Did Anthony Weiner Convert to Islam?

The headline might seem a bit outlandish but it isn't really at all. Anthony Weiner's wife is a woman named Huma Abedin and she is a practicing Muslim according to multiple news sources. If she married a Jewish man named Weiner, why wouldn't she be a marked woman? Consider a Muslim woman marrying a Jewish man. This is not only frowned upon in Islam, it's virtually unheard of. One of two things must have happened. Either Abedin left Islam by marrying a non-Muslim or Weiner converted to Islam. Isn't it the only way Abedin can still be considered 'practicing?'

The New York Times reports that Rep. Anthony Weiner's wife – Huma Abedin – is a “practicing Muslim” who was raised in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. In 2007, the New York Observer wrote – article no longer available but cross-posted at Free Republic – that her mother is a professor in Saudi Arabia and that her father was an Islamic scholar before his death.

Islamic law forbids any Muslim woman from marrying a non-Muslim man. Weiner was raised Jewish but admitted to growing up in a non-religious household. If Abedin remains a practicing Muslim and her religion forbids her from marrying a non-Muslim, isn't she failing to practice Islam? Wouldn't that be the case unless Weiner converted to Islam? The New York Times reported that Weiner “sometimes fasts with her (Abedin) during Ramadan.”

Known as the Shahada, the Islamic testimony of faith is very short. Weiner would have been required to say it according to Islamic law. Otherwise, Abedin would have violated a primary tenet of her religion. Here is what Weiner would have had to say in order to be able to marry Abedin according to Sharia law:

“There is no God except Allah and Muhammad is his messenger."

Curiously, the imam of the Islamic Cultural Center of New York (ICC) – of which Ground Zero mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a trustee – is a man named Sheik Omar Abu-Namous. He is calling for Abedin to stand by Weiner. Why would an imam encourage a Muslim woman to remain married to an unfaithful, non-practicing Jewish man?

Compounding this matter further is the fact that Abu-Namous was quoted in 2001 as saying:

“A unified Muslim state would be the ideal instrument to convince the world that Islam is the last version of God's word. God meant his word to be obeyed.”

In 2007, Abu-Namous spoke alongside the director of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) at the First National Summit of Imams and Rabbis. Abu-Namous is on record as having said there was no conclusive evidence that Muslims were responsible for the September 11th attacks. Ironically, Abu-Namous's predecessor at the ICC blamed the Jews for 9/11. ISNA is a Muslim Brotherhood group.

There is a question that needs to be answered. Did a secular Jewish man convert to Islam or did his (still) practicing Muslim wife abandon her religion by marrying him?

Stay tuned for more...

Cross-posted at Web Today

Welcome to the Likely Motive for Operation Fast and Furious

In light of what we now know about Operation Fast and Furious, it makes sense to search for a motive. This one is as obvious as it gets. First, someone very high up in the Obama administration - above the ATF Director - signed off on a program whereby ATF agents would direct gun store owners to sell guns to straw purchasers who would then put those guns in the hands of drug cartels. Our government was arming bad guys. One Border Agent and one ICE Agent are dead as a result. Had ATF whistleblowers not come forward, gun store owners would have been blamed but why?

The most likely motive has to do with a U.N. Weapons Ban treaty that would significantly neuter our Second Amendment. To be ratified, it would require 2/3 of the Senate to sign off on it. Obama would certainly sign it at that point. The fact that this treaty is even still on the table after what's been exposed by the Project Gunrunner scandal is a testament to the arrogance of this administration. In essence, government authorities set up gun store owners as the fall guys to further an agenda. What better way to garner support for this U.N. Weapons treaty than to show that American gun store owners are arming bad guys in Mexico?

Larry Bell at Forbes explains the Treaty:

It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.

What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?

While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:

Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.

Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).

Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).

Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.

In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

If this administration felt it needed to take such a risk by secretly arming Mexican cartels in order to garner support for the U.N. weapons treaty, it already viewed ratification of that treaty as a tall order. However, when ATF agent John Dodson came forward to blow the lid off this dastardly plan, it should have instantly torpedoed the chances of this treaty passing.

Instead, the Obama administration seems to be doubling down on the eve of what are expected to be very grueling hearings chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA).

Read it all.

Syrian Expert: Assad Will Fall, Muslim Brotherhood will Take Over

Like the situation that's taking place in Libya, Americans have grown to despise Syria's leader. On its face, the toppling of Gadhafi and Bashar Assad appears to be welcome news. In actuality, it would be if the vacuum left by both tyrants were to be filled with someone better. Unfortunately, as the dominoes fall, the entity poised to fill that vacuum is much, much worse. In Libya, the Obama administration is facilitating it and even has the support of the likes of John McCain, who is obviously ignorant of the true enemy the west faces - the Muslim Brotherhood.

IPT reports that an expert from Syria seems certain Assad will fall and the Brotherhood will take over:

The wave of unrest sweeping Syria will drive President Bashar Assad from power and severely weaken the Islamist regime in Tehran, a prominent dissident predicts. "It is a certainty the Assad regime will fall," said Farid Ghadry, president of the Reform Party of Syria (RPS).

Ghadry, currently living in the United States, closely monitors the situation in his native land through a network of contacts there. He said his organization is getting reports that Syrian security men appear tired and demoralized and have reached "levels of mental and physical fatigue they are not prepared for."

Syrian forces killed as many as 40 people during weekend clashes and human rights groups say the total death toll during three months of unrest is more than 1,100 people. A new online video shows Syrian soldiers joking over the bodies of some of those killed."Your father told you to watch out," one soldier says over the body of someone with a head wound, "but you didn't."

The United States continues to implement policies that fuel an enemy we won't identify.

As he looks towards the future, Ghadry does not mince words about the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks to dominate the opposition movement in Syria. He notes that U.S. policy may be helping the Brotherhood's efforts to marginalize non-Islamist opposition to Assad. According to WikiLeaks, since 2005 between $6 million and $12 million in U.S. funds went to Syrian opposition groups. Much of this money went to the Movement For Justice and Development in Syria (MJD), an organization reportedly headed by former Muslim Brotherhood members.

The mother ship for the Muslim Brotherhood - as Walid Shoebat has been saying for years - is Turkey. That is where it seeks to centralize its power in the form of an Islamic caliphate. After all, that's where the last one existed - the Ottoman Empire. Turkey and Iran are jockeying for the most power. The former wants the Brotherhood to take over Syria while the latter wants to keep Assad in charge.

What does it mean when a group like the Muslim Brotherhood takes control of sovereign nations? The answer is more power under one Islamic umbrella. That's what is happening before our very eyes and we have leaders who are either in on it or literally too stupid to recognize it.

Read it all.

Texas Governor adds Sanctuary City Legislation to Special Session

This is good news. Sanctuary City legislation in Texas looked like it was dead when it didn't get by the state Senate after Democrats blocked it at the end of the regular session. However, when a special session had to be called by Gov. Rick Perry after a Democrat Senator filibustered an unrelated bill, it meant that the Governor suddenly had the power to determine what legislation would be on the agenda. The best part? Super majorities are not required to pass legislation in the special session.

There was talk that Perry might avoid the sanctuary city issue because it's a politically hot potato but based on what he'd said on the record about such legislation being an 'emergency item,' there wasn't much wiggle room. Still, I give him credit for doing the right thing here.

Via Texas Tribune:

Gov. Rick Perry has added controversial immigration and homeland security measures to the agenda for the special legislative session that began last week.

Perry added abolishing “sanctuary cities,” the common term for entities that prohibit law enforcement from inquiring about immigration status, to the special session "call" — the list of items he’s asking lawmakers to address. The item was the only one of six "emergency items" so designated by Perry that didn’t make it the governor’s desk during the regular session that ended last month. The governor has also asked lawmakers to address matters relating to the federal government’s Secure Communities program, which is administered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The initiative compares the fingerprints of those arrested to a federal database to determine if the individual is eligible for deportation under current immigration laws. Additionally, the call includes matters relating to “the issuance of driver’s licenses and personal identification certificates.”

There are two bills relative to this legislation. SB 9 and HB 9 both untie the hands of law enforcement by prohibiting municipalities from implementing policies that prevent police officers from checking the immigration status of individuals stopped.

Look for the Obama administration to take notice if this legislation makes it to Perry's desk and he signs it. Add to that the possibility that Perry might add the TSA pat-down ban bill in as well. This will send Obama's lackeys over the edge.

More at Texas Tribune