Archive for October 2016
Cartoons of the Day
October 2, 2016Democrats’ organized-crime ring will do anything to maintain power and stay out of prison
October 2, 2016Democrats’ organized-crime ring will do anything to maintain power and stay out of prison, Washington Times, L. Todd Wood, October 1, 2016
(Reason number 2,587 not to elect Hillary. — DM)
Secretary of State John Kerry speaks with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton during the groundbreaking ceremony for the U.S. Diplomacy Center, Wednesday, Sept. 3, 2014, at the State Department in Washington.
When the end came for Russian President Boris Yeltsen, as the Russian economy was crumbling and there was no support left for his leadership in the Duma, one of his main concerns was protecting himself and his family from prosecution for corruption. That is why he appointed Vladimir Putin, an extremely loyal subordinate whom he could trust with his secrets, someone who would not immediately contact prosecutors and hound his family even after he died. Someone who would not go after the money secreted away in the Caymans. Someone who would let sleeping dogs lie.
This is exactly the situation we have with the current political environment in the United States as the 2016 election season nears its conclusion.
The party in power has shown itself to be nothing more than a massive organized-crime syndicate that has used the levers of power to persecute the political opposition and line its pocketbooks and bank accounts with the taxpayers’ money. From John Kerry sending millions to his daughter’s non-profit, to Hillary Clinton shaking down the State Department’s clients for money, to public employee unions spiking their pensions, the corruption is complete across all levels of the Democratic Party and their hold on the executive branch.
But I think this rabbit hole goes much deeper. We are now into corruption that damages the national security of the United States in an existential way.
Every day there is a new “secret” deal revealed where the Obama administration betrayed America with its desire to give the world’s real Islamic State, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the nuclear bomb, along with hundreds of billions in dollars, secretly flown to Tehran in the dead of night.
Hillary Clinton sold 20 percent of America’s uranium to the Russians for money.
The appeasement and downright enabling of the Islamic jihadist agenda by this administration will be written about in the history books. I suspect, when the cover is taken off the rabbit hole, we will be astounded with what has actually been given away, leaked, stolen and ripped off by Obama and his minions.
This is why they are so scared of Trump. This is why they are fighting tooth and nail. This is why they don’t want to give up power and let the American people find out what has really gone on. This is why the federal Department of Homeland Security is pushing the states to let it “advise and assist” in the electoral process.
I hope President Trump will prosecute the illegality he finds when he takes office. To not do so would be a travesty of justice and set the precedent for the end of the Republic.
Of course, Obama may pardon all the main offenders but the crime syndicate is huge. He can’t pardon everyone. We at least have to find out what happened even if the key players don’t go to jail.
Hillary cannot be allowed into the White House. This time she will take much more than the furniture.
Is America Ready For Hillary Clinton’s ‘Shariah Advisor’ In The White House?
October 2, 2016Is America Ready For Hillary Clinton’s ‘Shariah Advisor’ In The White House? Investors Business Daily, Kerry Jackson, September 30, 2016
(Please see also, Huma Abedin: Will She Repudiate Family’s Islamist Views? — DM)
Huma Abedin, above, is a key aide to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. But her close ties to Islamic fundamentalists has some questioning her role as Clinton’s “shadow.” (AP)
Some have expressed concern that Bill Clinton might be back in the White House, this time as the first gentleman.
But as worried as they might be, at least Bill isn’t a supporter of Shariah law. We wonder if we can say the same thing about the person who will be one of Hillary’s chief, if not top, advisor.
Huma Abedin has been called Hillary’s “shadow” by Politico. Hillary has said if she had a second daughter, it would be Abedin. She has been with the Democratic presidential candidate since 1996, when Hillary was first lady.
Abedin has followed Clinton through her years as a U.S. senator from New York and was by her side when Hillary was wrecking America’s foreign relations and making a mess in the Middle East as secretary of state. While deputy chief of staff to Clinton at State, Abedin also worked for the Clinton Foundation and Teneo, a consulting firm that does business with international business titans.
