Posted tagged ‘Huma Abedin’

EXCLUSIVE: Huma Abedin’s Father Trashed Thomas Jefferson

October 29, 2016

EXCLUSIVE: Huma Abedin’s Father Trashed Thomas Jefferson, Counter JihadPaul Sperry, October 27, 2016

(I wonder whether Huma’s father advised Obama to pay jizya as part of the Iran scam and later for the release of hostages. Perhaps the idea came indirectly, from Huma via Hillary. — DM)

humasdad

The late father of Huma Abedin, the devout Muslim who’s co-chairing Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, sympathized with the Barbary pirates in America’s first bout with Muslim terrorism and criticized President Thomas Jefferson for not appeasing them by paying their infidel tax.

In a 1974 dissertation for his PhD at the University of Pennsylvania, Syed Z. Abedin slammed Jefferson, one of America’s most popular founding fathers, for raising a U.S. naval force and invading Tripoli during the Barbary Wars against Islamic pirates attacking U.S. ships in the early 1800s.

Over several years, the Muslim extremists in North Africa had been firing on American merchant ships in the Mediterranean and killing crews and passengers, while taking survivors hostage. Jefferson received shocking reports from Algiers and Tripoli of mistreatment of captured American men and women who were turned into slaves of the Muslim states.

Muslim corsairs demanded the US pay tribute, or jizya, as ransom for the hostages, as well as protection for safe passage through the Mediterranean. The level of tribute amounted to millions in today’s dollars and at one point reached a whopping 10 percent of the US national budget.

Jefferson inquired why the Barbary potentates thought they had the right to prey on American shipping and enslave passengers, and he said he was told by Muslim envoys that “it was written in the Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

This in mind, Jefferson refused to pay the jizya tax, arguing that paying tribute would encourage more attacks; and he started a navy and marine corps to defend US ships. The stand infuriated Yusuf Karamanli, the pasha of Tripoli, who declared war on the US in 1801. Jefferson, in turn, deployed frigates to the Barbary Coast and heavily bombarded their ships and ramparts. Eventually, the Muslim pirates released American hostages and ceased their aggression in the Mediterranean.

Karamanli wasn’t the only Muslim embittered by Jefferson’s resolve against Islamofascism.

In his 350-page doctoral thesis, “America’s First Foreign War: A New Look at U.S.-Barbary Relations,” Abedin argued that Jefferson should have adopted the strategy of appeasement set forth by diplomat Joel Barlow, the American consul at Algiers from 1795 to 1797, who had used State Department funds for ransoms to free 100 American merchant sailors from the Muslim pirates. Barlow helped draft the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, which includes the phrase: “the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded by the Christian religion.”

Abedin praised Barlow as a “gentleman” who respected Islamic “principles.”

“He could not escape the obvious conclusion that a small naval force effectively employed could easily coerce the ancient potentates of the North African coast into submission,” he wrote. “But this observation never tempted him into calling forth for fire and brimstone for all Barbary. He responded to the people of North Africa as people, and not as pawns in some game of power.”

Added Abedin: “He did not, again like Jefferson, have one prescription for Europe and another, altogether different one, for North Africa.”

Abedin implied that Jefferson wasn’t really defending Americans but exploiting the North African Muslims, who he claimed “were not after money” and “made no captures.” He did not take kindly to Jefferson calling them “lawless pirates.”

“Through centuries of experience the North Africans had learnt to be on guard against the Western powers,” Abedin wrote, adding that “American methods and techniques gradually took on the aspect of the hated Europeans — and in no case is this more painfully evident than in that of Thomas Jefferson.”

Abedin suggested that by creating the Navy and Marine Corps, Jefferson gave license to American warmongering and imperialism.

“Once the exploits of American naval heroes were underway, Jefferson’s task at home became easier,” he wrote. “Where once the very existence of the navy was under threat, now increasing appropriations became available with every year of the conflict.”

“The Tripoli War had saved the American navy,” he lamented, and led to the spreading of “the American way.”

