PDA

View Full Version : Bachmann: Letter on Clinton aide was 'distorted'



Janice
07-19-2012, 07:48 AM
http://i.imgur.com/H9ZWm.jpg

Bachmann: Letter on Clinton aide was 'distorted'

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said a letter she and colleagues sent about an aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is "being distorted."

She issued the statement shortly after Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) took to the Senate floor to criticize her for claiming Huma Abedin, Clinton's longtime aide and the wife of former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), is an infiltrator for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Bachmann did not acknowledge McCain's remarks in her defense of the letter she and four other House Republicans sent.

"The letters my colleagues and I sent on June 13 to the Inspectors General of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and the Department of State ... are unfortunately being distorted," Bachmann said.

Bachmann, alongside GOP Reps. Trent Franks (Ariz.), Louie Gohmert (Texas), Tom Roomey (Fla.), and Lynn Westmoreland (Ga.), issued a letter suggesting Abedin and some of her relatives are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood.

She did not mention McCain or Abedin in her statement.

"The intention of the letters was to outline the serious national security concerns I had and ask for answers to questions regarding the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical group’s access to top Obama administration officials," Bachmann.

Bachmann said the State Department and White House had been making "dangerous national security decisions" by letting known terrorists into the country.

"I will not be silent as this administration appeases our enemies instead of telling the truth about the threats our country faces."

In the letter, which the lawmakers sent on June 13, they write about information they claim "raises serious questions about Department of State policies and activities that appear to be a result of influence operations conducted by individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood."

They go on to point out that Abedin "has three family members — her late father, her mother, and her brother — connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations," adding that Abedin's position "affords her routine access to the secretary and to policy-making."

TheHillBlog (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/238721-bachmann-responds-to-mccain-speech-the-letter-is-being-distorted)

----------------------------------------

Huma is not the subject of the letter, but merely an example of where the Inspector General can start in performing his job. The subject of the letter is the unusual quantity of support our government and State Department is lending to terrorists – which are factual. The letter requests that the I.G. investigate why (citing figures) we are giving aid to terrorists and allowing them into our country to conduct social jihad.

And given that Huma's boss is simpatico with Palestinians in a great big way, muzzie allegiances is almost a resume enhancement with the kook fringe 'leaders' on the left now. Bachmann is right to question the Clinton-Abedin agenda.

Note that McCain attacks Bachmann (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/mccain-defends-clinton-aide-huma-abedin-against-house-gop-charges-of-muslim-brotherhood-scheme/) for broaching the subject, he doesnt specify how she is wrong in her facts about the connection to the Muslim Brotherhood. Has McCain even read the letter? Or is he just hoping to get good press by attacking his own party, specifically conservatives? Thanks for your military service John but please go away now. Or join the democrat party and end the confusion.

noonwitch
07-19-2012, 09:15 AM
Her letters have not been misinterpreted by the media. She did attack Huma in them and accused her of being an infiltrater for the Muslim Brotherhood and offered no real proof of her accusation.

If Bachman can prove what she is alleging, she should do so. Otherwise, she shouldn't make such serious allegations against Huma.

JB
07-19-2012, 11:17 AM
...accused her of being an infiltrater for the Muslim BrotherhoodCan you cut and paste those accusations, from the letter?

AmPat
07-19-2012, 11:22 AM
Her letters have not been misinterpreted by the media. She did attack Huma in them and accused her of being an infiltrater for the Muslim Brotherhood and offered no real proof of her accusation.

If Bachman can prove what she is alleging, she should do so. Otherwise, she shouldn't make such serious allegations against Huma.
Sounds great. Do you think the Marxist in the WH would agree when calling Romney a felon?

Odysseus
07-19-2012, 11:47 AM
Her letters have not been misinterpreted by the media. She did attack Huma in them and accused her of being an infiltrater for the Muslim Brotherhood and offered no real proof of her accusation.

If Bachman can prove what she is alleging, she should do so. Otherwise, she shouldn't make such serious allegations against Huma.

Abedin's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood have been well documented in open sources, and she has never denied them. Bachmann's request was that the agencies explain whether they conducted the same background check on her that they routinely do for anyone with a security clearance. Given the fact that MAJ Nidal Hasan had a Secret clearance prior to his shooting spree at FT Hood, it's not a frivolous question. Robert Spencer wrote at length on the subject:



Huma Abedin and the Muslim Brotherhood: Bachmann vs. McCain

Posted on
[/URL]

[URL="http://counterjihadreport.com/2012/07/19/huma-abedin-and-the-muslim-brotherhood-bachmann-vs-mccain/"]July 19, 2012 (http://counterjihadreport.com/2012/07/19/huma-abedin-and-the-muslim-brotherhood-bachmann-vs-mccain/) by lburt (http://counterjihadreport.com/author/leslieburt/)


http://counterjihadnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/huma-abedin2.jpg?w=584 (http://counterjihadnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/huma-abedin2.jpg)
By Robert Spencer:

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is at the center of a firestorm over her request that the State, Homeland Security, Defense and Justice Departments, investigate (http://www.sctimes.com/article/20120710/NEWS01/307100003/Bachmann-warns-Muslim-Brotherhood) potential “policies and activities that appear to be the result of influence operations conducted by individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.” This is an entirely legitimate call, as Bachmann abundantly illustrated in a 16-page letter (http://www.scribd.com/doc/100244266/Bachmann-Letter-Responding-to-Ellison) to Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN), laying out the reasons for her concerns. Yet even Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who should know better, has upbraided Bachmann, criticizing her for including Hillary Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin, among those she noted for having Brotherhood ties.

