Saturday, July 27, 2013

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

Diana West / Townhall Columnist 
 

Nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917. Nearly a century later, the U.S. enacted "Obamacare."

Who won the Cold War again? This is one of the questions I work over in my new book, "American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation's Character" (St. Martin's Press). Can we realistically claim liberty and free markets triumphed over collectivism when today there is only a thin Senate line trying to fend off Obamacare's totalitarian intrusions into citizens' lives? We see perhaps a dozen or so patriots led by conservative ace Sen. Republican Mike Lee of Utah, gallantly mustering forces to defund further enforcement of this government behemoth aborning. (Call your senators and ask them to join -- or tell you why they didn't at the next town hall.)

How can we maintain that the republic endured when a centralized super-state has taken its place?

So, once more, who really won the Cold War? The question is better framed when we realize that the battleground where the Free World met Marx was also psychological. Consciously or not, we struggled against an insidious Marxist ideology that was always, at root, an assault on our nation's character.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let this sink in for just a moment. The journal that Huma worked for -- which promotes Islamic supremacism and was founded by al-Qaida financer Naseef, who also headed the Muslim World League, a leading Muslim Brotherhood organization -- is called the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. It was edited first by Huma's father, Syed Abedin, and now by her mother, Saleha Abedin.

Saleha is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood. Mother Abedin also directs an organization (the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child) that comes under the umbrella of the Union for Good, another U.S.-designated terrorist organization. As McCarthy reminds us, "the Union for Good is led by Sheikh Yusef al-Qaradawi, the notorious Muslim Brotherhood jurist who has issued fatwas calling for the killing of American military and support personnel in Iraq as well as suicide bombings in Israel."

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

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

At this point, only McCarthy's National Review piece reprises these well-documented facts. In other words, it is not only CNN and the New York Times that draw blanks for their readers. Most "conservative" outlets, including Fox News, the New York Post, The Blaze, Breitbart.com and Rush Limbaugh, are ignoring this story, too.

If the Abedin-Muslim Brotherhood story rings any bells, it is probably because of Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. Last summer, Bachmann, along with four other House Republicans, raised the issue of Huma Abedin among other examples of possible Muslim Brotherhood penetration of the federal policy-making chain. They asked inspectors general at five departments, including the State Department, to investigate their concerns, but nothing happened -- nothing, that is, except that Bachmann was crucified, by Democrats and Republicans alike, for asking urgently important questions about national security.

This made the entire subject, already taboo, positively radioactive -- with Huma Abedin becoming the poster victim of this supposed "McCarthyism" redux. End of story. Never mind facts. Never mind also that in his day, Sen. Joseph McCarthy was asking urgently important questions about national security, too.

But don't worry. We "won" the Cold War. Obamacare, here we come. At this rate, we'll declare "victory" in the so-called war on terror, and, before you know it, become a leading outpost of the caliphate.

My friend Charles Krauthammer, a thinking man's pundit, believes some problems cannot be solved. Charles points to the Palestinian-Israeli situation and to the collapse of the traditional black family in America. I disagree. It is possible to change black attitudes, but it will take a dynamic person to lead the way.

The primary reason that Trayvon Martin is not alive today is that George Zimmerman feared him.

Making his neighborhood watch rounds, Zimmerman saw a young man wearing clothing that unsettled him. Zimmerman profiled the teenager, and from there, things rapidly got out of control.

There is a perception in America that young black males can be trouble. According to a study out of Northeastern University, black men between the ages of 14 and 24 commit homicides at a rate 10 times that of young white and Hispanic males combined. This disturbing fact drives profiling and fear.

The reason that crime among young black males is so intense is the collapse of the traditional black family. Fifty years ago, the out-of-wedlock birth rate among African-Americans was 25 percent.

Today, it is nearly 73 percent and growing, according to the Centers for Disease Control. By contrast, 29 percent of white babies and 53 percent of Hispanic children are born out of wedlock.

Single-parent situations drive poverty and often lead to unsupervised kids. Many boys growing up without fathers often feel angry and abandoned. Thus, they seek comfort in all the wrong places.

President Obama and our leaders in Washington surely understand the root of the black crime problem. So do self-appointed civil rights leaders such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. But they rarely discuss the matter in public. That might anger their constituency and be bad for business.

When was the last time you saw a demonstration discouraging young black girls from getting pregnant outside of marriage? When was the last time the president held a press conference on the issue? When was the last time we saw the federal government put out a public service announcement encouraging children to reject drugs and violence?

Maybe Jay Z could produce a PSA. How about Lil Wayne? Kanye West? These guys make millions rapping about dubious behavior. Sometimes they glamorize it. So why don't they lead the charge to improve things in Chicago's South Side and other places under siege?

There was plenty of outrage in the black precincts regarding the Zimmerman verdict.

Understandable.

But there is little national anger about thousands of African-Americans being gunned down in the streets by out-of-control young men, the vast majority of them black.

Until the American leadership begins to encourage the return of the traditional black family, the enormous problems of black poverty and crime will continue. And the fear of young black men will continue. And the death of innocents will continue.

Maybe Jay Z can rap about that.

The Media Fail To Start A Race War

by / Personal Liberty Digest

The Media Fail To Start A Race War
UPI
Defense counsel Mark O'Mara showed a printed message on reasonable doubt to the jury during closing arguments of George Zimmerman's trial.
You have to wonder: Does the mainstream media really want blacks in this country to riot because a jury of his peers found George Zimmerman “not guilty” of the charges against him?

That’s certainly the impression I get from the coverage of the trial and its aftermath.

Correction: The incredibly biased and often incendiary reporting began long before the first day of the trial. It started, in fact, shortly after the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin on Feb. 26, 2012. And it skyrocketed when authorities in Sanford, Fla., said there wasn’t enough evidence to charge Zimmerman with murder.

That was all the professional race-baiters needed to launch a national crusade for “justice.” Virtually overnight, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, NAACP officials and numerous other crusaders had an issue that would get them in front of the cameras again. They grabbed their megaphones and put on their marching shoes. And the mainstream media promptly gave them all of the publicity they could want.

The pressure for the authorities to bring charges was impossible to resist. The Sanford police chief was fired for refusing to arrest Zimmerman. Angela Corey, the State Attorney in Florida, led a prosecution that was so biased and dishonest that Alan Dershowitz, the liberal Harvard Law professor, says she should be the one to be put on trial.

“I think there were violations of civil rights and civil liberties — by the prosecutor,” Dershowitz said.

“The prosecutor sent this case to a judge and willfully, deliberately and, in my view, criminally withheld exculpatory evidence.”

The famous criminal-law expert added specifics: “They denied the judge the right to see pictures that showed Zimmerman with his nose broken and his head bashed in. The prosecution should be investigated for civil rights violations and civil liberty violations.”

Fat chance that will happen.

As just one example of how viciously the media distorted things before the jury rendered its verdict, consider Zimmerman’s telephone call to 911 on the night of the shooting. Here’s what the “Today” show played for its audience a month later: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”

Sure makes it sounds as though Zimmerman based his concern on Martin’s skin color, doesn’t it?

That’s what the media wanted you to think. But as we subsequently learned, the “Today” editors deliberately omitted an important part of that telephone call. Here’s a transcript of the actual conversation:
Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”
Dispatcher: “OK, and this guy – is he black, white, or Hispanic?”
Zimmerman: “He looks black.”
You’ll be pleased to learn that Steve Capus, who at the time was president of NBC News, said that the edited phone call was most emphatically “not a deliberate act to misrepresent the phone call.” Sure thing, Steve. And thanks for assuring us that the people guilty of this flagrant distortion were “disciplined,” whatever that means.

As it happens, a lengthy investigation by the FBI could find absolutely no evidence that Zimmerman has ever expressed any racist sentiments. And you can bet the liberal media tried desperately to find some.

Zimmerman’s attorneys say that now that his trial is over, they plan to proceed with a defamation lawsuit against NBC News. I wish them well. In fact, I hope Zimmerman collects a ton of money. He’s going to need it, since it looks like he will be put on trial again.

That’s right. The NAACP is leading an effort to have Zimmerman face Federal charges of violating Martin’s civil rights. Some even want him charged with a hate crime. The NAACP has collected more than 450,000 signatures for a petition campaign with this appeal: “A jury has acquitted George Zimmerman, but we are not done demanding justice for Trayvon Martin. Sign our petition to the Department of Justice today.”

If the race-baiters have their way, Zimmerman will once more be on trial — this time in a Federal court. So we’ll once again hear the media go through distortions to make everything about race.

That’s why we got such absurdities as the media description of him as “a white Hispanic.”

Meanwhile, the Orlando Sentinel reported that the Justice Department is asking for the public to assist in its investigation: “The U.S. Department of Justice on Monday afternoon appealed to civil rights groups and community leaders, nationally and in Sanford, for help investigating whether a federal criminal case might be brought against George Zimmerman for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, one advocate said.”

Apparently, if you know anything that could lead the Feds to press charges, they want you to send them an email about it. Can you imagine the kind of “tips” they’re going to receive? And probably not just about Zimmerman. I’ll bet they receive all sorts of rumors and accusations about his defense attorneys. Heck, they’ll probably even get a ton of scuttlebutt about some of the jurors.