To Huma Abedin’s father, a noted Islamic supremacist, the Marines’ victory over the Barbary savages — memorialized in their hymn, “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli” — was an invasion of Muslim lands. And Jefferson was the original Islamophobe.

Several years after writing his dissertation, Syed Abedin helped found an Islamic institute in Saudi Arabia whose mission is to spread Sharia law in the West. He also edited and published the institute’s propaganda organ, the “Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs.”

After he died in 1993, his wife took over the radical Muslim publication — which opposed women’s rights and blamed the US for 9/11 — and Huma Abedin helped her mother edit it for 13 years.

In a 1971 interview titled “The World of Islam,” which was broadcast on Western Michigan University television, Syed Abedin claimed governments should uphold Sharia law and that Islamic institutions are the only ones acceptable in the Muslim world.

Justice officials warned FBI that Comey’s decision to update Congress was not consistent with department policy

October 29, 2016

Justice officials warned FBI that Comey’s decision to update Congress was not consistent with department policy, Washington PostSari Horwitz,October 29, 2016

comey1

Senior Justice Department officials warned the FBI that Director James B. Comey’s decision to notify Congress about renewing the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server was not consistent with long-standing practices of the department, according to officials familiar with the discussions.

Comey told Justice officials that he intended to inform lawmakers of newly discovered emails. These officials told him the department’s position “that we don’t comment on an ongoing investigation. And we don’t take steps that will be viewed as influencing an election,” said one Justice official who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the high-level conversations.

“Director Comey understood our position. He heard it from Justice leadership,” said the official. “It was conveyed to the FBI, and Comey made an independent decision to alert the Hill. He is operating independently of the Justice Department. And he knows it.”

Comey decided to inform Congress that he would look again into Hillary Clinton’s handling of emails during her time as secretary of state for two main reasons: a sense of obligation to lawmakers and a concern that word of the new email discovery would leak to the media and raise questions of a coverup.

The rationale, described by officials close to Comey’s decision-making on the condition of anonymity, prompted the FBI director to release his brief letter to Congress on Friday and upset a presidential race less than two weeks before Election Day. It placed Comey again at the center of a highly partisan argument over whether the nation’s top law enforcement agency was unfairly influencing the campaign.

In a memo explaining his decision to FBI employees soon after he sent his letter to Congress, Comey said he felt “an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed.”

“Of course, we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record,” Comey wrote to his employees.

The last time Comey found himself in the campaign spotlight was in July, when he announced that he had finished a months-long investigation into whether Clinton mishandled classified information through the use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state. After he did so, the denunciation was loudest from Republican nominee Donald Trump and his supporters, who accused the FBI director of bias in favor of Clinton’s candidacy. There was also grumbling within FBI ranks, with a largely conservative investigative corps complaining privately that Comey should have tried harder to make a case.

This time the loudest criticism has come from Clinton and her supporters, who said Friday that Comey had provided too little information about the nature of the new line of investigation and allowed Republicans to seize political ground as a result. The inquiry focuses on Clinton emails found on a computer used by former U.S. congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), now under investigation for sending sexually explicit messages to a minor, and top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, who is Weiner’s wife. The couple have since separated.

“It is extraordinary that we would see something like this just 11 days out from a presidential election,” John Podesta, the chairman of Clinton’s presidential campaign, said in a statement. “The Director owes it to the American people to immediately provide the full details of what he is now examining. We are confident this will not produce any conclusions different from the one the FBI reached in July.”

Officials familiar with Comey’s thinking said the director on Thursday faced a quandary over how to proceed once the emails, which number more than 1,000 and may duplicate some of those already reviewed, were brought to his attention.

Comey had just been briefed by a team of investigators who were seeking access to the emails. The director knew he had to move quickly because the information could leak out.

The next day, Comey informed Congress that he would take additional “investigative steps” to evaluate the emails after deciding the emails were pertinent to the Clinton email investigation and that the FBI should take steps to obtain and review them.

In July, Comey had testified under oath before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that the FBI was finished investigating the Clinton email matter and that there would be no criminal charges. Comey was asked at the hearing whether he would review any new information the FBI came across.

“My first question is this, would you reopen the Clinton investigation if you discovered new information that was both relevant and substantial?” Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) asked Comey during the hearing.

