although he certainly seemed to think background and associations were pretty significant when Sam Alito was nominated to the Supreme Court). Still, given that I specifically addressed the charge in the speech, he might at least have given readers my take on the “guilt by association” canard:
The five members [of the House of Representatives who have asked for five executive branch inspectors-general to investigate Muslim Brotherhood influence at their agencies] have not made accusations of criminal wrongdoing. The critics who say they are relying on “guilt by association” are absurdly mixing apples and oranges.
Our bedrock principle against “guilt by association” has to do with criminal prosecutions — we won’t tolerate someone’s being convicted of a crime and having his freedom taken away just because of who his friends are, or what his associates have done. But “guilt by association” has nothing to do with fitness for high public office. High public office is a privilege, not a right. Access to classified information is a privilege, not a right. You need not have done anything wrong to be deemed unfit for these privileges. It is not a question of your patriotism or your trustworthiness. It is about whether you would be burdened by such obvious conflicts of interest that you would be tempted to act on those interests, rather than in the best interests of the United States. It is about whether the American people can have confidence that you are likely to act in the public interest rather than out of bias, favor, or intimidation. It is about whether there’s a reasonable chance you could be compromised — not whether you have been compromised.
In making his guilt-by-association claim, Milbank mentions that he questioned me yesterday (you can see it on the C-SPAN video), but he fails to note that I did not accept two premises that he asserts as if they were fact rather than his (implausible) opinion. The first is that Ms. Abedin is a person of no substance as far as the State Department is concerned — he describes her as Secretary Clinton’s “personal aide” whose job is “helping her boss with suits and handbags and logistics.” That’s a pretty demeaning suggestion. Ms. Abedin is actually the deputy chief of staff to the U.S. secretary of state; she is a top adviser . . . and not just on handbags.
Milbank also claims I conceded Ms. Abedin is not a policymaker. You can see for yourself what I actually said. My concession was that the person ultimately responsible for Obama-administration policy is President Obama, and that the person who shapes and executes the president’s policy at the State Department is Secretary Clinton. Neither of them, I acknowledged, needed Huma Abedin to make them sympathetic to Islamists — they are their own people and have extensive records. Nevertheless, I also argued that second- and third-tier officials and advisers like Ms. Abedin “have very influential positions . . . because they have a lot to say about how policy gets shaped and executed.” That seems pretty elementary.
Does Milbank really think that, say, Rahm Emanuel had an inconsequential position in the White House because he was just a top staffer and it’s the president who made all the policy — was Emanuel just advising Obama on handbags?
2. The Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs has nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda.
Milbank also belittles Ms. Abedin’s connection to Abdullah Omar Naseef, a major Muslim Brotherhood figure and a financier of al-Qaeda, by claiming that the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, which Naseef founded and which Ms. Abedin worked at for twelve years, was an inconsequential sideshow that focused on such issues as “The North African Heritage of the Hui Chinese” and “Muslim Mudehar Women in Thirteenth Century Spain.” This is a frivolous contention.
To begin with, let’s say a Bush administration official had had a longstanding business relationship with an al-Qaeda facilitator — and we won’t even get into whether the business relationship occurred in the context of longstanding, intimate relations between the the facilitator and the Bush official’s family. Is there any way that Dana Milbank would be saying, “Hey, wait a minute, let’s not make an issue of that. After all, the business relationship seems to have nothing to do with the Islamist agenda.”
More significantly, Naseef’s journal, of which Ms. Abedin was an assistant (and of which one or the other of her parents has been chief editor since its inception in the late Seventies), actually has a great deal to do with the Islamist agenda. As I said in yesterday’s speech, the journal promotes the fundamentalist version of sharia championed by the Muslim Brotherhood, Naseef, and Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the Brotherhood’s chief sharia jurist.
Now, does it publish essays like the two Milbank alludes to? Sure. When I was investigating the Blind Sheikh, I learned that sometimes he was interpreting sharia to exhort terrorism and other times he was explaining sharia’s instruction on matters like diet and hygiene — the latter did not diminish the former.
On this score, after poring over many editions, Andrew Bostom has just written a rumination on the journal’s worldview. It is lengthy, but I’d recommend all of it. Suffice it to say that, if we looked only at the last issue (April/May 2012) of the journal, it features two essays that champion what Bostom accurately describes as (a) “the global hegemonic aspirations of major 20th-century Muslim Brotherhood jihadist ideologues, such as the eminent Muslim Brotherhood theoretician, Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966), and Abul Hasan Nadwi”; and (b) “the more expansive application of Sharia within Muslim minority communities residing in the West, with the goal of replacing these non-Muslim governing systems as advocated by contemporary Muslim Brotherhood jihadist ideologues, [Sheikh] Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Tahir Jabir al-Alwani.” (I’ve written at NRO about Alwani, here.)
