I don't mean to alarm anyone but this is extremely alarming in light of the 'Arab Spring' and recent developments in Libya. Time to take stock of what we know so far. In Libya, this administration is supporting rebels whose goals are backed by the Muslim Brotherhood - overthrowing Gadhafi. Obama is thumbing his nose at the War Powers Act; Hillary Clinton chided Congress by asking, 'whose side are you on?' which was an assertion that she sides with the rebels; Hillary's Deputy Chief of Staff - a practicing Muslim - has familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood; Senior Hillary Clinton adviser Alec Ross is running interference for the Muslim Brotherhood; and senior State Department lawyer Harold Koh, who is also a supporter of Sharia law supports the war effort in Libya.
Now this via Reuters. See if you can find the misplaced use of the word 'conservative' in the article:
BUDAPEST (Reuters) - The United States will resume limited contacts with Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirmed on Thursday, saying it was in Washington's interests to deal with parties committed to non-violent politics.
While Clinton portrayed the administration's decision as a continuation of an earlier policy, it reflects a subtle shift in that U.S. officials will be able to deal directly with officials of the Islamist movement who are not members of parliament.
The move, first reported by Reuters on Wednesday, is likely to upset Israel and its U.S. supporters who have deep misgivings about the Brotherhood, a group founded in 1928 that seeks to promote its conservative vision of Islam in society.
Under president Hosni Mubarak, a key U.S. ally, the Brotherhood was formally banned, but since the ousting of the secular former general by a popular uprising in February, the Islamists are seen as a major force in forthcoming elections.
If the Muslim Brotherhood is so 'conservative,' why is it only supported by the liberals within this administration?
At what has become another in a short line of infamous Obama news conferences, the War Powers Act relative to our engagement in Libya came up. In essence, Obama thumbed his nose at those who have concerns about violation of that law by saying the uproar or 'fuss' is just politics. The problem here is that the law says military action cannot go beyond 60 days without the approval of Congress. We've already blown past the 90 day mark with no signs of letting up. The argument from the White House has been that Congress has been briefed.
Uh, that doesn't mean the law is being followed. Via CNS News:
President Barack Obama told reporters he does not have to answer the question of whether the War Powers Resolution is constitutional.
“There may be a time in which there was a serious question as to whether the War Powers Resolution was constitutional. I don’t have to get to the question,” Obama said during a White House news conference Wednesday.
“We have engaged in a limited operation to help a lot of people against one of the worst tyrants in the world, somebody who nobody should want to defend. And we should be sending out a unified message to this guy that he should step down and give his people a fair chance to live their lives,” Obama added.
Members of Congress from both parties have criticized Obama for involving the United States military in the Libyan civil war without congressional authorization. The matter was authorized by a United Nation’s resolution, which does not call for regime change. However, Obama and other NATO allies have said Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi should not remain in power.
Obama's argument in defense of his position that he is not violating the War Powers Act is not based on his actually not violating it. Rather, it's based on his contention that the Act was passed because of Vietnam and, well, this is Libya.
“When you look at the history of the War Powers Resolution, it came out after the Vietnam War, in which we had had a million soldiers there, tens of thousands of lives lost, hundreds of millions of dollars spent, and Congress said, you know what, we don’t want something like that happening again,” Obama said. “I think that some consultation is entirely appropriate. But, do I think that our actions are in anyway violate the War Powers Resolution, the answer is no.”
Again, we must ask why this administration is going to the mat over Libya. The removal of Gadhafi will necessarily require boots on the ground in order to prevent something worse from filling the vacuum. That something worse is the Muslim Brotherhood, which is on the same side as Obama is in Libya.
More people really need to start seeing these red flags. Anthony Weiner's wife - Huma Abedin - is also Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff and closest aide. She is also a practicing Muslim whose mother is a card-carrying member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Now it's being reported that Huma is taking time off. Is she going to be spending time with family? If yes, it will be very significant; Huma's mother should have rejected her because Islamic law strictly forbids her daughter from marrying a non-Muslim.
The New York Post via Drudge is quoting a source close to the situation as saying Huma's family will be watching her very closely:
Anthony Weiner's wife is taking time off from her senior job with the State Department -- as well as time off from the randy former representative, The Post has learned.
While Weiner, 46, heads to an "intensive" rehab program to recover from the sexting scandal that cost him his congressional career, his 35-year-old spouse, Huma Abedin, will be relaxing at an undisclosed location.
So, according to the source, it's not known where Huma is going. Then the source says this:
Huma's family "is going to be watching her like a hawk," the source said, "like she's under a microscope."
There was no immediate confirmation from the State Department of Abedin's plans to take time off from work.
What do these two things mean when taken together? How will Huma's family be able to watch her 'like a hawk' unless they're spending time with her? If Huma's spending time with her family, something most certainly does not add up, especially if she stays married to Weiner. Even if she doesn't, the fact that she married a non-Muslim in the first place necessarily mandates that her family reject her. At the very least, the membership of Huma's mother - Saleha Abedin - with the Muslim Brotherhood, coupled with her brother's ties to Islamists, makes this entire account very suspicious.
