Jump to content


A New House Committee on Internal Security Should Investigate Huma AbedinHuma's mother Saleha Abedin was one of 63 leaders

- - - - -
  • You cannot reply to this topic

#1 Draggingtree

  • Members
  • 7,952 posts
  • Texas

Posted 22 July 2012 - 10:54 AM

USA Survival:

A New House Committee on Internal Security Should Investigate Huma Abedin, Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and her ties to the Muslim Brotherhood


By Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack*

(For distribution at the America’s Survival

July 19, 2012, “Vetting of Obama” conference).


Huma Abedin was born in Kalamazoo, Michigan, and moved with her family to Saudi Arabia when she was two. She returned to the United States to attend GeorgeWashingtonUniversity. She began working 1 for First Lady Hillary Clinton from 1996-2000 as a staff assistant. She worked to get Hillary Clinton elected in 2008 and currently serves as Deputy Chief of Staff for Clinton in the latter's role as Secretary of State.

In 2010, Abedin married U.S. Congressman Anthony Weiner. This gave her access to the inner workings of at least one House of the Legislative Branch of the U.S. Government in addition to State secrets. In 2011, the Anthony Weiner “sexting” scandal brought more attention to Abedin. As a direct result of this heightened profile, it was learned that Huma's mother — Saleha Abedin — was one of 63 leaders 2 in an offshoot group of the Muslim Brotherhood known as the Muslim Sisterhood.

It was subsequently learned that Huma's deceased father — Syed Z. Abedin — founded the Islamic Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) 3 with the strong but quiet support 4 of notorious Al-Qaeda Godfather and General Secretary of the Posted Image
Read More http://www.usasurvival.org/ck07.20.12.html#ixzz21N3HeH79


#2 pollyannaish

  • Board Member
  • 19,604 posts
  • Washington

Posted 22 July 2012 - 01:39 PM

It seems to me this is a huge, far fetched distraction right now. I'd rather focus on the things regular people care about, like jobs and the economy, than chase our tails and lose the big prize. Perhaps that is just me.

Maybe something else will come up later...but it has overtones of the witch hunts of the McCarthy era, and right or wrong that is about the last impression that needs to be made.

#3 Valin

  • Board Member
  • 34,662 posts
  • Minnesota

Posted 23 July 2012 - 06:31 AM

It seems to me this is a huge, far fetched distraction right now. I'd rather focus on the things regular people care about, like jobs and the economy, than chase our tails and lose the big prize. Perhaps that is just me.

Maybe something else will come up later...but it has overtones of the witch hunts of the McCarthy era, and right or wrong that is about the last impression that needs to be made.


2 points

A. Huma Abedin is not the problem....assuming she is working for the MB, something not yet proven. No she and the questions raised about her are but a symptom of an underlying disease, that being the propaganda/misinformation campaign being waged by the Islamists against America The Wast, and Civilization.

B. While this is not a major problem...today, the potential for real problems is there....think back to Sept 2 2001 how many people had heard the words Al Qaeda?


Something the Islamists understand and I question if we do, is at its heart it is an ideological, cultural. It is a battle for "Hearts& Minds" of 1.5 billion people, you can also say the Islamists ate fighting against "Globalization". At lot of people on our side don't want to hear this...but it is the truth.

#4 Valin

  • Board Member
  • 34,662 posts
  • Minnesota

Posted 24 July 2012 - 06:31 PM

Huma Abedin and the Muslim Brotherhood: Closely Connected
Andrew C. McCarthy
July 24, 2012

Senator John McCain ought to be embarrassed. So should House Speaker John Boehner and Congressman Mike Rogers, the former FBI agent who chairs the Select Committee on Intelligence.

These pillars of the Republican establishment have been championing the cause of Huma Abedin, the deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Ms. Abedin’s name arose, along with several others, in connection with questions pressed by five conservative House Republicans regarding Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the United States government. The GOP establishment, led by McCain, Boehner, and Rogers, has been slamming Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, one of the five House conservatives, over her refusal to back down from concerns over Ms. Abedin.