Today, Abedin is ranked third in the Clinton presidential campaign hierarchy. If Hillary is elected, Abedin will surely have an office in the West Wing where she will use her formidable influence on Clinton to shape administration policy.
Just as Abedin has trailed Clinton for two decades, a serious question has trailed Abedin: Is she sympathetic to radical Islamists and a proponent of Shariah law in the U.S.? This question isn’t asked because she’s a practicing Muslim and speaks fluent Arabic. It’s due to her family ties.
Four years ago, five congressman sent a letter to the State Department inspector general, charging that Abedin’s father, mother and brother were associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is considered a terrorist organization by several nations, though not the U.S. The letter cited “a personal intervention by Secretary Clinton that allowed a prominent Muslim Brotherhood leader, Tariq Ramadan, to enter the United States — overturning a policy of the previous administration that precluded him from doing so.”
A former federal prosecutor also noticed that U.S. policy “radically shifted in the Brotherhood’s favor” while Abedin was in the State Department.
For their efforts, the five U.S. lawmakers were treated as cranks by the Democrats and media. But were they on to something? That’s unknown. The story essentially died. The legacy media couldn’t be expected to dig into it because it might cast one of their own — a Democrat — in a poor light.
We do know some things, though, and one of them is that Abedin’s late father, Syed Abedin, was a firm defender of Shariah law. A video from a 1971 interview that has recently surfaced shows Syed, a Muslim scholar, discussing Islam’s “hostile” response to the West’s involvement in the Middle East. He seems to also argue that Shariah law must be enforced by national governments in Muslim countries.
Huma’s mother, Saleha Abedin, also has an interesting history. She was editor-in-chief of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, a Shariah law periodical, from 1995 to 2008. Paul Sperry, a former IBD bureau chief, reported last month in the New York Post that Huma worked “for her mother’s journal through 2008. She is listed as ‘assistant editor’ on the masthead of the 2002 issue in which her mother suggested the U.S. was doomed to be attacked on 9/11 because of ‘sanctions’ it leveled against Iraq and other ‘injustices’ allegedly heaped on the Muslim world.”
Huma’s brother, Hassan, is also an editor at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs.
Huma’s mother’s sketchy ties don’t end on those pages. Kenneth R. Timmerman, a former Republican congressional candidate and current Donald Trump supporter, wrote last month inThe Hill that Saleha “sits on the Presidency Staff Council of the International Islamic Council for Da’wa and Relief, a group that is chaired by the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.”
Huma’s father had his own Muslim Brotherhood connection, says former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. And it wasn’t tenuous.
“There is persuasive evidence,” he wrote in 2012 in PJ Media, “that her father was a member of the Brotherhood.”
One can imagine the shape of the conversations around the Abedin dinner table. Huma must be steeped in the twisted ideas that drive Islam’s hostility toward the West. Could it plausibly be any other way?
Of course the mainstream media don’t care much. They see it as their job to get Clinton elected, no matter who she has hitched herself to.
Imagine, though, the media response if it turned out that the mother of one of Trump’s high-ranking advisors had been a member of a group of harmless old ladies who met now and then to honor the Confederate dead and tend to their graves. There would be an inquisition. That person would be drummed out of her position and have to go into hiding. The issue would become a truncheon used to club Trump whenever the campaign-media complex needed it.
But anyone associated with Hillary Clinton is an angel who should never be held up to scrutiny, no matter what their family ties are.
New York Times violates law to publish partial Trump tax return from 90s and speculate about his taxes
October 2, 2016New York Times violates law to publish partial Trump tax return from 90s and speculate about his taxes, American Thinker, Thomas Lifson, October 2, 2016
Trump Derangement Syndrome has led the New York Times to willfully violate federal law in order to speculate about what taxes Donald Trump may or may not have been paying. In a front-page article, built on crime and conjecture, the Times ends up with very weak beer on Trump, but a convincing case for its own irresponsibility and criminality.
