WEINER & SPITZER — NOW MORE THAN EVER!

[Geee]

Human Events:

“Progressivism leads inevitably to utter irrationality and eventually political, as well as moral, chaos.”

 

So writes editor R.V. Young in the summer issue of Modern Age, the journal of which Russell Kirk was founding editor.

 

The magazine arrived with the latest post from our cultural capital, where the front-runner in the mayoral race, Anthony Weiner, aka Carlos Danger, has been caught again “sexting” photos of his privates, this time to a 22-year-old woman.

 

That broke it for The New York Times:

 

“The serially evasive Mr. Weiner should take his marital troubles and personal compulsions out of the public eye, away from cameras, off the Web and out of the race for mayor of New York City.”

 

And Weiner’s conduct does seem weird, creepy, crazy.

 

[SrWoodchuck]

Why Won't the Media Cover Huma Abedin's Ties to Global Jihad Movement?

 

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2593/Why-Wont-the-Media-Cover-Huma-Abedins-Ties-to-Global-Jihad-Movement.aspx

 

The most recent manifestation of victory over the American character shows through the Anthony Weiner-Huma Abedin scandal. This scandal is a paradoxical double whammy of both exposure and cover-up.

 

Everyone knows (too much) about the exposure part: Anthony Weiner, candidate for mayor of New York City, turns out to be a recidivist pervert. The fatuous conversation that has followed this “news” has turned on the decision of Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin, to step forward to try to salvage her husband’s bid for public office. The Wall Street Journal’s response to Abedin’s decision was typical: “Watching the elegant Huma Abedin stand next to her man Tuesday as he explained his latest sexually charged online exchanges was painful for a normal human being to watch.”

 

The media want to know why the “elegant Huma” – Hillary Clinton’s longtime aide and former deputy chief of staff – would do such an inelegant thing. Was this couple’s therapy writ large? Was it for their child? Was it … love?

 

True, the barbs of Huma’s ambition – as naked as her husband’s dirty pics – have broken through the gauzy chatter. But cut off from context, they, too, end up perpetuating what is, in fact, the great Huma Abedin cover-up.

 

It is not enough to analyze Huma Abedin as a “political wife.” Abedin is also a veritable Muslim Brotherhood princess. As such, the ideological implications of her actions – plus her long and privileged access to U.S. policy-making through Hillary Clinton – must be considered, particularly in the context of national security.

 

But talk about paradoxes. In an era when the most minute and lurid descriptions of her husband’s anatomical and sexual details are common talk, Huma Abedin’s familial and professional connections to the world of jihad are unspeakable.

 

In a nutshell – quoting former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy writing at National Review this week – Huma Abedin “worked for many years at a journal that promotes Islamic supremacist ideology that was founded by a top al-Qaida financier, Abdullah Omar Naseef.” That would be for at least seven years (1996-2003), by the way, during which Abedin also worked for Hillary Clinton.

 

Let this sink in for just a moment. The journal Huma worked for – which promotes Islamic supremacism and was founded by al-Qaida financer Naseef, who also headed the Muslim World League, a leading Muslim Brotherhood organization – is called the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. It was edited first by Huma’s father, Syed Abedin, and now by her mother, Saleha Abedin. Saleha is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood. Mother Abedin also directs an organization (the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child) that comes under the umbrella of the Union for Good, another U.S.-designated terrorist organization. As McCarthy reminds us, “the Union for Good is led by Sheikh Yusef 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.”

 

Given these alarming professional and family associations, it is hard to imagine how Huma Abedin ever received the security clearance necessary to work closely with the secretary of state. But she did, and from her powerful post, she undoubtedly exerted influence over U.S. policy-making. (In his National Review piece, McCarthy lists specific actions that bespeak a shift in U.S. foreign policy to favor the Muslim Brotherhood.)

 

Isn’t the Abedin-Clinton national security story at least as newsworthy as Weiner’s private parts?