(Snip)

There is a great deal of background information now available about Huma Abedin and her family connections to the Brotherhood. In particular, extensive research has been done by Walid Shoebat (a former Muslim Brother who has renounced the Brotherhood) and the Center for Security Policy. I would encourage interested readers to peruse the information they have put out and are continuing to unearth. I am simply distilling the highlights, which powerfully demonstrate that it is the Republican establishment acting irresponsibly, not Rep. Bachmann and her conservative colleagues.

In a nutshell, shortly after Huma Abedin was born in 1976, the Abedin family moved from Kalamazoo, Michigan, to Saudi Arabia, a country governed by sharia and thus one of the world’s most repressive places, particularly for women. The family’s move was encouraged by Naseef, who would soon be secretary-general of the Muslim World League. Naseef had been dean at the King Abdul Aziz University when Dr. Zyed Abedin (Huma’s father) taught there as a visiting professor in the early 1970s. At Naseef’s urging, the aforementioned Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs was formed as an Islamist academic institution, with Zyed Abedin as editor-in-chief of its journal.

(Snip)


This is sure to be in the NY Times in the morning.Posted Image

#5 Casino67

  • Members
  • 11,843 posts
  • Delaware

Posted 24 July 2012 - 06:56 PM

This is really not a new revelation. I went back on Google and this is the first mention on there that mentioned the Huma/MB connection. FR of all places, from five years ago.

http://www.freerepub...s/1924323/posts

I knew about this a long time ago. It went nowhere back then too. Too bad Huma isn't a Republican.

#6 Valin

  • Board Member
  • 34,662 posts
  • Minnesota

Posted 24 July 2012 - 09:26 PM

This is really not a new revelation. I went back on Google and this is the first mention on there that mentioned the Huma/MB connection. FR of all places, from five years ago.

http://www.freerepub...s/1924323/posts

I knew about this a long time ago. It went nowhere back then too. Too bad Huma isn't a Republican.


This is the larger point so many are missing The disinformation/propaganda campaign that has been waged for many many years against us (The West, Civilization). And it all leads back to (in no particular order) Iran (the muscle), Egypt (the intellectual heartland) , and Saudi (the magic kingdom) Arabia (the money).

#7 pollyannaish

  • Board Member
  • 19,604 posts
  • Washington

Posted 24 July 2012 - 10:45 PM


It seems to me this is a huge, far fetched distraction right now. I'd rather focus on the things regular people care about, like jobs and the economy, than chase our tails and lose the big prize. Perhaps that is just me.

Maybe something else will come up later...but it has overtones of the witch hunts of the McCarthy era, and right or wrong that is about the last impression that needs to be made.


2 points

A. Huma Abedin is not the problem....assuming she is working for the MB, something not yet proven. No she and the questions raised about her are but a symptom of an underlying disease, that being the propaganda/misinformation campaign being waged by the Islamists against America The Wast, and Civilization.

B. While this is not a major problem...today, the potential for real problems is there....think back to Sept 2 2001 how many people had heard the words Al Qaeda?


Something the Islamists understand and I question if we do, is at its heart it is an ideological, cultural. It is a battle for "Hearts& Minds" of 1.5 billion people, you can also say the Islamists ate fighting against "Globalization". At lot of people on our side don't want to hear this...but it is the truth.


I don't disagree with that. I'm just concerned that personalizing it in this way is bad timing in relationship to the election. Economy, economy, economy. Will quietly laying groundwork for the next few months set us back irreparably?

#8 Valin

  • Board Member
  • 34,662 posts
  • Minnesota

Posted 25 July 2012 - 06:16 AM

pollyannaish

I don't know about you, but most of the people I know can walk and chew gum..at the same time.

#9 Valin

  • Board Member
  • 34,662 posts
  • Minnesota

Posted 25 July 2012 - 06:30 AM

Huma Abedin’s Muslim-Brotherhood Ties
Andrew C. McCarthy
7/25/12

Despite mounting evidence of close ties between the Muslim Brotherhood and Huma Abedin, Secretary of State Clinton’s close aide, Republican congressional leaders — particularly Senator John McCain and House Speaker John Boehner — continue to target their ire not at the State Department but at Representative Michele Bachmann.