The lede paragraph reveals the astonishing lack of factual reporting and descent into mere speculation, speculation that supports the latest Hillary Clinton attack line on Trump, that he pays “no taxes” (a recapitulation of the Harry Reid lies on the Senate floor about Mitt Romney’s taxes. When confronted with his lies, Reid said, “It worked, didn’t it?”). Presumably, in the eyes of NYT executive editor Dean Baquet, if this speculation succeeds in defeating Trump, his own criminality and descent into speculation is also justified by the results.
Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years, records obtained by The New York Times show.
“Could have” is the operant admission that the Times does not know what it reports. As Sundance notes:
The anti-Trump political angle is easily identifiable within the extensive article use of: “could have”, “might be”, “may have”, phrases used throughout the woven narrative. Journalistic “narratives” are rarely based on facts.
Nowhere in its breathless report of non-facts does the Times stop to note that in 1995 Bill Clinton was president and Hillary Clinton was, in her own previous words, “co-president.” They were responsible for the tax laws, along with the Democrat congressional majority 1992-94, and could have changed the tax law.
Callum Borchers of the Washington Post explains the legal jeopardy that could await the Times:
Dean Baquet wasn’t bluffing.
The New York Times executive editor said during a visit to Harvard in September that he would risk jail to publish Donald Trump’s tax returns. He made good on his word Saturday night when the Times published Trump tax documents from 1995, which show the Republican presidential nominee claimed losses of $916 million that year — enough to avoid paying federal income taxes for as many as 18 years afterward.
Federal law makes it illegal to publish an unauthorized tax return:
It shall be unlawful for any person to whom any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) is disclosed in a manner unauthorized by this title thereafter willfully to print or publish in any manner not provided by law any such return or return information. Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
Baquet said during a panel discussion at Harvard that if the Times’ lawyers advised him not to publish Trump tax returns, he would argue that such information is vital to the public interest because the real estate mogul’s “whole campaign is built on his success as a businessman and his wealth.”
This makes it appear that Baquet’s violation of the law was intentional and done for partisan reasons.
Donald Trump is a man known to be capable of resorting to the courts, and his campaign’s statement on the violation of his privacy indicates there may be action coming:
“Mr. Trump is a highly-skilled businessman who has a fiduciary responsibility to his business, his family and his employees to pay no more tax than legally required,” the statement, which was not attributed to Trump or any staffer by name, continued. “That being said, Mr. Trump has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes, sales and excise taxes, real estate taxes, city taxes, state taxes, employee taxes and federal taxes. Mr. Trump knows the tax code far better than anyone who has ever run for President and he is the only one that knows how to fix it.”
In a tweet at 7:22 a.m. ET on Sunday, Trump took the same line, and likewise did not deny the report. “I know our complex tax laws better than anyone who has ever run for president and am the only one who can fix them. #failing@nytimes,” he wrote.
The media’s Hillary claque is already jumping on board, proclaiming, “Bombshell report on Trump taxes sends GOP nominee reeling,” for example.
In this deeply corrupt age of a weaponized IRS and FBI, there may be no legal recourse for Trump. But I imagine a lawsuit may be in the offing.
Does anyone think that the Times would have risked legal consequences if it was not worried about a possible Trump victory?
Media Launches Baseless Speculation Using Parts of Trump’s Stolen ’95 Tax Returns
October 2, 2016Media Launches Baseless Speculation Using Parts of Trump’s Stolen ’95 Tax Returns, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, October 2, 2016
This story is a joke. The joke is that the media is desperately scrabbling for material. Out of sheer desperation it’s using 20+ year tax returns to headline stories claiming that Trump paid no taxes.
These stories are based on what? I’ll let the media tell it…
“Trump’s losses in Atlantic City casino projects, a Trump airline and the Plaza Hotel in New York were a staggering $916 million… Under normal Internal Revenue Service rules, those losses can be used to offset any future amount owed, but because the amount of the loss was so high Trump may have continued to avoid any tax liabilities for years… The documents do not constitute proof that Trump has paid no federal tax over such a long stretch, but it lends fuel to questions about his refusal to release his tax returns.”
Translation. We have absolutely no basis for the claims that we’re making them. But we’re not only making them, but headlining them.