Both these essays are lavishly praised by Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin, who is the journal’s editor and Ms. Abedin’s mother. As Bostom demonstrates, they are representative of the journal’s historic output and consistent with Dr. Abedin’s oft-stated views.
The Abedin Family’s Pro-Jihadist Journal Bachmann, King & anti-Sharia campaigns Egyptian Sociologist: MB Most Dangerous Islamists Huma Abedin and Form 86 Congressman Ellison continues lying Michele Bachmann: Beware of Radical Islam GOP leaders ignorant of MB's American influence Why Is the Pentagon listening to Hamas-Linked CAIR? FBI, DOJ sued for info on Mueller’s secret meeting In Egypt, Panetta Declares Support for Islamofascism American Islamist groups shape Arab revolutions Rep Gohmert on MB letters, DHS, & terrorists in the WH (Video) Backing up Bachmann & Beck CAIR's Information Momentum Warfare CAIR targets former CIA spy Reza Kahlili (Video) Blasphemy laws coming to America CAIR targets law enforcement and Sam Kharoba (Video) Re: CAIR's Jihad against the SEALs FBI Tracking 100 Suspected Jihadis in US Military Quebec: Islamophobia activist charged with terrorism ICNA Launches Campaign to Indoctrinate Americans OIC TV Channel to Counter Islamophobia California Gets Its First Jihadist Judge CAIR: Anti-Muslim Rhetoric Echoes Nazi Rhetoric US & MB Sponsored "Islamophobia" Workshop (Map) Stealth Jihad from Coast to Coast
Three U.S. Marines have been shot dead by an Afghan worker on a military base in southern Afghanistan, in a deadly 24 hours for NATO-led forces during which six American soldiers were killed in rogue attacks.
The shooting took place on Friday night in the Garmsir district of Helmand province, where three U.S. special forces soldiers were killed by an Afghan policeman and comrades earlier in the day.
"Let me clearly say that those two incidents clearly do not reflect the overall situation here in Afghanistan," the chief NATO force spokesman, Brigadier-General Gunter Katz, told reporters on Saturday.
The three Marines were shot by a base employee who turned a gun on them, in the third rogue attack in four days. Foreign military sources said the man had not been wearing a uniform and it was unclear how he got hold of the weapon.
The gunman had been detained and a joint Afghan-NATO investigation team was reviewing security and looking into the reason for the attack.
In the earlier attack, an Afghan police commander and several of his men killed three U.S. Marines in darkness early on Friday after inviting them to a Ramadan breakfast to discuss security.
The three men were all Marine Corps special operations forces and appeared to have been killed in a planned attack by rogue Afghan forces. NATO calls such incidents green on blue attacks.
The NATO force says there have been 26 such attacks on foreign troops since January in which 34 people have been killed. Last year, there were 21 attacks in which 35 people were killed.
But a coalition spokesman said the killings by the Afghan worker would not be included in that tally as it did not involve a member of the Afghan security forces.
Green on blue shootings, in which Afghan police or soldiers turn their guns on their Western colleagues, have seriously eroded trust between the allies as NATO combat soldiers prepare to hand over to Afghan forces by 2014, after which most foreign forces will leave the country ....
R I P - time to stand down brave ones - you will not be forgotten - my thoughts and prayers are with you your loved ones family and friends - God bless you all : DDxx♥!.
One of Barack Obama’s top bundlers, Jonathan Lavine, managing director at Bain, who has bundled between $100,000 and $200,000 in contributions for the 2012 Obama Victory Fund, was one of the guys running Bain when GST went belly-up.
Sharing your scoops to your social media accounts is a must to distribute your curated content. Not only will it drive traffic and leads through your content, but it will help show your expertise with your followers.
How to integrate my topics' content to my website?
Integrating your curated content to your website or blog will allow you to increase your website visitors’ engagement, boost SEO and acquire new visitors. By redirecting your social media traffic to your website, Scoop.it will also help you generate more qualified traffic and leads from your curation work.
Distributing your curated content through a newsletter is a great way to nurture and engage your email subscribers will developing your traffic and visibility.
Creating engaging newsletters with your curated content is really easy.