“It’s hard for me to answer in the abstract,” Comey replied at the hearing. “We would certainly look at any new and substantial information.”

In the Friday memo to his employees, Comey acknowledged that the FBI does not yet know the import of the newly discovered emails. “Given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression,” Comey wrote.

An official familiar with Comey’s thinking said that “he felt he had no choice.”

“What would it look like if the FBI inadvertently came across additional emails that appear to be relevant to the Clinton investigation and not at least inform the Oversight Committee that this occurred?” the official said. “What would be the criticism then? That the FBI hid it? That the FBI purposely kept this information to themselves?”

The official said the decision came down to which choice “was not as bad as the others.”

Comey’s action has been blasted by some former Justice Department officials, Clinton campaign officials and Democratic members of Congress.

“Without knowing how many emails are involved, who wrote them, when they were written or their subject matter, it’s impossible to make any informed judgment on this development,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who called the release “appalling.”

“However, one thing is clear: Director Comey’s announcement played right into the political campaign of Donald Trump, who is already using the letter for political purposes. And all of this just 11 days before the election,” Feinstein said.

Matthew Miller, a former Justice Department spokesman in the Obama administration, said the FBI rarely releases information about ongoing criminal investigations and does not release information about federal investigations this close to political elections.

“Comey’s behavior in this case from the beginning has been designed to protect his reputation for independence no matter the consequences to the public, to people under investigation or to the FBI’s own integrity,” Miller said.

Miller and other former officials pointed to a 2012 Justice Department memo saying that all employees have the responsibility to enforce the law in a “neutral and impartial manner,” which is “particularly important in an election year.”

Miller said he had been involved in cases related to elected officials in which the FBI waited until several days after an election to send subpoenas. “They know that if they even send a subpoena, let alone announce an investigation, that might leak and it might become public and it would unfairly influence the election when voters have no way to interpret the information,” Miller said.

Nick Ackerman, a former federal prosecutor in New York and an assistant special Watergate prosecutor, said Comey “had no business writing to Congress about supposed new emails that neither he nor anyone in the FBI has ever reviewed.”

He added: “It is not the function of the FBI director to be making public pronouncements about an investigation, never mind about an investigation based on evidence that he acknowledges may not be significant.”

In Comey’s note to employees, he seemed to anticipate that his decision would be controversial.

“In trying to strike that balance, in a brief letter and in the middle of an election season, there is significant risk of being misunderstood,” Comey wrote.

Report: Weiner sexting probe led FBI to reopen Clinton case

October 28, 2016

Report: Weiner sexting probe led FBI to reopen Clinton case, Washington Examiner, Sarah Westwood, October 28, 2016

FBI Director James Comey moved to reopen the investigation into Hillary Clinton‘s treatment of classified material after discovering new materials on devices belonging to Huma Abedin, Clinton’s former deputy chief of staff, and Anthony Weiner, her soon-to-be ex-husband who is presently the subject of a separate probe into sexually-charged messages he allegedly sent to a minor.

Agents seized the devices from Abedin and Weiner’s home during the sexting investigation, and found emails that potentially contained classified information, the New York Times reported Friday.

In a letter to Congress, Comey did not indicate what prompted him to revisit the Clinton email case. He cited only an “unrelated” probe in his letter to lawmakers Friday afternoon as the reason why his agents are again looking into Clinton’s handling of sensitive information.

Comey closed the investigation in July after failing to find evidence that Clinton and her staff intentionally mistreated classified documents.

Wikileaks: Top Clinton Aides Details “Expensive Gifts” and Unethical Deals By Clintons Through Their Foundation

October 21, 2016

Wikileaks: Top Clinton Aides Details “Expensive Gifts” and Unethical Deals By Clintons Through Their Foundation, Jonathan Turley’s Blog, Jonathan Turley,October 21, 2016

hillary_clinton_testimony_to_house_select_committee_on_benghazi-e1477072056301
bill_clinton_by_gage_skidmore-e1477072101940

Wikileaks has issued new and troubling emails from its hacking of Democratic accounts. Top Clinton aide Doug Band sent emails that raised objections to the use of the Foundation by Bill Clinton that raised troubling conflicts of interest. He specifically mentions the giving of “expensive gifts” and other conduct from sponsors. At the same time, top Hillary Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, is found complaining about a “mess” created by Hillary Clinton in securing a massive contribution from the King of Morocco of $12 million in exchange for a meeting with her as part of an event for the Clinton Global Initiative May 2015.