Can I just point out that using the same logic, the New York Times has a large building with plenty of space to store the bodies of murdered hoboes. I have no evidence that the New York Times building is full of murdered hoboes. But the fact that it could be used for such a purpose combined with the refusal of the New York Times to let me inspect every inch of it in search of murdered hoboes certainly lends fuel to my wholly invented claim that the building is full of murdered hoboes.
An Obama parting gift to Israel?
October 2, 2016An Obama parting gift to Israel? Israel Hayom, Richard Baehr, October 2, 2016
(Please see also, Another area where Congress must be ready to oppose the president. — DM)
U.S. President Barack Obama, former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State John Kerry all flew off to Israel and attended the funeral of Shimon Peres, the last remaining political figure from modern Israel’s founding generation. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the current Democratic Party nominee for president, had at one point been listed to attend, but did not make the trip.
The United States is fewer than six weeks away from the conclusion of what is now a tight presidential contest. The race conceivably could soon lean more toward Clinton after the widely watched first debate last Monday night (84 million viewers) between Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump, which most pundits suggested she won, a conclusion supported by results from the first polls released after the debate.
However, it has been an unusual and surprising election contest, and there are no guarantees that the broader voting public saw things the same way their media superiors expected it to see them.
The high-level attendance at the funeral by Obama and Bill Clinton will certainly be a plus for Hillary Clinton’s prospects to win a large share of the Jewish vote in closely contested states such as Florida and Pennsylvania. Obama won about seven of every 10 Jewish votes in 2012, down from about eight in 10 in 2008. Bill Clinton scored even higher than this in his two runs for the White House, in 1992 and 1996, so Hillary Clinton can only benefit from association with presidents with far more popular support than she has demonstrated so far. Both Obama and Bill Clinton issued statements full of praise for Peres’ long career and also his commitment both to keep Israel strong but also to seek peace.
Obama’s tribute may be a harbinger of something more to come, presumably in the nine weeks he has left in the White House after the Nov. 8 vote has been cast. The president has just concluded an agreement with Israel for a 10-year military aid bill. The most contentious part of that agreement was Israel’s acceptance that if Congress votes for more assistance in the first two years of the agreement than the agreed $3.8 billion annual amount, it would have to return the excess to the United States. There are constitutional separation-of-powers issues that arise from the agreement, and already Trump has said he does not consider himself bound by the limits, a view also taken by a large number of members in Congress.
In any case, with this settled, Obama may feel free to try his hand at some legacy-building on the Israeli-Palestinian track, an area in which his record of failure follows a long pattern of presidents who thought they had the magic elixir to achieve the two-state solution.
What has been rumored, with no denials offered by either the State Department or the White House, is that Obama may seek to obtain passage of a Security Council resolution in which the president offers his view on the parameters of the deal between the two parties who should end the conflict. As with all such two-state plans, Israeli settlement activity is viewed as the primary culprit in the conflict. Members of the Senate, anticipating some new initiative of this sort, have now sent a letter to the White House, signed by 88 members from both parties, requesting that the president, for the duration of his term, continue traditional American policy, which has been to block any one-sided U.N. resolutions targeting Israel.
”Even well-intentioned initiatives at the United Nations risk locking the parties into positions that will make it more difficult to return to the negotiating table and make the compromises necessary for peace,” the senators wrote, adding that the U.S. “must continue to insist that neither we nor any other outsider substitute for the parties to the conflict.”
Quoting from a 2011 address Obama gave to the U.N. General Assembly in which he said that ”peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations,” the senators reminded him that his ”administration has consistently upheld the long-standing U.S. policy of opposing — and if necessary vetoing — one-sided U.N. Security Council resolutions.”