McCain declared in a statement on the Senate floor (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/john-mccain-defends-huma-abedin-against-accusations-shes-part-of-conspiracy/2012/07/18/gJQAFpxntW_blog.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics) that “recently, it has been alleged that Huma, a Muslim American, is part of a nefarious conspiracy to harm the United States by unduly influencing U.S. foreign policy at the Department of State in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist causes.”

McCain, brimming with righteous indignation, thundered: “These sinister accusations rest solely on a few unspecified and unsubstantiated associations of members of Huma’s family, none of which have been shown to harm or threaten the United States in any way. These attacks on Huma have no logic, no basis, and no merit. And they need to stop now.”

He explained that the letter Bachmann and several other Representatives sent asking for an investigation into Muslim Brotherhood influence in the government “alleges that three members of Huma’s family are ‘connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations.’ Never mind that one of those individuals, Huma’s father, passed away two decades ago.”

However, in her letter to Ellison, Bachmann explained that much more was behind her concern about Abedin than guilt-by-association based on family members: “The concerns about the foreign influence of immediate family members is such a concern to the U.S. Government that it includes these factors as potentially disqualifying conditions for obtaining a security clearance, which undoubtedly Ms. Abedin has had to obtain to function in her position. For us to raise issues about a highly-based U.S. Government official with known immediate family connections to foreign extremist organizations is not a question of singling out Ms. Abedin. In fact, these questions are raised by the U.S. Government of anyone seeking a security clearance.”

And in Abedin’s case, there are ample reasons for raising these questions. Her father, Syed Z. Abedin, was a professor in Saudi Arabia who founded the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, an organization supported by the Muslim World League, a Brotherhood organization. Her mother, Saleha Mahmoud Abedin, is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood (http://www.wnd.com/2011/06/312497/), the Brotherhood’s adjunct organization for women. The Brotherhood itself is in its own words, according to a captured internal document (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1235), dedicated to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house.”

All that leaves McCain unmoved, for he goes on to assert that “the letter and the report offer not one instance of an action, a decision, or a public position that Huma has taken while at the State Department that would lend credence to the charge that she is promoting anti-American activities within our government. Nor does either document offer any evidence of a direct impact that Huma may have had on one of the U.S. policies with which the authors of the letter and the producers of the report find fault.”

However, it is odd that McCain would expect Bachmann to produce the outcome of an investigation before any investigation has even taken place. As Bachmann noted, “these questions are raised by the U.S. Government of anyone seeking a security clearance.” So why should Huma Abedin be exempt? Would an official who had family connections with the Ku Klux Klan or the Aryan Nations be similarly exempt from scrutiny? If not, why should someone with familial connections to a group dedicated to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within”?

As Bachmann pointed out in her letter to Ellison, the Muslim Brotherhood ties of Abedin’s mother, father and brother have never been a secret, and have long been noted in the international press. Abedin herself has never publicly distanced herself from the Brotherhood, or explained how her worldview or her vision of Islam differ from that of her parents or brother. So by what moral calculus can it possibly be “sinister,” as McCain put it, to ask that Abedin be subjected to the same scrutiny that would be focused upon anyone seeking a security clearance that would allow access to sensitive material comparable to that which she enjoys?
http://counterjihadreport.com/2012/07/19/huma-abedin-and-the-muslim-brotherhood-bachmann-vs-mccain/




If we're not even allowed to ask these questions, then we might as well start ponying up the jizya. We're already dhimmis.

Starbuck
07-19-2012, 12:09 PM
..............McCain, brimming with righteous indignation, thundered:..............
McCain can "thunder"? Who knew?:biggrin-new:

Spin it, Oh, MSN! Spin it!

JB
07-19-2012, 12:29 PM
The Brotherhood itself is in its own words, according to a captured internal document, dedicated to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house.”Forget that the Brotherhood said it. The US government said it and acknowledges it.

Does the chick Huma have a clearance or not? With that kind of access to the Secretary of State I would hope she has something a little better than even Secret.

And speaking of Hillary, I'm thinking it's time for some treason charges based on her actions in that letter.

AmPat
07-19-2012, 01:02 PM
Hey McLame? Shut up and go away already.

Odysseus
07-19-2012, 01:47 PM
McCain can "thunder"? Who knew?:biggrin-new:
Anyone who's ever sat next to him in the Senate cafeteria on Burrito Fiesta Friday. :evil-grin:

Political appointees get the same background checks that we do, but the ultimate arbiter of who gets a clearance is the President, just as he's the ultimate authority on what remains classified. So, if Huma's background check came back with something questionable, his office had the option of overriding it and granting the clearance anyway. If a waiver was granted, then the committee would have a right to know, although we would not (it's Privacy Act information, and anyone releasing it would be subject to legal action).

noonwitch
07-19-2012, 02:30 PM
Anyone who's ever sat next to him in the Senate cafeteria on Burrito Fiesta Friday. :evil-grin:

Political appointees get the same background checks that we do, but the ultimate arbiter of who gets a clearance is the President, just as he's the ultimate authority on what remains classified. So, if Huma's background check came back with something questionable, his office had the option of overriding it and granting the clearance anyway. If a waiver was granted, then the committee would have a right to know, although we would not (it's Privacy Act information, and anyone releasing it would be subject to legal action).


Burrito Fiesta Friday. LOL.


Exactly, as far as the rest of the argument is concerned. Huma is an American citizen who is a muslim. Some of her relatives may have had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood in their lifetimes, but she personally has not-unless Bachman has some information to the contrary that came from a legitimate source, and she apparantly does not have that.

I know McCain is not liked much these days among conservatives, but some of the things he is hated for are the very things that make him a decent person. One of those qualities is that he gets visibly uncomfortable when fanatics start saying crazy things, even if those fanatics are his own supporters.

Chuck58
07-19-2012, 03:06 PM
McCain is a miserable, nasty, hotheaded SOB.

I recall him back in the 1990's, during kerry the Traitor's Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs.

We met him and tried to talk to him about the committee and present evidence and our positions on the possibility of POW's still being alive in SE Asia. He blew up and essentially called us liars, unpatriotic and rumor mongers among other things.

Then, the Traitor, kerry, said later that there might be "a couple of hundred" men left there. So what? "What do you want us to do, go back to war for a few hundred men?"

Well, no, just don't normalize relations until they're accounted for.

McCain, a former POW signed off on the committee findings, which totally disregarded numerous eyewitness sightings of living POW's. American troops we had left behind.

Only Senator Grassley and former Sen Bob Smith (NH) refused to go along with the findings. To this day, unfortunately, neither can talk about the committee.

*rant off*

Janice
07-19-2012, 04:33 PM
One of those qualities is that he gets visibly uncomfortable when fanatics start saying crazy things, even if those fanatics are his own supporters.

Actually he is more inclined to get 'visibly uncomfortable' when its 'fanatics saying crazy things' from his own party, not the dems. If he applied this to dems he would be hard pressed to be anything but 'visibly uncomfortable' for his entire tenure.

I say he should just switch partys and be done with it. But he wont. The media doesnt care so much about dems who go off on reps as much as they do when reps go off on reps. Its a win-win for a rino media whore who happens to harbor a chip on his shoulder for conservatives anyway.

Odysseus
07-19-2012, 10:37 PM
Burrito Fiesta Friday. LOL.


Exactly, as far as the rest of the argument is concerned. Huma is an American citizen who is a muslim. Some of her relatives may have had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood in their lifetimes, but she personally has not-unless Bachman has some information to the contrary that came from a legitimate source, and she apparantly does not have that.

I know McCain is not liked much these days among conservatives, but some of the things he is hated for are the very things that make him a decent person. One of those qualities is that he gets visibly uncomfortable when fanatics start saying crazy things, even if those fanatics are his own supporters.

Nidal Hasan is an American citizen. He also had a security clearance because the FBI was too PC to investigate him when he was trading e-mails with a jihadi cleric, lecturing his peers on the merits of terrorists and suicide bombers and otherwise setting himself as the poster child for jihad. The point is that we vet everyone, no matter what. Huma Abedin's close familial ties to members of the Muslim Brotherhood should have set of all sorts of alarm bells when she was appointed to the State Department, and if they didn't, then we have a serious problem. OTOH, if she was vetted and passed, then the agencies just have to say that and we're done. However, Bachmann had every right to ask the questions, and the hysterically outraged response tells me that there may be something to her concerns.

NJCardFan
07-19-2012, 10:57 PM
On the flip side, say someone wanted clearance but who's family has ties to the Freemen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Freemen). Do you think clearance would be given?

Unreconstructed Reb
07-20-2012, 10:18 AM
" adding that Abedin's position "affords her routine access to the secretary and to policy-making."

That's the crux of it. She's got known ties to the muzzie brotherhood and she sleeps with Hitlary.

Now, the left wing loonies will bring up ol' Tailgunner Joe and rise up in righteous indignation at this latest 'witch hunt', but, after all, Ol' Joe was right and we need look no further than the Oval Office to know that.

And to Juan McCain: You Lost! Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform.

AmPat
07-20-2012, 01:28 PM
Burrito Fiesta Friday. LOL.


Exactly, as far as the rest of the argument is concerned. Huma is an American citizen who is a muslim. Some of her relatives may have had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood in their lifetimes, but she personally has not-unless Bachman has some information to the contrary that came from a legitimate source, and she apparantly does not have that.

I know McCain is not liked much these days among conservatives, but some of the things he is hated for are the very things that make him a decent person. One of those qualities is that he gets visibly uncomfortable when fanatics start saying crazy things, even if those fanatics are his own supporters."These days?" McLame hasn't been liked by Conservatives for many years. He was tolerated in an attempt to prevent the Marxist-racist takeover of the WH. He isn't "liked" by Conservatives. McLame's propensity for caving to Libertards doesn't make him a "decent" person, it makes him a coward and/or closet liberal.


Can you cut and paste those accusations, from the letter?
Still waiting,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,crickets,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,

Bachmann's letter has questions that reasonable Americans would want answered.

Janice
07-25-2012, 01:06 AM
http://i.imgur.com/jajD0.png
The RINO bros ride again ...

Huma Abedin and the Muslim Brotherhood: Closely Connected

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.

Here are four things, among many, that we now know:



1. Huma Abedin’s mother, Dr. Saleha S. Mahmood Abedin (hereafter, Saleha Abedin), is an influential member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s division for women, the Muslim Sisterhood. She is also a zealous advocate of sharia law’s oppression of women — which McCain himself condemned in a 2011 interview with Der Spiegel.

2. Not only that: Saleha Abedin is a board member of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief. The IICDR has been long banned in Israel for supporting Hamas. It is also part of the Union for Good, which is a formally designated international terrorist organization under federal law. The Union for Good is led by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the chief sharia jurist of the Muslim Brotherhood. He is the world’s most influential Islamic cleric, and has issued fatwas endorsing suicide bombings against Israel and terrorist attacks against American forces in Iraq.

3. Moreover, it turns out that Huma Abedin herself was, until late 2008, a member of another of her mother’s Islamist organizations, the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs. >>>

4. Furthermore, Huma Abedin’s brother, Hassan Abedin, besides also being part of the IMMA, was a fellow at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies. On the board at the Oxford Center when Hassan Abedin was a fellow were the aforementioned Brotherhood heavyweights and terror promoters, Sheikh Qaradawi and Abdullah Omar Naseef.



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. >>>

Saleha Abedin, like her late husband, is an academic. She is also a member of the Muslim Brotherhood — specifically, of its women’s division, the Muslim Sisterhood. Shoebat explains that Sisterhood members include the wives and some other female relatives of high-ranking Brotherhood members. >>>

Michele Bachmann and her four conservative House colleagues — Louie Gohmert, Trent Franks, Lynn Westmorland and Tom Rooney — have called for a serious vetting of government officials who may have Muslim Brotherhood ties. Obviously, it is much needed in light of the Brotherhood’s hostility to America, promotion of terrorism, and propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology. Yet, the Obama administration and the Left are obstructing such a vetting — with strong assistance from Republican leadership in Congress. What is going on here is classic misdirection: While everyone is focused on Huma Abedin and the demagoguing of Michele Bachmann, no one seems to be noticing that the administration — with GOP leadership’s apparent approval — is serially aligning American government policy with Muslim Brotherhood priorities.

Senator McCain is probably hopeless. But perhaps Speaker Boehner and Chairman Rogers could find a way to attack the Muslim Brotherhood rather than their conservative colleagues. Just a thought.

PJMedia (http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2012/07/24/huma-abedin-and-the-muslim-brotherhood-closely-connected/)

I guess it shouldnt be too surprising that Boehner and Mike Rogers have now joined that useless tool of the left, McPain. Has anyone announced a primary challenge to this weasel Boehner? There are just so many real leaders that could fill those spineless shoes. Mark Levin asked a question of Boehner: "Does he stand with the Muslim Brotherhood, or stand with Michele Bachmann" ? - Good question.

Support Michele Bachmann here. (https://support.michelebachmann.com/donate/?initiativekey=EWLISPYXF8TS)

txradioguy
07-25-2012, 07:12 AM
Her letters have not been misinterpreted by the media. She did attack Huma in them and accused her of being an infiltrater for the Muslim Brotherhood and offered no real proof of her accusation.

If Bachman can prove what she is alleging, she should do so. Otherwise, she shouldn't make such serious allegations against Huma.

So...how's it coming on finding a link to the letter where it shows what you stated above as JB asked about?

Or are you hoping we had just forgotten about that?

Janice
07-25-2012, 08:13 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CduEU80QvkQ

Newt Gingrich defends Bachmann and others asking questions about Muslim Brotherhood and Huma Abedin

Newt Gingrich told Politico that the questions raised by Michele Bachmann and the other 4 GOP Congressmen about the Muslim Brotherhood and Huma Abedin are valid and worth investigating. He also says the attacks against Bachmann and others coming from Boehner and the GOP leadership are wrong and suggested the elite culture in Washington is far too politically correct.

RightScoop (http://www.therightscoop.com/newt-gingrich-defends-bachmann-and-others-asking-questions-about-muslim-brotherhood-and-huma-abedin/)

Gingrich said "the level of hysteria attacking these five members of Congress," including another former presidential hopeful, Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, indicates there's something going on. He also said no one in the "elite culture" in the United States was prepared to cope with radical Islam .... We have nobody in our elites who is prepared to come to grips with this because it violates the fundamental norm of our elites, which is everything is negotiable."

Unreconstructed Reb
07-25-2012, 11:53 AM
"it violates the fundamental norm of our elites, which is everything is negotiable."

Including our liberty, our Constitution and even the country.

We are not going to win as a free people until we return Washington to it's Constitutionally defined limitations.

Janice
07-25-2012, 12:10 PM
"it violates the fundamental norm of our elites, which is everything is negotiable."

Including our liberty, our Constitution and even the country.

We are not going to win as a free people until we return Washington to it's Constitutionally defined limitations.

Notice that statement is the foundation for the existence of our present day State Department, if Im not mistaken. To hell with what is in our nations best interest in the final analysis. The dont want black and white. They want "grey". So that they can "negotiate" ... "everything".

Eupher
07-25-2012, 01:27 PM
Nidal Hasan is an American citizen. He also had a security clearance because the FBI was too PC to investigate him when he was trading e-mails with a jihadi cleric, lecturing his peers on the merits of terrorists and suicide bombers and otherwise setting himself as the poster child for jihad. The point is that we vet everyone, no matter what. Huma Abedin's close familial ties to members of the Muslim Brotherhood should have set of all sorts of alarm bells when she was appointed to the State Department, and if they didn't, then we have a serious problem. OTOH, if she was vetted and passed, then the agencies just have to say that and we're done. However, Bachmann had every right to ask the questions, and the hysterically outraged response tells me that there may be something to her concerns.

the hysterically outraged response is yet another full-blown example of how PC has infested our logic, our rationale, and our methodologies. Based on this, we're really not that far away from dhimmiland.

Or maybe we can just become another colony of Great Britain again. They have PC for jihadis and muzzies down to a science.

Odysseus
07-25-2012, 04:24 PM
Andrew McCarthy, former the US Attorney who prosecuted the blind sheikh for the first WTC bombing, puts this in perspective at PJ Media:


Here are two salient facts. Once you grasp them, you’ll know everything you need to know to understand the rest of the dispute:



(a) Not all Islamic supremacists (or “Islamists”) are violent, but the goal of all Islamic supremacists is the same: to coerce the acceptance of sharia. The methods of pursuing that goal vary: sometimes terrorism is used, sometimes non-violent avenues are exploited — meaning, Islamic supremacists co-opt legal processes, the media, educational institutions, and/or government agencies. But regardless of what methods an Islamic supremacist uses, his goal never changes: He aims to implement sharia. In Islamic supremacist ideology, sharia is regarded as the mandatory, non-negotiable foundation that must be laid before a society can be Islamized. Sharia is not “moderate”; therefore, you are not a “moderate” if you want it, no matter what method you use to implement it. For example, if you are an Islamic supremacist and you want to repeal the First Amendment in order to prohibit speech that casts Islam in a negative light, you are not a “moderate” — even if you wouldn’t blow up buildings to press your point.

(b) Islamic supremacism is not a fringe interpretation of Islam. It is probably still the minority interpretation in North America. Nevertheless, it is the predominant interpretation of Islam in the Middle East. Poll after poll shows us that upwards of two-thirds of Muslims in countries like Egypt and Pakistan want their governments to adopt and strictly enforce sharia. This is why the Islamic supremacist parties in the “Arab Spring” countries are currently enjoying such success in elections


With that as background, understand that in the aforementioned 1995 trial, we proved that the reason the Blind Sheikh was able to run a terrorist organization — despite the fact that his physical infirmities rendered him incapable of performing any physical acts that would be useful to terrorists — was his globally renowned mastery of Islamic law. Omar Abdel Rahman is not a nut suffering from a psychological disorder. He has a doctorate in Islamic jurisprudence, earned by graduating with distinction from al-Azhar University in Cairo, the legendary seat of sharia scholarship since the Tenth Century. When he preached that Muslims were obligated to force non-sharia governments to adopt sharia, by terrorism if necessary, he drew these instructions directly from Islamic scripture, and his instructions had extraordinary persuasive force precisely because he was, undeniably, an internationally recognized authority on Islamic jurisprudence. The government would have you to believe Barack Obama or George Bush or Hillary Clinton or John McCain or Condi Rice or Janet Reno knows more about Islam and its sharia than Omar Abdel Rahman does. That is ludicrous.

We seemed to get that 20 years ago, but observe the measure of how far off-course we’ve drifted:



(a) In 1995, we demonstrated that (i) the Blind Sheikh was attempting to impose sharia, (ii) that he drew directly and accurately from Islamic scripture his instructions that Muslims must impose sharia, by violence if necessary, and (iii) his Muslim followers were animated by these instructions to push for the imposition of sharia standards, using terrorist attacks, among other methods. That was the crux our our case. For proving this in federal court, the Clinton Justice Department honored my colleagues and me with the attorney general’s highest award.

(b) Today, by contrast, for doing exactly the same thing — namely, for arguing that an authoritative interpretation of Islam directs adherents to impose sharia, by violence if necessary, in order to lay the groundwork for changing a non-Islamic society into an Islamic society — I am routinely accused of promoting hatred and “Islamophobia.” Such accusations, applied to assertions of what used to be seen as fact, do not come only from the Obama Left (including its Clinton administration veterans — the State Department, run by Hillary Clinton, and the Justice Department run by Eric Holder, Clinton’s deputy attorney general). The smears are echoed, and in many cases led, by prominent members of the Republican establishment.


I haven’t changed. The threat against us hasn’t changed. The government has changed.

The Obama administration and the Republican establishment would have us live a lie — a lie that endangers our liberties and our security. The lie is this: There is a difference between mainstream Islamic ideology and what they call “violent extremism.”

The vogue term “violent extremism” is chosen very deliberately. To be sure, we’ve always bent over backwards to be politically correct. Until Obama came to power, we used to use terms like “violent jihadism” or “Islamic extremism” in order to make sure everyone knew that we were not condemning all of Islam, that we were distinguishing Muslim terrorists from other Muslims. (In a more sensible time, we did not say “German Nazis” — we said “Germans” or “Nazis” and put the burden on non-Nazi Germans, rather than on ourselves, to separate themselves from the aggressors.) But now, the Obama administration and the Republican establishment prefer to say “violent extremism” because this term has no hint of Islam.

According to the Obama Left and the Republican establishment (personified today by the likes of Sen. John McCain and many, but by no means all, former high-ranking officials from the Bush 43 administration), the only Muslims we need to be concerned about are terrorists, and there is nothing relevant in the fact that they happen to be Muslims. “Violent extremists” are not motivated by a coherent ideology, much less by scriptures from “one of the world’s great religions.” Instead, they are seized by a psychological disorder that inexplicably makes them prone to mass-murder attacks.

The fall-out from this line of thinking is that we must conclude mainstream Islam, everywhere on earth including the Middle East, has nothing to do with violence, and therefore, it is “moderate,” and even “admirable.” Sure, it may be advocating the adoption of something called “sharia,” but we needn’t worry about that. After all, we have Western scholars of Islamic studies (mostly working in university departments created by lavish donations from Saudi royals) who will tell you that sharia is amorphous and evolving — such that nobody really knows exactly what it is, anyway. Consequently, nothing to see here, move along. You are to accept as an article of faith that there is no reason to believe people steeped in mainstream Islam will resist real democracy or that they will remain hostile to the United States. And, yeah, sure they are opposed to Israel, but that is just a “political dispute” about “territory”; it has nothing to do with ideology or mainstream Islam per se.

http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2012/07/23/the-wages-of-willful-blindness-is-it-time-for-defenders-of-liberty-to-abandon-the-gop/?singlepage=true
He goes on at length about the nature of the threat from the Muslim Brotherhood, but the critical point is that anyone associated with it is an enemy of the west, in general, and the United States, specifically. If Huma Abedin is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, then she should not be associated with our State Department.

Janice
07-26-2012, 08:17 PM
http://i.imgur.com/NA2EA.jpg

Bachmann vs. Rogers?

As I reported earlier today, there are tensions between allies of Representative Michele Bachmann and several top Republicans, including Speaker John Boehner.

All week, conservative talk-radio hosts have buzzed about Bachmann being under fire from party leaders for this letter about Huma Abedin and the Muslim Brotherhood. GOP leadership aides, for their part, have strenuously denied that Boehner threatened Bachmann with losing her intelligence-committee seat, or in any other way.

But in a conversation today, a source close to Bachmann told me that the real tension is not between Boehner and Bachmann but between Bachmann and Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan, the chairman of the intelligence committee. Per the source, Boehner has stayed out of the fray, and has not exerted any private pressure. But late last week, Rogers met with Bachmann. There are different accounts of the meeting. In one account, Rogers just urged her to publicly clarify her comments. A source in the Bachmann camp says he urged her to apologize.

MORE@NationalReview (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/312438/bachmann-vs-rogers-robert-costa)

----------------------------------------

Mark Levin just reported on this. He said that he was told (he could not give his source because they had not given permission) that Bachmann was in fact threatened with losing her intelligence committee seat, even though this article (which he quotes) says otherwise. We are in bigger trouble than we imagined. Even the RINO leadership is siding against us.

Janice
08-01-2012, 01:32 AM
Bachmann raises over $1M amid Muslim controversy

Rep. Michele Bachmann's allegations about a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton apparently did not prevent her from raking in some serious campaign cash.

The Minnesota Republican raised more than $1 million in 25 days during July, she announced today on Twitter.

Bachmann's haul came as she made headlines this month as one of five lawmakers calling for an investigation of alleged ties to Islamic extremists within the federal government. The GOP lawmakers had singled out Huma Abedin, Clinton's Muslim-American deputy chief of staff.

"I am so grateful to my generous and faithful supporters," Bachmann said in her tweet.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., House Speaker John Boehner and Ed Rollins, who managed Bachmann's presidential campaign, were among those who defended Abedin and her patriotism.

Bachmann has said the call for an investigation has been misconstrued. She said she and five GOP colleagues asked "for answers to questions regarding the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical group's access to top Obama administration officials."

USAToday (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/07/michele-bachmann-1-million-fundraising-huma-abedin-/1#.UBi913LNlOJ)

It appears that truth to the left, is like sunlight to vampires.

Novaheart
08-01-2012, 09:46 AM
[IMG]
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said a letter she and colleagues sent about an aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is "being distorted."

She is telling the truth: her letter and objective were grossly distorted. Actually, the press and her colleagues lied about it.


McCain attacks Bachmann for broaching the subject, he doesnt specify how she is wrong in her facts about the connection to the Muslim Brotherhood.

None of the people criticizing her for this said she was wrong or specified how she might be wrong. They all took the same approach : She's being racist/islamaphobic/whatever.

txradioguy
08-01-2012, 10:09 AM
From what I understand...the distortion came from a letter that Keith Ellison wrote...and some how made it appear that the smears about Houma had come from the 5 Republicans who had made the initial inquiry.

Novaheart
08-01-2012, 10:16 AM
From what I understand...the distortion came from a letter that Keith Ellison wrote...and some how made it appear that the smears about Houma had come from the 5 Republicans who had made the initial inquiry.

Despite the fact that some of them speak like field hands, can we not expect that these allegedly educated people are responsible for going into the discussing at least reasonably informed?

Sorry, this can't be lain at the feet of some jackass like Ellison- this to too pervasive and deliberate. It's right in there with people who insist on calling illegal aliens "undocumented immigrants", referring to SYG as "shoot first laws", and characterizing any intent to maintain the integrity of the American nation as racist, ethnocentric, or xenophobic.

txradioguy
08-01-2012, 10:25 AM
Despite the fact that some of them speak like field hands, can we not expect that these allegedly educated people are responsible for going into the discussing at least reasonably informed?

Yes they should. And the questions asked by the 5 Republicans are all legit and SHOULD be answered.

I mean...FFS they (the WH) let someone on the Federal terrorist watch list sit in on NSC breifings. Then demand the blind sheikh be released.

Over 200 meetings by a WH staffer with CAIR. And yet the person wanting to know why this happened is being excoriated as some kind of racist?

The professional/political left..a bunch inf beltway RINO's and fucking political correctness are setting this nation up for another 9/11.

And the peopel that can see it in D.C. and are trying to say something about it are being told to sit down and STFU.

It's criminal.

Janice
08-03-2012, 12:56 PM
http://i.imgur.com/sRE1C.jpg
Grand Mufti and Hitler (http://freeisraelnow.blogspot.com/2010/11/mufti-in-photos-nazism-arab-racism.html)

Why Are We Handing Muslim Extremists the House Keys?

Two weeks ago, I wrote about the handful of House Republicans, led by Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, who sent letters in June to inspectors general at five government departments, asking them to investigate evidence of Muslim Brotherhood influence on U.S. government policymaking. The Muslim Brotherhood is a global Islamic movement engaged, according to the group's own internal document, on a "grand jihad" in North America to destroy "Western civilization from within." To date, the inspectors general haven't responded.

Nonetheless, Bachmann and her colleagues -- Trent Franks of Arizona, Louie Gohmert of Texas, Tom Rooney of Florida and Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia -- have focused attention on the disastrous policy of bringing members of known Muslim Brotherhood fronts and their associates into Uncle Sam's policymaking chain. The representatives' letters went to inspectors general at State, Justice, Defense, Homeland Security and the Office of the National Intelligence Director. These government nerve centers are increasingly advancing policies American leaders once would have excoriated for supporting the enemies of this country.

Is it by chance, for example, that director of national intelligence James Clapper, reading from prepared notes, absurdly described the Muslim Brotherhood to the House Intelligence Committee last year as a "largely secular" organization? Is it an accident that in June the State Department issued a visa to Hani Nour Eldin of Egypt to meet with senior White House officials? Eldin is a member of Gama'a al-Islamiyya, a terrorist organization once led by Omar Abdel Rahman, "the blind sheikh" convicted of the first attack on the World Trade Center. In the person of Rahman's successor, Refai Ahmed Taha, the group is one of the five signatories of Osama bin Laden's February 1998 "World Islamic Front Statement Urging Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders." Isn't it imperative to review the policy mechanism that permitted a member of bin Laden's jihad front into the White House?

According to our elected officials, the answer is no. Not one House member, Democrat, Republican or tea party, has come out in solidarity with the National Security Five. Typically, the mainstream media have reacted not by digging up facts themselves (what are they, journalists?), but rather by throwing mud on Michele Bachmann. "Stop 'witch-hunting' Huma Abedin, top aide to Hillary Clinton," is the war cry from CNN to USA Today. Many conservative outlets, such as Fox and The Washington Examiner, are strangely silent.

To be sure, one of the Bachmann letters notes the case of Huma Abedin -- a confidante of the secretary of state whose family has dense ties to Muslim Brotherhood organizations. She has become the human face used to distract from the overarching national security issue. Honest answers to the wide array of questions the House members have asked would expose high elected officials in both parties as dupes of our enemies, at best. The American people would find out how Uncle Sam came to support al-Qaida in Libya; Muslim Brothers in Egypt; and, now, al-Qaida and Muslim Brothers in Syria. An honest investigation would spotlight the internal process that led Uncle Sam to sponsor a new international counterterrorism organization without Israel. The shameful fact is, our power-elites don't want these questions answered because the answers would threaten their hold on power.

Bachmann & Co. haven't alleged wrongdoing on Abedin's part. Rather, their question turns on the process that permitted a person with close family ties to an array of world Islamic movements and figures hostile to the United States to gain the security clearance Abedin requires to serve alongside the secretary of state.

I looked over the lengthy Form 86 that federal employees fill out to apply for national security positions. One portion is devoted to an applicant's relatives, with a question about relatives' affiliations with any "foreign movement." If Abedin answered fully -- and there are stiff penalties for failing to do so -- she would have noted, for starters, that her mother, Saleha Abedin, belongs to the Muslim Sisterhood (the Brotherhood's auxiliary, primarily for relatives of prominent Brothers) and serves on the board of the International Islamic Council for Dawah and Relief, a group banned in Israel for supporting Hamas. Saleha Abedin has been a representative of the Muslim World League, whose affiliates have been charged by the U.S. government with funding terrorism. Any ensuing investigation would turn up Saleha's work with the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, where she edits the journal that Huma, too, worked on for a dozen years. That same institute was founded by Huma's father in Saudi Arabia with the assistance and long-term involvement of Abdullah Omar Naseef. Naseef was secretary-general of the Muslim World League and also founded the Rabita Trust, a U.S.-designated international terrorist organization with ties to al-Qaida.

There's more, but just imagine the light dawning on the background-checker: So, Ms. Abedin, let me get this straight: Your folks, and you, too, worked with a guy who founded a terrorist organization linked to al-Qaida, your mom's on the board of a group banned in Israel for supporting Hamas, and you want top-secret clearance to work for the secretary of state.

Then what happened?

TownHall (http://townhall.com/columnists/dianawest/2012/08/03/why_are_we_handing_muslim_extremists_the_house_key s/page/full/)

The Muslim Brotherhood are the new Nazis of the twenty-first century and should be treated as such. Their tentacles of influence and evil are silently spreading everywhere. We ignore this at our own peril.

Janice
12-12-2012, 05:37 PM
http://i49.tinypic.com/e7m1it.jpg

Michele Bachmann says Obama wants to 'lift up the Islamists' and allow Sharia law in America

Representative Michele Bachmann has claimed that Barack Obama is determined 'to lift up the Islamists' and bow to their 'ultimate demand' of imposing Sharia law on America.

In an extraordinary interview at the weekend, the woman who once had high hopes of being the Republican candidate in this year's presidential election, said that Americans should study Islamist texts just as those worried about fascism pored over Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' in the 1930s and 1940s.

In an extended on-air conversation with conservative radio hosts Jan Markell and Eric Barger, Bachmann contended that Obama was endangering the United States and Israel by supporting radical Islamists. 'President Obama, if you look at nearly every decision he has made about this issue, it is to lift up the Islamists and to take down Israel.' >>>

Bachmann accused the Obama administration of supporting the Organisation of the Islamic Conference’s (O.I.C.) advocacy of blasphemy laws, despite its public opposition. She said that Americans had to study Islamic materials in the same way that people studied Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf during the Second World War.

>>> Bachmann continued: 'Because he laid out very clearly what his intention was, he wasn’t hiding it, the Islamist does the same thing. They do not hide it, they lay it out very clearly. But what we’ve never seen before is the United States aiding and abetting that goal.'

Bachmann drew attention to an October 19th 2011 letter to the White House from an array of Muslim groups protesting antic-Islamic bias as 'proof positive' that there was a plan to impose Sharia law on the U.S. 'That's what I spent my whole year doing was talking about this issue of what the O.I.C. was trying to do with their ten year plan and all of these efforts in the Obama administration.

MORE@DailyMail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2247024/Michele-Bachmann-says-Obama-wants-lift-Islamists-allow-Sharia-law-America.html)

Notice this has to come from a foreign news agency.