The Bond disclosure concerns the Clinton Global Initiative and a new business started by top Clinton aide Doug Band called Teneo Holdings. Both Band and Clinton’s held dual positions with Teneo and CGI. Bond wrote a November 17th email to John Podesta, Chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and long-time Clinton confidant. He objected to Pedestal that “I signed a conflict of interest policy as a board member of cgi . . . Oddly, [Bill Clinton] does not have to sign such a document even though he is personally paid by 3 cgi sponsors, gets many expensive gifts from them, some that are at home etc. . . I could add 500 different examples of things like this.” Bond was on the Clinton Foundation payroll through 2011, but, in June 2011, he and co-founder Declan Kelly, a former economic envoy for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, started Teneo in June 2011. They then made Bill Clinton a paid adviser. Chelsea Clinton was then appointed to the CGI board. Teneo then accepted money from groups like MF Global, a controversial brokerage firm that reportedly lost $600 million of investors’ money and had business deals that could be benefited by an association with the Secretary of State.

At the time of the emails, the Clinton staff were worried that there were questions being asked between CGI and Teneo. Band comes across as defensive and accusatory. He indicated that he knew of far worse conflicts by Bill Clinton and demanded “How then do we go through an exercise like this and [Bill Clinton] doesn’t as he is far more conflicted every single day in what he does?” Band later raised a Hillary Clinton with even worse “issues.”

In the meantime, Abedin (who is generally viewed as Hillary Clinton’s closest aide) authored a startling email that suggested a type of quid pro quo by Hillary Clinton in a foundation trade-off with Morocco for $12 million commitment to meet with the King of Morocco. The critical memo came in January 2015 with two top advisers Podesta and Robby Mook. It appeared that after cutting the deal for the money, Clinton had gotten cold feet due to the election. Abedin wrote that “this was HRC’s idea” and “she created this mess and she knows it.” It was decided that Hillary Clinton who go to campaign in Nevada and California while they had Bill and Chelsea meet with the Moroccans. Morocco at the time was under great pressure for what the U.S. government denounced as “arbitrary arrests and corruption.”

The last presidential debate with moderator Chris Wallace was the first to seriously probe allegations of a “pay to play” scheme associated with the Foundation. Clinton did not respond directly to the allegations but these emails are likely to magnify the concerns in the final weeks of the campaign.

Huma Abedin Attacked Mainstream Jewish Group

October 7, 2016

Huma Abedin Attacked Mainstream Jewish Group, Power Line, Paul Mirengoff, October 7, 2016

Hillary kissing Suha Arafat, who accused Israel of genocide in her presence, and chewing out Bibi Netanyahu for 45 minutes would be cause for concern even if Huma Abedin had never met Mrs. Clinton. But with Abedin at her side, the concern must be all the more pronounced.

************************

Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s increasingly notorious confidante and top aide, urged Bill Clinton to reject an invitation to speak before the American Israel Public Affairs Council (AIPAC). In an email, she wrote: “u really want to consider sending him into that crowd?” (Emphasis added)

From her use of the phrase “that crowd,” you might think that AIPAC is a radical organization that advocates ethnic cleansing or some other draconian “solution” to the problems of the Middle East. In reality, of course, AIPAC, is as mainstream a Jewish political organization as exists.

“That crowd” consists of American Jews of all political persuasions. “That crowd” routinely gives standing ovations to speakers from the Obama administrations, whose prescriptions for the Middle East, formulated by President Obama and Clinton herself, hardly tilt against the Palestinians.

To refer to attendees of AIPAC meeting as “that crowd” confirms the depth of Abedin’s anti-Israeli bias.