Longtime peace processor Dennis Ross, a likely appointee to a Clinton administration if she wins in November, argued that the president’s willingness to try to obtain a resolution with a defined peace plan would be far higher if Trump wins the presidential contest. Then the initiative could be seen as a way to try to bind the incoming president to an Obama-preferred course of action. Further evidence that such a plan is in the works, conceivably regardless of who wins the White House, was a statement by an unusually angry Secretary of State John Kerry. Kerry, busy as always attending to his many other diplomatic failures — the never-ending Syrian carnage, the continued appeasement and excuse offering for the behavior of the U.S.’s new Iranian ”partners,” relations with Russia, seemed ready to pounce once more into the Israeli-Palestinian diplomatic wasteland by condemning Israeli settlement activity, as well as offering a standard (for appearance of balance) criticism of Palestinian incitement.
It is hard not to see this as laying the groundwork for the president cynically offering the ”Obama peace plan” as his final tribute to the late Shimon Peres, who was always committed to the two-state solution and achieving peace. The United Nations is of course a vipers’ nest of Israel hatred with its obsessive and uniquely hostile treatment of the Jewish state on any number of issues.
Other than a Security Council resolution that President Jimmy Carter allowed to get through in 1980 by abstaining on a resolution calling Israel’s unification of Jerusalem illegal, America’s role in Security Council debates on Israel has generally been to try to water down condemnations of Israel. Failing that, the U.S. has vetoed one-sided resolutions aimed at Israel.
Carter’s acquiescence in the U.N. Security Council resolution cost him with Jewish voters. He won only 45% of the Jewish vote, to 39% for Ronald Reagan and 15% for third-party candidate John Anderson, on his way to losing 44 states, the worst defeat ever for an incumbent president. No Democrat since 1920 has performed worse among Jewish voters. This presumably is why Obama’s latest attempt to squeeze Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will come, if it does, after the presidential election, when it can do no immediate electoral damage to his party or preferred candidate.
In an interview with Vanity Fair, Obama made clear that he plans to be an activist former president, pursuing the causes he cares about. Attacking police and the criminal justice system for their alleged racism is a near certainty. Climate change seems to be a big matter for Obama, as well.
But eight years of bad relations with Netanyahu did not come from nowhere. Obama is one of the more ideological presidents the U.S. has had (Reagan, Carter, and Franklin Roosevelt are others). His vision of Israeli-Palestinian relations comes out of his “Third World” view of colonialism, and the power of the strong versus the weak, their victims. If he can take one more shot at what he regards as balancing the scales and weighing in on the side of the Palestinians, he will. Those last nine weeks of the Obama presidency are a red-alert warning to Israel and many others.
Internet Giveaway Proceeds After Court Rejects Suit to Halt it
October 2, 2016Internet Giveaway Proceeds After Court Rejects Suit to Halt it, Power Line,
We have written about President Obama’s internet giveaway and how GOP congressional leaders effectively rubber stamped it. An aide to Majority Leader McConnell even tried to blame Donald Trump for the Republicans’ gutlessness.
After Congress failed to act, four Republican state attorneys general filed a lawsuit to stop the giveaway. The four state plaintiffs were Arizona, Oklahoma, Nevada and Texas. Their AGs are Mark Brnovich, Scott Pruitt, Adam Paul Laxalt, and Ken Paxton.
The suit made several arguments against the internet giveaway. Plaintiffs argued that, because it lacks congressional approval (Congress didn’t approve the action, it merely declined to block it) the giveaway amounts to an illegal ceding of U.S. government property. They also contended that the new steward of the internet domain system, an outfit known ICANN, will be so unchecked that it could “effectively enable or prohibit speech on the Internet.”
The AGs also noted that ICANN could revoke the U.S. government’s exclusive use of .gov and .mil, the domains used by states, federal agencies and the U.S. military for their websites. In a statement, Texas Attorney General Paxton said: “The president does not have the authority to simply give away America’s pioneering role in ensuring that the internet remains a place where free expression can flourish.”
The AGs’ suit did a good job of expressing key objections to Obama’s internet giveaway. Yesterday, however, a federal district court judge, George C. Hanks, Jr., rejected the legal challenge. The Obama-appointed judge found that there wasn’t enough evidence that the transfer would be harmful.
Thus, today oversight of the domain naming system has been transferred to “global stakeholders.”