Much was made of the fact that, of the six women on the jury that acquitted Zimmerman, not one of them was black. There were five whites and one Hispanic. But here’s something you may not have known: There was a black male in the jury pool, but he was rejected by the prosecution. Why?

Because he admitted that he watched FOX News. That was all the prosecution needed to hear.

According to a recent Rasmussen poll, more blacks think other blacks are racists than whites. Yes, you read that correctly. The Rasmussen pollsters say that 31 percent of blacks believe most blacks are racist, while only 24 percent of blacks believe that most whites are. Interesting, isn’t it?

Thankfully, some black leaders are speaking out in opposition to more criminal prosecution of Zimmerman. Alveda King, the niece of civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr., had this to say about the efforts of the NAACP and other organizations: “We need to wonder why they’re doing that, what kind of checks and money they’re getting behind the scenes to stir us up into racial anarchy. We should be speaking non-violence, justice, peace and love as Trayvon’s parents are doing, by the way.

So we need to ask why they’re race baiting, because they are.”

After what was probably the most highly publicized trial of this century, Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges against him. That’s not good enough for Sharpton and the other professional race baiters. Nor is it good enough for the liberal-dominated media. They love to feature any criticism of this country, no matter how distorted or exaggerated.

Thankfully, so far at least, all we’ve seen are what the media refer to as “mostly peaceful”
demonstrations against the verdict. It could have been a lot worse. And if the race baiters get their way and Zimmerman goes on trial again, I’m afraid it will be.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

I think I'm gonna be sick...

Obama at White House Ramadan meal: "Muslim Americans and their good works have helped to build our nation, and we've seen the results"

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

Have you ever heard Obama talk about Jewish or Christian or Hindu Americans helping build this nation? And how exactly have Muslims built this nation? Somehow I cannot recall their contributions to the Constitutional Convention, or the settling of the West, or the Civil War period, or any other aspect of American history, for that matter. "Obama celebrates Ramadan: 'Islam has contributed to the character' of US," by Kyle Balluck at The Hill, July 25:
President Obama late Thursday celebrated Ramadan with a traditional dinner in the State Dining Room, saying that throughout the nation's history, “Islam has contributed to the character of our country.” 
In remarks before the Iftar dinner, eaten by Muslims after sunset to end the day of fasting, Obama quoted from the Koran, according to a White House pool report. "As the Koran teaches, whoever does an atom's weight of good will see its results."
"Muslim Americans and their good works have helped to build our nation, and we've seen the results," he added.
Obama, who has hosted five Iftar dinners, focused on entrepreneurship during much of his speech.
“Every day, Muslim Americans are helping to shape the way that we think and the way that we work and the way that we do business," he said. "And that’s the spirit that we celebrate tonight -- the dreamers, the creators whose ideas are pioneering new industries, creating new jobs and unleashing new opportunities for all of us.”...
Afghaistan: Serious security lapses at U.S. Embassy, diplomats at risk
From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

Anyone make any Muhammad videos lately? Obama might get the idea that it's time for another assault on the freedom of speech.

But surely our reliable friend and ally Hamid Karzai will keep anything from happening -- right?
"Crisis in Kabul: Security at U.S. Embassy in disarray, diplomats at risk," by Sara Carter for The Washington Times, July 25 (thanks to Lookmann):
U.S. diplomatic facilities in Afghanistan have serious security lapses that pose “unnecessary risk to staff,” including poor emergency preparedness and inadequate protections that might allow classified materials to fall into the hands of attacking enemies, according to an internal report that raises fresh questions about the State Department’s commitment to safety in the aftermath of the Benghazi tragedy. 
The confidential State Department inspector general’s report, obtained by The Washington Times under the Freedom of Information Act, directly criticizes the department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security for failing to perform a physical inspection before approving the security plan for the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, which was the target of a brash attack by Taliban insurgents two years ago.
When IG investigators inspected the embassy in Kabul, they found inadequate emergency shelters, food, water rations, medical supplies and backup communication equipment that would be essential to repel or survive an attack, according to the report, which was released to The Times partly redacted for security reasons.
Similar inspections elsewhere found the U.S. diplomatic post in Afghanistan’s western city of Herat lacked an emergency action plan instructing employees on how to respond to an attack and that a Provincial Reconstruction Team outpost in Qala-e-Naw lacked an agreement with allied forces to provide a military response in case of attack.
“The lack of adequate emergency shelters [redacted] the lack of sufficient emergency supplies and equipment, the lack of redundancy in communications, the [redacted] absence of an agreement with the non-Department law enforcement on emergency assistance, and the inability to identify and destroy sensitive material unnecessarily increased the risk of injury to embassy staff and of compromising sensitive material during an emergency situation,” the report warns....