(Snip)

Nevertheless, since Secretary Clinton’s tenure began, with Huma Abedin serving as a top adviser, the United States has aligned itself with the Muslim Brotherhood in myriad ways. To name just a few (the list is by no means exhaustive): Our government reversed the policy against formal contacts with the Brotherhood; funded Hamas; continued funding Egypt even after the Brotherhood won the elections; dropped an investigation of Brotherhood organizations in the U.S. that were previously identified as co-conspirators in the case of the Holy Land Foundation financing Hamas; hosted Brotherhood delegations in the United States; issued a visa to a member of the Islamic Group (a designated terrorist organization) and hosted him in Washington because he is part of the Brotherhood’s parliamentary coalition in Egypt; announced that Israel should go back to its indefensible 1967 borders; excluded Israel, the world’s leading target of terrorism, from a counterterrorism forum in which the State Department sought to “partner” with Islamist governments that do not regard attacks on Israel as terrorism; and pressured Egypt’s pro-American military government to surrender power to the anti-American Muslim Brotherhood parliament and president just elected by Egypt’s predominantly anti-American population.

So I was hoping maybe the speaker could explain to us: Hypothetically, if Huma Abedin did have a bias in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, and if she were actually acting on that bias to try to tilt American policy in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, what exactly would the State Department be doing differently?
------------------------------------------------------------------

The question could be asked, was there any political pressure put on those vetting Huma Abedin?

#10 pollyannaish

  • Board Member
  • 19,604 posts
  • Washington

Posted 25 July 2012 - 08:14 AM

Most peiple can. But not the mainstream media.

pollyannaish

I don't know about you, but most of the people I know can walk and chew gum..at the same time.



#11 Valin

  • Board Member
  • 34,662 posts
  • Minnesota

Posted 25 July 2012 - 08:43 AM

Most peiple can. But not the mainstream media.


pollyannaish

I don't know about you, but most of the people I know can walk and chew gum..at the same time.



Remind me again why I am supposed to care about what they say? I view them as giving us an opportunity for a teachable moment. Talking to friends familys co-workers...whoever is where we come into the game. some of us call it reality therapy.

#12 pollyannaish

  • Board Member
  • 19,604 posts
  • Washington

Posted 25 July 2012 - 10:17 AM


Most peiple can. But not the mainstream media.


pollyannaish

I don't know about you, but most of the people I know can walk and chew gum..at the same time.



Remind me again why I am supposed to care about what they say? I view them as giving us an opportunity for a teachable moment. Talking to friends familys co-workers...whoever is where we come into the game. some of us call it reality therapy.


You don't have to care, but they do have an impact on the public whether we like it or not. The press, which we post here to comment on, is in control of the focus of our discussion, even how we pick and choose. They frame the conversation. They are the informational gatekeepers...even here!

How things are framed affects swing voters and independents more strongly than any committed group because they are less likely to selectively choose idealogical news outlets, are less informed and tend to be easily swayed. Until this election is over, Romney has to focus on the economy with all his might. FORCE the conversation into things that people who avoid politics care about. Jobs and a thriving economy. Food and energy prices. GENERAL national security.

Obama's MAJOR strategy in this campaign is race. He is showing his hand already and his surrogates are out plugging it. Any attacks on Muslims/Muslim Brotherhood and so forth will be cast in that vein. Racist GOP is on a witch hunt. That will simply play into the unfounded reputation we already have. No amount of arguing will set the record straight.

Romney fired the first salvo in that battle by facing the NAACP down squarely. He did a tremendous job. The last thing he needs to do now is step into this particular battle in the election, even though it is near and dear to our hearts.

AND the most effective thing we can do about our dangerous ties to the Muslim Brotherhood is to change administrations. That will move many of these players outside of the power center. THEN we can work to start cutting out the cancer on our own terms. That does not mean Romney should run away from the issue. He must be clear. The party just MUST be disciplined with its message of economic solutions.

This election, in my opinion is fraught with dangerous traps. Focusing on the most important issue of the day (unless a world event changes that) is our best hope of winning the presidency as well as additional seats in the Senate. Loosing our discipline and stepping into the racial trap will hurt us and in the long run, make our attempts to be cautious less effective.

Let's fight the first battle first.

At least that is my best strategical opinion...worth exactly what you paid for it. ;)





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users