That bias has long been suspected. Abedin was raised in Saudi Arabia by a family with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. As Richard Pollock reminds us, her parents ran the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs.

Mr. Abdein’s benefactor was Abdullah Omar Naseef, secretary general of the Muslim World League (MWL). The U.S. Department of the Treasury designated Rabita Trust, a subsidiary of the MWL, as a terrorist entity. Osama bin Laden credited MWL as a funding source after the 9/11 attacks.

When Abedin was at the State Department, I tended not to view her potential to influence U.S. policy towards Israel with as much alarm as some did. Given what I’ve since learned about Abedin’s extraordinary relationship with Hillary Clinton and what we now know about her contempt for AIPAC, I tend to view her potential to influence U.S. policy towards Israel in a Clinton administration with panic.

I wonder, though, how much influencing would be required of Abedin. Hillary Clinton is no friend of Israel, in my view.

Arguably, U.S. policy has never been more hostile towards Israel than during President Obama’s first term, when Clinton was Secretary of State. And I’ve never been able to forgetHillary’s get together with Suha Arafat in the late 1990s. It included a shopping trip, a kiss, and the refusal of Clinton to counter Mrs. Arafat’s claim, made in Hillary’s presence, that Israel was using poison gas to pollute the West Bank’s water and land.

Hillary kissing Suha Arafat, who accused Israel of genocide in her presence, and chewing out Bibi Netanyahu for 45 minutes would be cause for concern even if Huma Abedin had never met Mrs. Clinton. But with Abedin at her side, the concern must be all the more pronounced.

Is America Ready For Hillary Clinton’s ‘Shariah Advisor’ In The White House?

October 2, 2016

Is America Ready For Hillary Clinton’s ‘Shariah Advisor’ In The White House? Investors Business Daily, September 30, 2016

(Please see also, Huma Abedin: Will She Repudiate Family’s Islamist Views? — DM)

guest-abedin-093016-apHuma 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.

Huma Abedin: Will She Repudiate Family’s Islamist Views?

October 2, 2016

Huma 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)

humaabedinhillaryclintonhp_3Huma 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.

Daddy’s Issues

September 28, 2016

Daddy’s Issues, Washington Free Beacon, September 28, 2016

(Even if Hillarys’ top aide Huma Abedin, like the Islamic State, has “nothing to do with Islam,” the article provides insights into the thinking of those who do. — DM)

abedin

Syed Abedin, the father of top Hillary Clinton aide Huma, outlined his view of Sharia law and how the Western world has turned Muslims “hostile” during a wide-ranging video interview that shines newfound light on the reclusive thinker’s world views, according to footage exclusively obtained by theWashington Free Beacon.

Abedin, a Muslim scholar who was tied to the Saudi Arabian government until his death in 1993, has remained somewhat of a mystery as the media turns its eye to his daughter Huma, a top Clinton campaign aide who recently announced her separation from husband Anthony Weiner following his multiple sex scandals.

Syed Abedin explained his views on the Muslim world and spread of Islam during a 1971 interview titled The World of Islam, which was first broadcast on Western Michigan University television.

pic2

Abedin said that Arab states must police the upholding of Sharia, or Islamic law, and explained why the majority of Muslims view Israel and the Western world in primarily “hostile” terms.

The video provides a window into the Abedin family’s ideology, which has been marred by accusations it is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Abedin, who was then a professor in the university’s college of general studies, said that Western intervention in the Arab world has sparked a backlash among many faithful Muslims.

“The response to the West has been of two kinds,” Abedin said. “By and large the response has taken more of a hostile form.”

“The first impulse of the average Muslim in the Islamic world is that this kind of borrowing [culturally] would be somehow an alien factor into our social fabric and thereby destroying the integrity of our ethos … the integrity of our culture,” he added.

In a separate discussion on the state’s role in a person’s life, Abedin said it is necessary to police the application of Sharia law.

“The state has to take over” as Muslim countries evolve, he argued. “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.”

humadady

“Suspicion” runs rampant in the Muslim world, Abedin said, citing it as a reason why Western governing values have not been quickly adopted in the region.