The Obama Commerce Department had stressed that any last-minute attempt to abandon the giveaway would “hurt the credibility of America in the eyes of the rest of the world.” This is true. Blocking the giveaway would have upset what has become the world’s reasonable expectation that the U.S., under President Obama, is a pushover willing to cede control over key affairs to international bodies and even our enemies, and unwilling vigilantly to safeguard national interests.
Because congressional leaders are also pushovers, world expectations have been met and remain intact.
Spain: Muslim boat captain on trial for pushing six Christian refugees overboard
October 2, 2016Spain: Muslim boat captain on trial for pushing six Christian refugees overboard, Creeping Sharia, October 2, 2016
Source: A refugees’ boat captain on trial for pushing six Christian refugees overboard
A boat captain face trial for throwing six Christian refugees overboard and murdering them. The boat carrying refugees was sailing towards Spain, when the Christian refugees were thrown into the sea on the pretext of their prayers. The incident took place in December, 2014 when the boat captain and his second in command severely beat the Christian refugees before throwing them overboard.
The boat captain identified as Alain NB, a Muslim was guiding the boat from Morocco to Spain via sea route. One of the surviving refugees stated that the captain “blamed the rough seas which were rocking the boat on the prayer led by a Catholic pastor” and “believed that the weather worsened every time they prayed.”
The prosecutors in Almeria, Spain, however argue that Alain NB should be handed a prison sentence of 90 years after being convicted of the crime. They argue that imprisonment of 15 years for each of the charges brought against him.Witnesses say that the captain and his second in command beat the six Christian refugees with wooden boards, before throwing into the rough waters. This was an inflatable boat which had a capacity of 50 men, which headed towards Spain. Dead bodies of one refugees was found off the off the coast of Granada after a week of the incident.
Moreover, the boat captain was also accused of searching the refugees for crosses and jewelry which would identify them as Christian. He was accused of singling those confirmed to be Christians for bashing. However, his second in command died in Spain, before the trail begun. During the trial the prosecution said Alain NB “was aware that the victims could not possibly survive and that they would die, either by drowning, from the cold, or from the physical injuries they had suffered.
Huma Abedin: Will She Repudiate Family’s Islamist Views?
October 2, 2016Huma Abedin: Will She Repudiate Family’s Islamist Views? Clarion Project, Meira Svirsky, October 2, 2016
(Please see also Daddy’s Issues, which elaborates on the Islamist views of Huma Abedin’s father. — DM)
Huma Abedin (left) and Hillary Clinton (Photo: © Reuters)
Abedin, herself, worked on an Islamist journal for 12 years, beginning the year she became a White House intern. She hasn’t commented on that job.
Concerns about Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary Clinton, both when she was secretary of state and now, as the Democratic presidential nominee, began surfacing in 2012. According to leaked emails, Abedin is slated to become secretary of state if Hillary Clinton is elected president.
In 2012, Rep. Michele Bachmann and four other members of Congress requested information about the influence of Muslim Brotherhood-tied groups and individuals in the U.S. government, including Abedin, who worked for 12 years as an assistant editor of an Islamist journal that spewed extremism.
Abedin’s tenure at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs began in 1996, the year she began working as an intern at the White house.
Clarion Project covered that request extensively, as the Congressional members who made it were pilloried by their colleagues. We also covered the extremism of Abedin’s mother, father and other family members.
Now more information has been uncovered regarding the Islamist beliefs of Abedin’s parents. While it is certainly possible to disavow the ideology of one’s parents, Abedin has remained silent on their extremism as well as her work with on journal. It remains to be seen whether or not she will repudiate these new findings.
Syed Abedin, Huma Abedin’s father who died in 1993, was a Muslim scholar connected to the Saudi Arabian government. According to exclusive video footage from 1971 recently obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, Syed Abedin advocated the following:
As Muslim countries evolve, he said, “The state has to take over. The state is stepping in in many countries … where the state is now overseeing that human relationships are carried on on the basis of Islam. The state also under Islam has a right to interfere in some of these rights given to the individual by the sharia.”
In addition, he is quoted as saying, “The main dynamics of life in the Islamic world are still supplied by Islam. Any institution, as I said before, any concept, any idea, in order to be accepted and become a viable thing in the Islamic world has to come through … Islam.”