“In the contemporary Islamic world, religious leadership is of very crucial significance because any change that will be abiding, that will make any positive contribution to the development of Muslim life, must come from that source, and that is one reason why ideologies like socialism or communism that have been introduced into the Muslim world have never really taken root,” Abedin said. “They have always been considered as foreign importations. … It’s a kind of suspicion.”

Abedin also discussed the clash between modernity and the Islamic world.

“When you talk of an Islamic state … does it have to have a caliph?” he asked. “What does it mean? What is the Islamic concept of good in the present day world?”

Any cultural change, Abedin concluded, will have to be validated by the tenets of Islam.

“The main dynamics of life in the Islamic world are still supplied by Islam,” he said. “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 views on religion have become a central topic among those who have questioned Clinton’s choice to elevate Human Abedin into such a prominent role.

The Abedins helped create the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, a publication accused of having ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and of promoting a hardline Islamic ideology.

Huma Abedin served as an assistant editor of the journal for 12 years and also played a role in its offshoot, the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, a think-tank established in Saudi Arabia by an accused financier of the al Qaeda terror group, according to the Jerusalem Post.

FBI Dump Reveals Obama’s Pseudonym Use, Private Email Traffic with Hillary’s Private Email

September 24, 2016

FBI Dump Reveals Obama’s Pseudonym Use, Private Email Traffic with Hillary’s Private Email

by Neil W. McCabe

23 Sep 2016Washington

Source: FBI Dump Reveals Obama’s Pseudonym Use, Private Email Traffic with Hillary’s Private Email – Breitbart

Is it possible that it goes crazier than this, only if the tell us that the aliens from mars are coming !

The Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed Friday that President Barack Obama used a private email address and pseudonym to communicate with Democratic presidential nominee Hillary R. Clinton and her own private email account as early as June 2012.

Posted at the FBI’s Vault site, the revelation was part of a 189-page document dump of interview notes from conversations its agents conducted about how Clinton handled classified electronic correspondence, other documents, and her private email scheme during her tenure as secretary of State.

Clinton confidante Huma Abedin was interviewed April 5, 2016 in a meeting in the FBI’s Washington field office with FBI agents, her attorneys, and a representative from the Department of Justice’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Office.

During the interview Abedin was showed a June 28, 2012 email sent to Clinton with the subject header “Re: Congratulations!

The Supreme Court ruled that day that the president’s landmark healthcare reform legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, was not unconstitutional.

Abedin told the FBI she had no idea who the email’s sender was and when agents told her it was the president’s pseudonym, she exclaimed: “How is this not classified?”

The confidante also told the agents that the president’s official email account had filters, so that certain emails could not get through to him–which came to her attention because when the former first lady changed private email accounts, her emails were bounced from the president’s official email account.

In addition to the news that the president, like many other members of his administration, used a fake name and his own private email account, it also means that Obama’s public statements about Clinton’s email arrangement were contrary to his own working knowledge and experience.

Obama told CBS News March 7, 2015 that he did not know about Clinton’s private email while she was his secretary of state from Jan. 21, 2009 to Feb. 1, 2013.

Q: Mr. President, when did you first learn that Hillary Clinton used an email system outside the U.S. government for official business while she was secretary of state?

Obama: The same time everybody else learned it through news reports.

In March 2013, The Smoking Gun website posted an article describing Clinton’s private email scheme, but it was not until The New York Times reported March 2, 2015 a full description of how Clinton used not only a private email address, but also a private server, and used this setup for all of her official electronic correspondence when she led State.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest walked back the president’s outright denial March 9:

The president was referring specifically to the arrangement associated with Secretary Clinton’s email. Yes, the president was aware of her email address. He traded emails with her. That shouldn’t be a surprise that the president of the United States is going to trade emails with the secretary of state. But the president was not aware of the fact that this was a personal email server and that this was the email address that she was using exclusively for all her business. The president was not aware of that until that had been more widely reported.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton discussing the Weekly Update. 9-2-16

September 2, 2016

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton discussing the Weekly Update. 9-2-16, Judicial Watch via YouTube, September 2, 2016