Abedin’s mother, Saleha, has an especially strong Islamist ties. She is a member of the female counterpart of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Muslim World League. She leads a group called the International Islamic Committee for Women and Child, a subsidiary of a Muslim Brotherhood-led group that is banned in Israel for its links to Hamas.
In 1999 and three years after Huma began working for the journal, the journal and Saleha Abedin’s group published a book in Arabic titled “Women in Islam: A Discourse in Rights and Obligations.”
The book states that man-made law is inherently oppressive towards women, while sharia law is liberating. According to the text, Muslim women have an obligation to contribute to jihad, apostates are to be put to death, adulterers should be stoned or lashed, freedom of speech should be conformed to the boundaries set by sharia and wives must have sex with their husbands on command, “even if she is not in the mood.“
In addition, the organization led by Huma Abedin’s mother “advocates for the repeal of Mubarak-era prohibitions on female genital mutilation, child marriage and marital rape, on the grounds that such prohibitions run counter to Islamic law, which allows for their practice,” according to an analysis by the Center for Security policy.
The book advocates against laws to assure equality of women, saying, “Man-made laws have in fact enslaved women, submitting them to the cupidity and caprice of human beings. Islam is the only solution and the only escape.”
In terms of women working in high positions, the book states, “Her job would involve long hours of free mixing and social interaction with the opposite sex, which is forbidden in Islam. Moreover, women’s biological constitution is different from that of men. Women are fragile, emotional and sometimes unable to handle difficult and strenuous situations. Men are less emotional and show more perseverance.”
However, an exception does exist: “Women can also participate in fighting when jihad becomes an individual duty.”
The New York Post reports that Saleha is on the payroll of the Saudi government and part of her job is to advocate for sharia law in non-Muslim countries like the United States.
“In 1995, less than three weeks before Clinton gave her famous women’s-rights speech in Beijing, Saleha headlined an unusual Washington conference organized by the Council on American-Islamic Relations [CAIR] to lobby against the UN platform drafted by Clinton and other feminists. Visibly angry, she argued it runs counter to Islam and was a “conspiracy” against Muslims.
“Specifically, she called into question provisions in the platform that condemned domestic battery of women, apparently expressing sympathy for men who commit abuse,” reported the newspaper.
We hope that Abedin does not hold the same opinions as her parents or the journal of which she was the assistant editor. And it would certainly be nice to have to tell us that.
Clinton Article in Spanish Hails U.S.-Latin America Unity
October 2, 2016Clinton Article in Spanish Hails U.S.-Latin America Unity, Latin American Herald Tribune, October 2, 2016
MIAMI – Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton hailed the power implicit in the geographical and cultural proximity between Latin America and the United States.
In an editorial written in Spanish and published Friday in the Miami daily El Nuevo Herald, the former secretary of state said that no other region in the world is “more important” for the prosperity and security of the United States than Latin America.
“There is power in our proximity, which means we are not only close geographically but also in our values, interests and in our common cultural heritage,” Clinton said, adding that the “interdependence” of the economies of the two regions, as well as the ties between communities and families, is a tremendous advantage.
“We shouldn’t build a wall between us because of that truth, but rather accept it,” she said, a clear reference to her rival, Republican candidate Donald Trump, who has promised more than once to build a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico if elected to the White House.
Clinton noted that she and her running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine, who lived for a time in Central America, see such a potential in Latin America for vibrant democracies, a growing middle class, extraordinary natural resources, some of the world’s most diverse communities, and a sense of optimism and opportunity that it’s inspiring.
“Donald Trump looks south and sees only crime and chaos. From the first day of his campaign he has belittled U.S. Latinos, insulted and denigrated people in the entire region and promised to build a wall between us and our nearest neighbor,” she said, adding that her rival is “completely wrong.”
Latin America has made “great strides” in recent years, which have led to “historic changes,” said the Democratic candidate, who at the same time defended the need to maintain close ties with the region due to some “real threats” it still faces.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments