Senator John McCain (RINO-AZ) used his speech at the Republican convention to give voice to a common refrain of his - that the United States should arm the Syrian rebels against Bashar al-Assad (video at bottom of this post). Almost simultaneously, Muslim Brotherhood leader / President of Egypt Mohamad Mursi was calling for the end of Assad's 'oppressive' regime. Mursi likely nodded and applauded when McCain expressed his views on Syria.
Egypt called on Thursday for intervention to halt bloodshed in Syria, telling a meeting of 120 nations it was their duty to stand against the "oppressive regime" of Bashar al-Assad, prompting a Syrian walkout.
President Mohamed Mursi, elected two months ago after a popular uprising toppled Egypt's long-standing leader Hosni Mubarak, said Assad had lost legitimacy in his fight to crush a 17-month-old revolt in which 20,000 people have been killed.
Mursi's scathing speech to a summit of non-aligned leaders, hosted by Assad's Shi'ite ally Iran, prompted Syria's foreign minister to accuse the moderate Sunni Islamist leader of inciting further bloodshed in Syria.
The political broadside against the Syrian president came as rebels said they shot down a fighter plane in northern Syria, where his air force has been bombarding opposition-held towns in a fierce counter-offensive against insurgents.
Has anyone been able to figure out why the likes of McCain are seemingly so passionately sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood's cause in Syria?
Let's back up a bit. Who is Mursi's wife? The answer is Najla Ali Mahmoud; she is one of 63 leaders of the Muslim Sisterhood and serves alongside the mother of a woman McCain vehemently defended on the Senate floor last month when questions were raised by Rep. Michele Bachmann about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the U.S. Government. The name of the woman McCain defended while smearing Bachmann is Huma Abedin, Secretary of State Hillary's Clinton's closest advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff.
Saleha Abedin is another one of those 63 leaders and is a close colleague of Mahmoud in that regard. Saleha Abedin is Huma's mother. The effusive and near blind praise McCain heaped upon Saleha's daughter was almost surreal. He admitted to being taken by her charm. Has he also taken up the cause of her mother as a result of that charm?
Here is an excerpt from McCain's floor speech last month, during which he adamantly defended Huma:
“Huma Abedin represents what is best about America,” said McCain. “The daughter of immigrants who has risen to the highest levels of our government on the basis of her substantial personal merit and her abiding commitment to the American ideals that she embodies.”
“I am proud to know her,” McCain continued. “And I am proud – even with some personal presumption – to call her my friend.”
These are precisely the reasons why the details behind Huma Abedin being granted a security clearance must be understood and why charges of 'guilt by association' are unwarranted when denying security clearances because of those associations. Huma hasn't denounced her mother nor the Muslim Brotherhood. Therefore, she is in a position where she could have a conflict of interest. If she were sympathetic to the Brotherhood's cause (which is the cause of her mother), would she not attempt to influence a U.S. Senator who already thinks highly of her?
By the way, Saleha must have been pleased with this part of the speech too:
Perhaps if Mr. McCain were as taken with a Coptic Christian woman as he apparently is with Huma Abedin, he would care more about real persecution in Egypt (right now under Mursi) instead of wanting to arm vicious Muslim Brotherhood rebels in Syria.
Here is another video that shows Coptic persecution in Egypt:
There have been a lot of Occupy videos over the last year and I thought we had reached our saturation point but... I was wrong. Outside the Republican Convention, this guy - who identified himself as a 'Marxist' - was asked to give an example of where Marxism worked elsewhere in the history of the world.
His answer? "Somalia" and "Afghanistan".
I present you with the most intellectually vacant Obama voter, possibly to date. If he's not #1, he's in the top 5.
Paul Ryan's speech was full of fire, passion, and multiple instances in which he held Barack Obama for his record. He also made fun of the music on Mitt Romney's iPod (he likened it to elevator music). In short, much of what Sarah Palin brought to the convention in 2008, Ryan brought in 2012. That's the biggest reason the mainstream media socialists disapproved.
According to CBS' Sharyl Attkisson, the much anticipated DOJ IG report on Operation Fast and Furious is particularly hard on ATF's Phoenix office and may just give Justice Department leadership a pass.
Those familiar with the contents say ATF Phoenix officials shoulder much blame, including then-Special Agent in Charge Bill Newell, the lead Fast and Furious case agent Hope MacAllister, and group supervisor David Voth.
Since the controversy was first exposed, a divide has developed between the ATF staff in Phoenix who oversaw and implemented Fast and Furious; and their supervisors at ATF headquarters and the Justice Department. The Phoenix officials say higher-ups approved of the case. But the higher-ups say it was all the brainchild of rogue ATF officials in Phoenix.
Phoenix ATF officials tell CBS News that higher-level officials were integral in shifting focus away from arresting ground level gun buyers, to "a cartel focused strategy" that allowed guns hit the streets in an attempt to make a bigger case. They say the idea was codified in the September 2010 ATF document "Project Gunrunner-A Cartel Focused Strategy." The document refers to using the tactic of "limited or delayed interdiction" of guns, while cautioning that such investigations "must be closely monitored."
A little bit further into Attkisson's article, it appears that we could be watching the beginning stages of a circular firing squad; ATF leadership in Phoenix does not appear to be all that interested in just rolling over:
As alleged proof that they had the blessing of their superiors, ATF officials in Phoenix point to regular briefings provided headquarters and the Justice Department's National Drug Intelligence Center. Agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had agents working the case. The Justice Department also approved seven wiretaps in Fast and Furious. However, then-head of ATF Kenneth Melson and officials at the Justice Department say they never intended for agents to allow guns to walk, and didn't know it was happening. They also say they either didn't read written briefings submitted about the case, or that the briefings and affidavits didn't reveal the controversial strategy being used. Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano, who oversees ICE, also says she knew nothing of the case.
Back on July 30th, the Oversight Committee issued the first of three reports on Fast and Furious. In it, the focus of that report wasn't all that dissimilar from what we're being told is in the IG Report. Report 1 of 3 was extremely critical of Phoenix ATF officials as well as ATF senior leadership. It will be interesting to see if the timing of the release of Report 2 of 3 will correspond with the testimony of the DOJ IG, who was recently called to testify this coming September 11th. That second report is supposed to point directly to the involvement of senior DOJ leadership. Watching the IG defend a position that involves singling out Phoenix ATF leadership while having to respond to a stinging report that outs DOJ leadership will be compelling to say the least.
In testimony before Congressional Committees, Attorney General Eric Holder, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and others all pointed to this IG Report instead of answering uncomfortable questions. Now that the Report is complete, the Inspector General is where the buck will have to stop.
Yes, the headline is intended to prove a point and not to be taken literally. When Ronald Reagan was president, he referred to the Soviet Union as an 'evil empire' and said his strategy for dealing with them was simple: 'We win, they lose'. At summits like Reykjavik, the mainstream media was apoplectic when it reported on the palpably visible conflict that existed between Reagan and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. Like a mother whose inclination is to chastise her husband for wanting to sufficiently discipline a disrespectful child, the media sought to blame Reagan instead of Gorbachev for the tension that existed between the two men.
Thankfully, Reagan didn't worry about what the media said or thought about him too much, especially when it came to dealing with the Soviets. Tough talk was backed up with tough action.
Fast forward to 2012 and an article at POLITICO that reports on an interview the liberal news site had with Mitt Romney. The presumptive Republican nominee is apparently going to continue the meme that says Barack Obama is a 'nice guy' but a 'failed president'.
Ohio — Mitt Romney conceded President Barack Obama has succeeded in making him a less likable person, but he offered a defiant retort to those hoping he will open up this week: “I am who I am.”
Romney quoted that Popeye line three times in a 30-minute interview with POLITICO about his leadership style and philosophy, swatting away advice from Republicans to focus on connecting with voters in a more emotional, human way at this convention. Instead, he vowed to keep his emphasis — in the campaign and any administration to follow — on a relentlessly goal-driven, business-minded approach that has shaped his life so far.
“I know there are some people who do a very good job acting and pretend they’re something they’re not,” Romney said. “You get what you see. I am who I am.”
To press the point, he said the GOP would even try to turn Obama’s still-high personal favorability rankings back on him at its convention this week, by making the simple case to voters: nice guy, failed president.
Ok, so a base that is screaming for red meat is being told it will have to settle for tofu injected with Red Dye #5. Or, to continue with the parent / child metaphor, little Johnny is being forced to eat more liver instead of getting dessert, despite eating more than his share of liver.
Some might call it a stretch to compare a presidential election in the United States with a battle of wits between Reagan and Gorbachev but consider that Obama is steeped in Soviet-style Marxist ideology, beginning with the mentoring of Communist Party USA (CPUSA) member and Soviet agent Frank Marshall Davis, then continuing on with the likes of Marxist Bill Ayers and Marxist Jeremiah Wright.
The Republican base / Tea Party instinctively knows this; it also knows that Obama's gloves are off and Romney is hoping that by keeping his on, that the Obama campaign will eventually relent or suffer the self-inflicted consequences of its own wickedness. In fact, the Romney campaign seems to be doubling down on this by attempting to showcase Mitt's 'tender side'.
Furthermore, the choir that Romney will be preaching to is tired of lies, whether bald-faced or politically strategic; they want truth and the truth about Obama is that he is, at minimum, a socialist and at maximum, something much worse. Romney's base not only knows that Obama is not a nice guy, they see him for what he is - very dangerous for the future of their country. Calling him a 'nice guy' is more than just a little bit de-energizing. It's a lie.
Compare Reagan's meetings with Gorbachev to Obama's now infamous meeting with current Russian President Dimitri Medvedev. In it, Obama was caught off-mic telling his Russian counterpart something that should send chills down the spine of every American voter:
Calling Obama a nice guy is an insult to the intelligence of Romney's base.
Perhaps a few Rocky IV clips at the Convention would be in order. Then again, that wouldn't be "nice".
The Fast and Furious investigation started in early 2011. It has been both compelling and painfully slow to watch. Ever suspicious of congressional investigations that almost always lead nowhere - unless the subjects are not politicians - I often waffled between believing that Oversight Committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Senate Judiciary ranking member, Charles Grassley (R-IA) would give it all they have or succumb to the political pressure that demands little more than dog and pony shows that precede such investigations' fade into the abyss.
When I saw what was billed as the first of three reports to come out of the Oversight committee relative to its Fast and Furious investigation, I'll admit it was discouraging. It appeared that Holder had successfully coughed up his fall guys - five local ATF employees in Arizona. The letter from Issa's committee identified them as the responsible parties; DOJ leadership would escape.
Hang on just a minute. Issa still appears to be fighting despite having limited options. Sipsey Street calls it "three-dimensional chess".
The long anticipated DOJ Inspectors General report that every leader of consequence has deferred to whenever questions from Congress became too uncomfortable, is finally coming out and Rep. Issa is summoning the IG himself - Michael Horowitz - to testify in front of the Oversight Committee on September 11, 2012.
Congressman Darrell Issa, California Republican and House Oversight Committee Chairman, sent a letter on Friday to the Justice Department's Inspector General Michael Horowitz that summoned the IG inspector to a Capitol Hill hearing to testify before the House Oversight Committee on September 11.
According to Mr. Issa's letter, Horowitz already sent a draft of the eagerly awaited for Fast and Furious report to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) as well as Attorney General Eric Holder and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General on August 21.
Here is a copy of the letter. Note that in addition to calling Horowitz to testify, Issa is doing so prior to the 30-day window the IG has given for the report to be released after DOJ leadership has had a chance to review. Issa points out that 30 days is not customary; two weeks is. Perhaps that's why Issa has decided to split the difference and request Horowitz to appear three weeks after completion of the report.
Issa addresses this concern in the letter.
These committee members have got to be F-E-D U-P with the number of times they've heard testimony that included deferrals to the IG. On September 11th, they'll be grilling a guy that has no one to defer to.
I'm back to believing Issa has no interest in dog and pony shows.
As we demonstrated with The Abedin “Affairs” with Al Saud, there is a movement afoot in the West that seeks to transform Muslim minority lands into Muslim majority lands. And while the Right points fingers at the left on an array of issues, we need to seriously examine this movement’s spigot—Saudi Arabia and the Royal family.
Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is a member of that family. He acquired 5.46% of Fox News Channel's parent Company - Newscorp. - in 2005. He is also its second largest shareholder. It was Fox News that provided a platform for perhaps the most stinging rebuke of Rep. Michele Bachmann's questions about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in general, and Huma Abedin's background in particular. Edward Rollins - Bachmann's former campaign chief - denounced Bachmann with a piece entitled, "Shame on you, Michele" while Fox provided no counter-balance to speak of.
The Fox News website also reported the rebukes of Bachmann by John McCain and Republican House Speaker John Boehner, yet Bachmann's position was all but ignored.
So much for “Fair and Balanced”.
Alwaleed has purchased significant influence at major U.S. Universities and has contributed to CAIR. How does this all work? Well, it was explained by Al-Walid himself. In an article that appeared on Accuracy in Media's website, Diana West quoted from an interview the Saudi Prince granted to Arab News:
“Arab countries can influence U.S. decision-making ‘if they unite through economic interests, not political,’ (Alwaleed) stressed. ‘We have to be logical and understand that the U.S. administration is subject to U.S. public opinion. We (Arabs) are not so active in this sphere (public opinion). And to bring the decision-maker on your side, you not only have to be active inside the U.S. Congress or the administration but also inside U.S. society.’”
Even the very liberal, Soros-backed Think Progress, reported on bin Talal's influence over the Fox News Channel. In 2005, during riots in France (and two months after bin Talal acquired 5.46% of Newscorp.), the banner being run on Fox said, “Muslim riots.” Think Progress quoted bin Talal as saying the following:
“I picked up the phone and called Murdoch… (and told him) these are not Muslim riots, these are riots out of poverty. Within 30 minutes, the title was changed from Muslim riots to civil riots.”
In 2001, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly interviewed Sami al-Arian and aggressively pursued al-Arian when the latter seemed to implicate himself as being involved in terror fundraising. Al-Arian was eventually convicted and O'Reilly's efforts played a key role. It would be O'Reilly's high water mark on such matters.
In an exchange with bin Talal in 2011, Fox News host Neil Cavuto made the pecking order quite obvious when he referred to the Saudi Prince as “Your Highness”.
Then, in May of 2012, conservative host Sean Hannity welcomed none other than Ground Zero mosque imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf to his program to... promote his book. To his credit, Hannity was not as deferential as Cavuto was with bin Talal but he did provide Rauf with the platform to market his book.
Why?
The Democratic Party is lost and it has gladly welcomed Islamists so why are there Islamists with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood registering with the Republican Party? Part of the answer is that the Republican establishment is allowing them in. It is the Tea Party, which predominantly understands the Islamic threat that rejects Brotherhood elements.
Let us look at some examples.
NEZAR HAMZE
CAIR's Executive Director for South Florida is a man named Nezar Hamze. As such, Hamze is furthering the cause of CAIR's leadership. The group's national Executive Director and co-founder is Nihad Awad, a man who has expressed support for Hamas; he denounced the convictions of Islamic fundamentalists found guilty of the 1993 WTC bombing and did so while expressing a belief that the Mossad was behind that bombing. Prior to that Awad was the Public Relations Director for a Hamas front group. Incidentally, Hamas seeks the elimination of Israel.
Another CAIR co-founder - Omar Ahmad - was actually quoted by the San Ramon Valley Herald on July 4, 1998 as saying something that should be considered antithetical to both political Parties in the United States:
“Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran…should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”
If Hamze will not denounce the views of his group's leadership, he has no place in the Republican Party. Yet, Republican Party leadership will not denounce him.
MOIN "MOON" KHAN
When Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) made comments critical of CAIR and would not apologize, Moon Khan – a Muslim Republican who is a precinct committeeman and York Township board of trustees’ member – invited Walsh to his home for some 'dialogue' with some other members of the Muslim community. Walsh ultimately visited Khan's home and addressed more than 80 Muslims but did not apologize, though not for lack of trying on Khan's part.
SUHAIL KHAN
The son of Mahboob Khan, Suhail Khan, was born to a man who co-founded two Muslim Brotherhood groups in the United States – the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Students Association (MSA). Despite this undeniable truth, while at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in 2011, Suhail said on camera that, “there is no Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.” With that one sentence, Khan denied his father's work and obviously did so because he didn't want the truth about it revealed.
Besides founding two Muslim Brotherhood groups, Mahboob Khan was an anti-Semite who agreed with the primary goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in America – overthrow the United States from within. The elder Khan never hid his true colors. In fact, as Paul Sperry wrote in Front Page Magazine, his son Suhail pledged to carry on his “dear father's shining legacy”. Conversely, at CPAC, Suhail denied his father's work. Yet, of all the people the Republican Party goes out of its way to distance itself from, Suhail Khan gets a pass.
GROVER NORQUIST
Then we have Grover Norquist who is perhaps the most prominent Republican to avoid accountability for his Islamist ties. Norquist is founder of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), a conservative group formed at the behest of Ronald Reagan in 1985. Then, something happened circa 1998. Norquist began to be influenced by two men who would later be convicted on charges related to terrorism – Abdurahman Alamoudi and Sami Al-Arian. According to Center for Security Policy's Frank Gaffney, Alamoudi's deputy – Khaled Saffuri – co-founded an organization called the Islamic Free Market Institute (IFMI), with Norquist. In 2005, Gaffney reported that he made it known to Norquist that the ATR founder was consorting with Muslim leaders who had unseemly ties. Gaffney wrote at the time:
The idea that Norquist was unaware that he was aiding and abetting Islamists became untenable after I, among others, made known to him that his outreach effort was reaching out not to peaceable, tolerant, pro-American Muslims... but to those who are none of the above – i.e., adherents to an Islamofascist ideology and/or their sympathizers, financiers and apologists.
Less than two months after the 9/11 attacks, in a an article published by the New Republic, writer Franklin Foer wrote about how Saffuri, Norquist's co-founder at the Islamic Free Market Institute, began ushering Islamic leaders into the White House shortly after George W. Bush's inauguration nearly one year earlier with the help of none other than Suhail Khan, an administration advisor at the time whose job was to help with Muslim outreach.
Moreover, as recently as 2009, Khan was listed as a Board member of both Norquist's IFMI as well as CPAC's American Conservative Union (ACU).
In 2011, when much of the backgrounds of Khan and Norquist were available for public consumption, it was reported that Gaffney was the one who had been banned from CPAC while Khan and Norquist proudly attended.
The Republican Party's silence over such an egregious, two-pronged affront was not just deafening; it was a damning indictment of itself.
GEERT WILDERS
Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders launched his anti-Islam Party known as the Freedom Party (PVV) and has seen tremendous success. Formerly a member of the right wing, yet liberal VVD Party, Wilders broke away because VVD supported welcoming Turkey into the European Union (EU). With the passage of time, Wilders is vindicated on a near daily basis in that regard.
American politicians can learn much from Wilders' path. VVD's support for Turkey's ascension to the EU is indicative of Islamic influence on the Party. When Wilders formed the PVV Party, he eliminated that possibility by identifying his Party as being “anti-Islam”. In 2010, The Week reported that Wilders would be launching his Party in both the USA and the UK.
IN CONCLUSION...
As long as agents of the Muslim Brotherhood are able to successfully portray anyone who opposes them as racist, Islamophobic, or intolerant, Brotherhood apparatchiks will continue to make strides in much the same way that Nezar Hamze, Moon Khan, Suhail Khan, Grover Norquist, and Alwaleed bin Talal have made strides.
Conservatives will one day be faced with a decision. When that day comes, they will have to decide if the Republican Party can be sufficiently held accountable for identifying groups and individuals sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood. If it cannot, the birth of an anti-Islam, Tea Party will be in order.
Many of those who call us racist are anti-Semites, which makes them racist projectionists.
Walid Shoebat is a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood and author of For God or For Tyranny
Ben Barrack is a talk show host and author of the book, Unsung Davids
Well, this isn't going to help Romney when it comes to that war on women narrative the Obama campaign is going to carry into the election. Earlier this month, Jon Huntsman's daughter Abby trashed the Republican Party as being too "non-inclusive" and appeared to switch sides when former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm invited her to join the Democratic Party.
Abby Huntsman now works for the Huffington Post and appears to be a secret weapon for the Obama campaign. In fact, when it comes to the Obama campaign, Huntsman may be to the Mormon debate what Sandra Fluke is to the contraception debate. As the daughter of a Mormon (and former Mormon herself), Abby is qualified to talk about the religion and you can bet your bottom dollar the Obama campaign is going to exploit that to the utmost.
Huntsman goes after Romney over several issues:
The Mormon church's secrecy
The Mormon church's behind-the-scenes efforts to help the Romney campaign
The Mormon church's belief that the leader of the Mormon church is a prophet who gets revelations and whether Romney will follow that leader's direction or the Constitution
The Mormon church granting him permission to change his position on abortion in order to make a successful run for Governor of Massachusetts
The Mormon church and polygamy; Huntsman says Mormonism still subscribes to it.
Yes, that's far leftist Marc Lamont Hill sitting next to Huntsman.
On August 23rd, NBC interviewed Abby Huntsman for an anti-Mormon hit piece masquerading as objective journalism; it was narrated by Brian Williams:
For more insight into the Church, Williams turned to Abby Huntsman, daughter of former Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, who left the Mormon faith after meeting her future husband, a non-Mormon. She lamented: "It's very black and white still, there's no gray area. You either are in or you're out. And you live by the Mormon doctrine or you do not."
Picking up on that theme, Williams explained: "In this modern world, some old-school rules still govern the Mormon Church, and that means no non-Mormons allowed inside their temples." He then suspiciously asked Huntsman: "I can't get into the Mormon temple. Will that ever change?...What goes on in there?"
Huntsman regretfully replied: "I hope it does. But I don't think that it will....[It] causes a lot of people to feel maybe not good enough, 'Why am I not allowed in there?' So this idea of – maybe being more accepting and moving with the times a little bit is much needed in the Church today."
As the Democrats look to step up their attacks on Romney's religion, look for former Mormon Abby Huntsman to become the go-to expert on all things Mormon.
Today, the saga between Rep. Joe Walsh and the Muslim community in his district was a major topic of conversation. Interestingly, the guy who brokered a meeting between Walsh and his Muslim constituents - Moin "Moon" Khan - appears to have a connection to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Muslim Brotherhood front group.
The common refrain from the Republican establishment - as well as from conservatives who think it's best to get fully behind Mitt Romney despite his lack of appeal to them - has been that this election is too important and the nation cannot afford more of Obama. While that last part is true, the establishment insisted on Romney. One of the reasons I (and others) thought Romney was nowhere near the best choice was what we believed the liberal media and other Democratic apparatchiks would at some point do - go after his religion.
It was never a matter of if, only when.
NBC's Brian Williams, with his typical pseudo-objective, liberal nuance, delivered a one hour hit piece on Mormonism.
Opening an hour-long special on the Mormon Church for Thursday's NBC Rock Center, anchor Brian Williams proclaimed to viewers: "Most Americans say they know next to nothing about the Mormon Church. Tonight, a rare look inside the lives of modern Mormon families....A church still dealing with the issue of polygamy....And other issues of inequality."
Teasing a report on the history of the Church, Williams promised to answer the question of "why so many Americans still today are suspicious of the religion." Introducing that portion of the broadcast, Williams touted pop culture mocking the faith, starting with a clip of Fox's Family Guy in which lead character Peter Griffin declares: "I'm going to be a Mormon....Come on, nailing a different wife every night. That's a no-brainer."
Williams announced: "Comedy now takes liberties with Mormons, say nothing of the polygamy-based dramas and then there's Broadway." Footage appeared on screen of Comedy Central's South Park and the HBO series Big Love, followed by a clip of The Book of Mormon musical produced by South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone.
After briefly describing the founding of the religion, Williams quickly focused on negative perceptions of Mormonism: "Part of the history of the Church that they can't shake is polygamy....even though polygamy was officially banned a century go, it's something the Church still has to deal with....Critics in other religions have openly called them a cult."
For more insight into the Church, Williams turned to Abby Huntsman, daughter of former Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, who left the Mormon faith after meeting her future husband, a non-Mormon. She lamented: "It's very black and white still, there's no gray area. You either are in or you're out. And you live by the Mormon doctrine or you do not."
Picking up on that theme, Williams explained: "In this modern world, some old-school rules still govern the Mormon Church, and that means no non-Mormons allowed inside their temples." He then suspiciously asked Huntsman: "I can't get into the Mormon temple. Will that ever change?...What goes on in there?"
Huntsman regretfully replied: "I hope it does. But I don't think that it will....[It] causes a lot of people to feel maybe not good enough, 'Why am I not allowed in there?' So this idea of – maybe being more accepting and moving with the times a little bit is much needed in the Church today."
Williams then turned to those "issues of inequality" that he hyped at the top of the program: "There is another part of Mormonism in the recent past that was late to change, and that's racism. African-Americans were not allowed to become full members until 1978."
Those who think Romney will fight back against these attacks by going after Rev. Jeremiah Wright offer no indication from the Romney campaign that he will do so. Where Obama is perhaps weakest - like Operation Fast and Furious - Romney has avoided.
People cry for different reasons. Tears can be the result of physical pain, extreme joy, or extreme loss. In the case of House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), crying can be his response to the drop of a hat. Perhaps his most surreal episode occurred on 60 Minutes, shortly after riding a wave of Tea Party support to victory in the 2010 mid-terms.
That's kind of what makes it mildly disturbing that Mitt Romney would compare himself to Boehner on an emotional level. In an interview with Parade Magazine (h/t MediaIte), Romney responded thusly when asked if he ever cries:
"I'm emotional. I don't show it quite as clearly as John Boehner, but I'm an emotional person. There is a, I don't know, a societal norm that if you're running for office, you can't be emotional, and perhaps I bow to that too often."
With the gift of hindsight, Boehner has been reticent to lead on two very big issues that required political courage - Operation Fast and Furious (Watergate with murder - a scandal that implicates DOJ, DHS, State Department, and the Obama administration) as well as the concerns of Michele Bachmann and four other congressmen about the threat of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration. In fact, Boehner defended Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's closest advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff, and threw Bachmann under the bus, despite bold red flags that warranted his demand for a further investigation and strident support of Bachmann's efforts.
Similarly, when presented with the opportunity to beat back at the Obama campaign by pulling out the Fast and Furious club (after being called a 'felon' and painted as a murderer), Romney has chosen not to do so. Ditto on the Huma Abedin story; he was presented with an opportunity to respond to the controversy by a reporter and punted.
In that infamous 60 Minutes installment, Boehner got choked up when talking about his fears that future generations will not have a shot at the 'American dream, like I did'. Yet, in two instances when he could have made bold attempts to fight for those future generations - Fast and Furious / Muslim Brotherhood infiltration - he wilted. That is why I believe these tears to be those of a man paralyzed with fear, not just overcome with the emotion of victory:
Romney should avoid any and all comparisons of himself to Boehner on such a level, especially in light of his adoption of similar positions on Fast and Furious / Muslim Brotherhood infiltration, else he risks an unwanted public perception at a time when we need John Wayne type ruggedness, not emotional instability.
An Obama supporter has apparently posted a strategy for winning some southern states in the Bible belt and he's posted it to an Obama campaign website designed to create a nexus between the campaign itself and the voices on the ground. That strategy involves driving Christian voters away from Romney because of... wait for it... his Mormonism.
When the Obama campaign released its much-anticipated Dashboard platform last May, it was touted as a potentially revolutionary organizing tool that would connect supporters, and merge online activism with real-life grassroots campaigning.
It can also be used as a platform to launch whispering campaigns, as one user proved this week.
On Monday, a "team member" named Laurence De Palma, who lists his location as East Nashville, presented volunteers with some talking points to convince Southern Christian voters they shouldn't vote for a Mormon. The message was available under "Resources" and tagged "persuasion."
"I'm thinking that even though we don't LIKE campaigns to get nasty, we in the south (TN) come to EXPECT it," De Palma began. "What we also know is that we have a very 'rigid' view of Christianity, and apparently, Mormonism isn't anywhere in our views. This could easily win TN/SC/AL/GA, etc."
Though the post has since been taken down, Romney's campaign spokesman - Andrea Saul - has responded:
Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul condemned the posting in an emailed statement: "The news concerning the Obama Campaign's dashboard containing language based on sowing religious division is deeply disturbing. There is no place in politics for this, and it must be addressed and put to an end."
There are several reasons why the liberal media wanted Mitt Romney to be the Republican nominee. The establishment wanted him (that usually bodes well for the Democrats); Romney is a moderate; Romneycare would help to neutralize the Obamacare debate; and Romney doesn't inspire the right-wing base, which leads to another reason.
Romney's religion. I've long believed that Mitt's Mormonism would be an issue for the left to exploit; we may just be getting closer to that reality. That's not to say that it hasn't been brought up; it has been.
Last month, James Carville said he thought Romney's religion was his biggest weakness. Last April, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said David Axelrod would attack Mormonism; MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell got quite aggressive against the Mormon religion while NBC's David Gregory did so in a much more subtle / pseudo-objective kinda way.
Also, let's not forget about when Donna Brazile inadvertently let it slip that Romney was the candidate the Democrats wanted to face. Michael A. Walsh, in a New York Post article, wrote about the incident at the time:
Lost in the weekend’s back-to-back debates in New Hampshire was this illuminating remark by Democratic strategist Donna Brazile after Saturday night’s soporific contest in Manchester: “Mitt Romney won tonight because no one touched him. And for Democrats, you know what? It was good news for us . . . because we believe that the weakest candidate is the candidate that the Republicans are not attacking. And that’s Mitt Romney.”
The remark drew guffaws from some of the other assembled party faithful and media commentators, but Brazile spoke the truth. Democrats do believe that Romney is eminently beatable, the perfect foil for President Obama, in fact.
Again, there are several reasons why the Democrats wanted to face Romney. The perceived ability to exploit his religion and drive evangelical voters away is one of them.
Do they really want to make this about religion considering Obama’s Jeremiah Wright past?
Considering that Romney has avoided hitting back at Obama with Fast and Furious after several obvious opportunities to do so. Obama campaign / Super PACs accused Romney of being too 'secretive', suggested he was a 'felon', and implied he murdered a woman. David Axelrod even compared him to Richard Nixon.
Fast and Furious was a gun-walking operation run in the shadows; the Justice Department stonewalled Congress for over a year (and continues to do so) - that's secretive. Fast and Furious was more than just a little felonious - putting guns in the hands of bad guys does qualify. As for murder, Fast and Furious is responsible for the murder of at least one U.S. Border Agent - Brian Terry - and hundreds of Mexican nationals. As for the Nixon comparison, Obama is the one who asserted executive privilege to prevent documents about Fast and Furious from being presented to Congress.
With all due respect to Zip, if Romney won't hit back at these blatantly projectionist attacks by the Obama administration with Fast and Furious, why would he respond to attacks on Mormonism by bringing up Jeremiah Wright?
Ah, there's another reason the Democrats wanted to face Romney.
It's safe to say that the issue of Communist Party USA member Frank Marshall Davis and his influence over a young Barack Obama is a story that should have been covered back in 2008 when it was brought forward by the likes of Trevor Loudon and Cliff Kincaid. This film from America's Survival lays it all out; Barack Obama was not properly vetted. Not only that but there was plenty of information available to do so.
Perhaps the ultimate irony when it comes to the media's lack of interest in the story before Obama was elected in 2008 is the fact that the National Enquirer covered it three weeks before that election.
Gotta admit, while it'd be nice to see Tarek Fatah at least give some credit to appropriate sources, the fact that this story is getting this kind of attention is the most important thing.
Recently, we wrote about Huma Abedin's time on the Board of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at George Washington University. A woman she served alongside with on that Board is Souheila Al-Jadda, who is currently a member of the Board of Contributors for USA Today. Al-Jadda has also served as a legislative assistant for Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH).
Nearly one year ago, a program on The Learning Channel (TLC) was the source of controversy when Lowe's decided to pull its advertising from TLC's All American Muslim (AAM), a show that followed the lives of five Muslim families in Dearborn, MI. Concerns raised initially by the Florida Family Association (FFA) were validated when we examined the background of the Imam featured in the show. His name is Husham Al-Husainy. In the show, he was highly respected and presided over the wedding of a Muslim girl and her fiance, who converted so they could marry.
Here is what we wrote at the time, thanks to Walid's translation of the Jerusalem Document, via Human Events:
Al-Husainy is a signatory to the Jerusalem Document of 2009, which reads more like Mein Kampf. It refers to the war on Zionism as a war between “good and evil.” Zionism is considered an “aggression” that is infecting “the entire human race.” Muslims are told to “get ready for the Holy Jihad.”
If one is inclined to believe this is the “struggle within” version of jihad, the reading of the following phrase after translation should prompt a reevaluation:
“We remind our sons to get ready to carry out their duty in Holy Jihad and continue the path which our young valiant men in Hezbollah began in Southern Lebanon.”
Here is a radio interview from 2007 between Sean Hannity and Husham Al-Husainy who would not denounce Hezbollah and ultimately cut the interview short when he hung up on Hannity:
With this as a backdrop, let's look at the words of Souheila Al-Jadda. During the AAM controversy, she wrote an article for the USA Today, which said, in part, the following:
To me, and many other Muslim Americans, this is the strength of the TV show — demystifying a community that has long been misunderstood. With an opening night audience of 1.7 million, according to Broadcasting & Cable, All-American Muslim will hopefully change the national discourse about Muslims from that of suspicion and exclusion to one of greater trust and inclusion.
Propaganda charges
But a number of critics and activists are unfairly attacking the program, claiming the show is Muslim propaganda that hides the extremist agenda. Some are even pressuring companies, in addition to Lowe's, to pull their advertising to force the show off the air. These attacks are not only short on substance but also wrong on principle and bad for America. They undermine ever-evolving American values of pluralism and tolerance.
A little bit later, Al-Jadda invoked the Ground Zero mosque controversy as another case in point (yes, it seems that Al-Jadda supported construction of the mosque, despite Feisal Abdul Rauf's ties to extremists):
It's no secret that anti-Muslim rhetoric continues to plague public discussions about this community. From New York Rep. Pete King's Muslim radicalization hearings in Congress this year to the anti-sharia movement to the debate surrounding an Islamic center near Ground Zero in New York, Muslims hear this drumbeat of suspicion even a decade after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Additional irony is provided by Al-Jadda when she terms the problems people had with AAM as being "bigotry and stereotyping". Al-Husainy wouldn't denounce the virulently racist / anti-Semitic Hezbollah. Giving the USA Today contributor the benefit of the doubt would require an assumption that she doesn't know the views of Al-Husainy and would denounce them if she did. It's been nearly a year since the All American Muslim controversy and about five years since Al-Husainy hung-up on Hannity. Isn't it about time for Al-Jadda to denounce him (and Hezbollah / Hamas / MSA)?
Uh, that poses a bit of a problem, however.
Al-Jadda served on the Board of the Muslim Students Association at George Washington University with... Huma Abedin. She would have to denounce a Muslim Brotherhood organization with which she is inextricably tied.
Moreover, thanks to the Florida Family Association, it was learned that an All American Muslim styled program was broadcast to six million high school students in America in which two MSA Presidents were profiled.
Incidentally, in a New York Timesarticle that mentions GWU by name, the following is said about the MSA:
Donations from Saudi Arabia largely financed the group, and its leaders pushed the kingdom’s puritan, Wahhabi strain of Islam. Prof. Hamid Algar of the University of California, Berkeley, said that in the 1960s and 1970s, chapters advocated theological and political positions derived from radical Islamist organizations and would brook no criticism of Saudi Arabia.
That would be the same Saudi Arabia that commissioned Abdullah Omar Naseef to found the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) and put Huma Abedin's parents in charge of it.
After twelve years at the IMMA as an Assistant Editor, Huma went to work for Hillary Clinton as her closest advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff (after having already served the First Lady as an aide since 1996, one year before she was listed as being on the MSA Board).
Here again is the screen shot of that 1997 MSA Board at GWU:
Ben Barrack is a talk show host and author of the book, Unsung Davids
Consider this another example of a projectionist softball lobbed by Obama directly at Mitt Romney. The latter's handlers are likely to instruct him to take the pitch despite it being one that power hitters dream about. American Thinker's Edward Olshaker highlights the fact that while Obama claims Romney has aligned himself with the 'radical fringe' of his party, Obama's radical affiliations, so far, are ignored by the presumptive Republican nominee.
President Obama recently accused Mitt Romney of allying himself with "the radical fringe of his party," in an e-mail highlighting his occasional fundraising events with Donald Trump, and now the president's campaign is warning that Paul Ryan is a dangerous extremist.
The audacity of this line of attack naturally brings up the issue of Those Whose Names Must Not Be Mentioned -- Obama's own collection of terror supporters and actual terrorists he chose as mentors (and whose influence is disturbingly evident in his foreign policy). If Romney was waiting for some kind of formal invitation before attacking the president's most glaring weakness, that invitation has arrived.
Obama's fundraising off Romney's "radical" associations is an example of either chutzpah he will get away with or hubris that will come back to haunt him by inviting scrutiny of Obama's closeness with terrorists who appear with him in the suppressed Los Angeles Times video of a 2003 anti-Israel gathering -- former PLO operative Rashid Khalidi (who dedicated a book to Palestinian murderer Yasser Arafat), Bill Ayers (who dedicated a book to Palestinian murderer Sirhan Sirhan), and Bernardine Dohrn.
The guest list also included Ali Abunimah, a close Obama ally who founded the Electronic Intifada website in 2001 (surely Obama realized that the word "intifada" is synonymous with suicide bombings) and the Sanabel debka troupe. Columnist Debbie Schlussel reported that she witnessed a performance of this Palestinian children's dance group that included "simulating beheadings and stomping on American, Israeli, and British flags." (Did they let the children use real swords when they acted out the beheadings? Maybe we'll find out when this comes up in the debates.)
Of course, this kind of Obama projection is not unprecedented. Within the last couple of months, his campaign said Romney is too secretive (Axelrod compared him to Nixon); it accused him of being a 'felon'; and more recently, an Obama Super PAC ad implied he was a murderer. In the case of Fast and Furious, all of those things seem to apply to the Obama administration but Romney's handlers appear too scared to go there.
The projection coming out of the Obama campaign that is being directed at Romney is palpable. The latter is being poked in the chest with it and, to this point, doesn't seem to be willing to push back. The same people Romney energized by picking Paul Ryan as his running mate are the same ones who would welcome this kind of fight and be energized further. Selecting Ryan as the second half of the ticket is shaping up to be a good move but Romney will have to fight back against these kinds of charges for at least two reasons.
1.) They're so easy to rebut
2.) Because they're so easy to rebut, he looks weak for not doing so
Four Ranking members of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Budget - Jeff Sessions, Orrin Hatch, Pat Robers, and Charles Grassley (knows a thing or two about letters being ignored in Fast and Furious investigation) - sent a letter addressed to both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on August 6th. It contained an August 20th deadline that requested a response to five questions.
The problem? Allegedly, illegal aliens are being encouraged to apply for U.S. Government welfare programs.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano are mum on why the legal requirements that immigrants and visa applicants not be reliant on government assistance have been watered down, according to some lawmakers.
The deadline for Clinton and Napolitano to respond to a letter regarding admission of immigrants on or likely to be on assistance programs from senior Republicans on the Budget, Judiciary, Finance, and Agriculture Committees came and passed Monday.
On Tuesday Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, blasted the pair for their failure to comply.
“It is unacceptable that Secretary Napolitano and Secretary Clinton have not seen fit to respond our oversight letter,” Sessions said in a statement. “It is a sound principle of immigration law that those who come to our country should be able to take care of themselves financially, yet this legal requirement has effectively been waived. Under their agencies’ guidelines, an able-bodied, working-age immigrant could receive the bulk of his or her income in the form of federal assistance and still not be deemed welfare-reliant.”
Here is a list of the five questions posed by the four Senators that went unanswered by the August 20th deadline:
An explanation of why receipt of most welfare benefits is excluded from consideration of citizenship eligibility, and how this complies with the (Immigration and Nationality Act) INA and Congressional intent.
From 2001 to 2011, how many visa applicants and applicants for admission through the Visa Waiver Program were denied visas or admission because they were deemed likely to become a public charge?
From 2001 to 2011, how many visa applicants were found likely to become a public charge but were nevertheless granted a visa and admitted into the United States because they presented an affidavit of support?
How many aliens issued visas or otherwise admitted into the United States from 2001 to 2011 became public charges as defined by your agency after entering the United States?
If your answers to the above questions are that your agencies do not track this information, then please explain why this information is not tracked.
Again, those questions were ignored when the August 20th deadline came and went.
Gee, for some reason, I'm reminded of the Cloward-Piven strategy. Check out this first paragraph from a Discover the Networks entry:
First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the Cloward-Piven Strategy seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.
When Barack Obama talks like this, it's usually frustrating for two reasons. The first is that it's a bit hypocritical for him to talk about being transparent based on his nearly four-year record. The second is that the Romney campaign has done a lousy job of pointing out that hypocrisy.
First, check out this video of Obama speaking to the Press Corps. yesterday.
As for how the Romney campaign is coming up short in its responses to the Obama campaign on this matter, there really isn't a more obvious rebuke - for multiple reasons - than the administration's handling of the Fast and Furious documents; Obama asserted Executive Privilege on the same day that Congress found his Attorney General in both criminal and civil contempt of Congress.
One might counter that by saying that Obama issued a qualifier at the end of the video above by referring to 'finances', which would seemingly exempt Fast and Furious from such transparency.
To this day, we still don't know everything about how Obama was able to go to Harvard and Columbia but we do have this video from 2008 that should warrant further questions / investigation about the source of that funding:
Wish I would have caught this earlier but just noticed something about the 2007 Vogue feature article on Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's closest advisor. Nearly two weeks ago, during a press conference at the National Press Club, Andrew McCarthy laid out his case for why the questions raised about Huma Abedin's background are legitimate. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, wrote the following in his article about that case, which he distorted:
If Abedin is in fact a Muslim Brotherhood plant spreading sharia law in the United States, she’s using unorthodox methods: posing provocatively for a Vogue spread, then marrying and having the child of a Jewish congressman who sent out a photo of his genitals on Twitter. As Clinton’s personal aide, helping her boss with suits and handbags and logistics, she has not been in an ideal position to advance the alleged cause. Even McCarthy admits that she’s “not a policymaker.”
Then why go after her? It’s hard to escape the suspicion that it has something to do with the way she looks and how she worships.
McCarthy actually responded to Milbank's subtle screed by directing him to read the words of the Washington Post from one year earlier. Aside from violating a tenet of journalism by questioning McCarthy's motives (Chris Matthews' words), Milbank's reference to the Vogue article that featured Abedin, coupled with his subsequent assertion that Abedin is little more than a gopher for Hillary Clinton is inconsistent with the very Vogue piece he made reference to.
First of all, have a look at the cover page of the article:
hillary's secret weapon...
Huma Abedin: oversees every minute of Senator Clinton's day: Rebecca Johnson keeps pace with an indespensible insider.
Some relevant excerpts via Political Girl, which has posted the entire article:
“Both Hillary and Huma are extraordinary people who are also workaholics,” says Oscar de la Renta, who has often hosted the two at his house in the Dominican Republic. “The E-mailing! It never stops. I tell Hillary, ‘Just because you are working in the sun, that doesn’t make it a vacation.’ They are lucky to have found each other.”
“I don’t think you could say they are like mother and daughter. It’s more like an older sister-younger sister relationship, but it’s definitely familial,” according to a longtime Hillary friend, actress Mary Steenburgen.
“I’m not sure Hillary could walk out the door without Huma,” says Clinton adviser Mandy Grunwald. “She’s a little like Radar on M*A*S*H. If the air-conditioning is too cold, Huma is there with the shawl. She’s always thinking three steps ahead of Hillary.”
Abedin is remarkably cheerful about holding shawls-”There’s no detail too small for me,” she says-but there’s a lot more to her job than that. “Huma does make the trains run on time,” says Bob Barnett, the Clintons’ longtime personal lawyer, “and she does it well, which is important when you are as in demand as the senator is. But she also has an incredible ability to remember people and get things done. I’m always looking to her for her judgment and encyclopedic knowledge of what’s been said, where, and by whom.”
Among all of Abedin’s qualities, however, the most important may be the most ineffable-she says “no” better than anyone. “A lot of people who are in jobs with major public figures tend to get sour and exclusive over time,” says Barnett. “Huma is the opposite. She is always inclusive. She makes people feel good even when she’s saying no.” And there’s a lot of no when your boss is one of the most famous women on the planet, running for president.
Are we to believe that all of the e-mails have to do with the latest in handbags? When it comes to familial relationships, saying one exists between Huma and Hillary should be a little disconcerting when one considers the actual familial relationships of Mrs. Abedin. If Huma is like Radar, she knows quite a bit more about what's going on than Hillary does.
Those last two paragraphs would seem to indicate that Huma had tremendous sway over where the trains stopped, when Hillary got off, and whom she saw. Has any of that changed since 2007? Considering Huma's position, it would seem like another reason to know.
Along those lines, the following excerpt appears near the end of the article:
After hearing from so many people that Huma Abedin is the master of the velvet no, I finally got to experience it firsthand. Following Hillary’s breakfast in the Hilton ballroom, her traveling press person introduced me to the senator so I could get a quote about her employee. Just as I was about to ask, Abedin swooped in. “No, no, no,” she said, waving her hands. “She has to go.”
Clinton smiled and shrugged. “I go where I’m told,” she said.
Based on what is now known about the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), we can now say with nearly complete certainty that the part of this stanza that refers to IMMA without naming it is false:
You can see why the First Lady wanted Abedin. Fluent in Arabic and a practicing Muslim born in Kalamazoo, Michigan, to a Pakistani mother and an Indian father, Abedin moved with her family to Saudi Arabia when she was two years old. There, her father, an Islamic scholar, founded an institute devoted to fostering religious understanding between the East and West. Her mother, a sociology professor, helped create one of the first private women’s colleges in the country. “I grew up in a very traditional family,” she says, “but there was never anything I didn’t think I could do.”
Of course, we now know that the institute is not devoted to fostering religious understanding between East and West; it is devoted to transforming lands and nations that currently consist of Muslim minorities into lands and nations that hold Muslim majorities.
Trying something new with Sound Cloud. Moving forward, I'll try to post podcasts here on the blog page shortly after the program, in addition to having them available on the show archives page.
Topics discussed today...
Family Research Council (FRC) Shooting
Southern Poverty Law Center's 'Hate map'
Developments in Nidal Malik Hasan trial (Eric Holder named by Judge)
Things are getting interesting with respect to the history of the George Washington University (GWU) chapter of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) - in particular, the 1997 - 2002 timeframe.
Earlier this week, we reported that Huma Abedin served on the Board of GWU's chapter of the MSA in 1997 and left some time before early 1999. Andrew McCarthy then rightfully pointed out that none other than notorious al-Qaeda figure Anwar al-Awlaki served on the same Board, though after Abedin left; al-Awlaki served as a "Chaplain" on GWU's MSA Board from late 2001 - 2002.
That leads us to another "Chaplain" who served on the same MSA Board alongside al-Awlaki - and for a much longer period of time. Mohamed S. Omeish served as "Chaplain" from at least October, 1999 - April, 2002. During the time when both men served on the MSA Board at GWU, they were the only two listed as Chaplains.
If one has a difficult time finding it significant that while Huma and al-Awlaki served on the Board but never together, perhaps the significance of al-Awlaki and Omeish serving on the Board together - and in the same capacity - will not be lost on them. Omeish is a rather big fish when it comes to the nexus between the Muslim World League and the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, if one believes that al-Qaeda leadership is expendable while leaders of organizations that have been known to finance them are not, the fates of both al-Awlaki and Omeish may just serve as the perfect microcosm.
Mohamed Omeish headed the U.S. branch of one of bin Laden's favorite Saudi charities, the International Islamic Relief Organization, which was raided after 9/11. Tax records I've obtained show Omeish shared an office with Alamoudi, the convicted al-Qaida-tied terrorist and godfather of the Muslim mafia in America. This is the same "moderate" Muslim leader who federal prosecutors caught on tape complaining bin Laden hadn't killed enough Americans.
The IIRO was formed under the Muslim World League (MWL), again, a large Saudi Arabian umbrella group whose Secretary General from 1983 - 1993 was none other than Abdullah Omar Naseef. It's important to remember at this point that from 1996 - 2003, both Naseef and Huma Abedin served on the Board of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs. Huma served on the IMMA Board as Assistant Editor from 1996 - 2008 while also serving on the same MSA Board in 1997 that would later welcome Omeish and al-Awlaki as Muslim "Chaplain(s)". As the leader of IIRO in the United States, Omeish led a group created with the help of Naseef's MWL.
Incidentally, two IIRO branch offices - in the Philippines and Indonesia - were listed as terrorist entities by the United Nations as recently as May of 2011.
Click here for a chart that explains Naseef's role with and ties to MWL and IIRO.
Moreover, according to Sperry, Omeish shared an office with none other than Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was convicted of charges related to terrorism in 2004. The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report provides a bit more detail on the relationship between Mohamed Omeish and Alamoudi:
According to the sworn statement of a US federal law enforcement officer as well as various public records, Mohamed Omeish is also an officer of the American Muslim Foundation and the Success Foundation both located at the same address as the MAS headquarters in Virginia. The former President of the American Muslim Foundation and Secretary of the Success Foundation was Abdul Rahman Alamoudi, convicted in a plot to murder Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah on behalf of Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi. Both organizations received donations from the SAAR Foundation where Mr. Alamoudi was employed as an executive Assistant during the 1990s’.
So even if one ignores Huma Abedin's time at IMMA, the MSA charter at GWU raises more red flags. Ms. Abedin served on the Board of an organization whose future Board members had direct ties with or included Anwar al-Awlaki and Abdurahman Alamoudi.
Let's take a look at another Omeish - Mohamed's brother, Esam. In Sperry's 2007 article, he identified Esam as the head of the Muslim American Society (MAS) who hired the man who served as a Chaplain alongside Esam's brother:
Esam S. Omeish also sits on the board of the 9/11-tied mosque in Washington that helped the hijackers get licenses and housing, and whose imam prepared them for martyrdom operations in private closed-door sessions. Omeish personally hired the imam, Anwar Aulaqi, who fled the country on a Saudi jet about a year after 9/11...
A few months prior to the Fort Hood shootings, before which shooter Nidal Malik Hasan is known to have corresponded with al-Awlaki several times via email, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton invited Esam onto a conference call, which he attended. When the State Department was asked if it was aware of Esam's background, the question apparently fell on deaf ears.
The State Department has not replied to questions as to whether it was aware of Omeish's past comments when he was selected as one of approximately 100-200 invitees to participate in the conference, which included academics and Muslim leaders.
Aside from it being the State Department's job to know such things, it was also asked this question at a time when Huma Abedin was still Clinton's closest advisor. Are we to believe Huma knew nothing of Essam's background? Wouldn't it have been easy for her to reach out the MSA chapter at GWU, where she once served as a Board member, to find out?
The Fox article quoted Esam Omeish from the conference call as well:
In the conference call with Clinton last week, which was advertised as a forum to discuss how to bridge the divide between the United States and the Muslim community, Omeish expressed support for President Obama and offered that Muslim-Americans needed to get more involved in politics.
In 2007, Esam had to resign as a member of Virginia's Commission of Immigration after video of him in December of 2000 surfaced. Ironically, that video was shot just outside the White House, which was still occupied by the Clintons at the time. Here is an excerpt from that video:
Discover the Networks reports that Esam also resigned his post at MAS after the video surfaced. Again, are we to believe, based on the State Department's silence, coupled with its inclusion of Esam on the 2009 conference call, that they were unaware of Esam's history?
Another video from 2006 captured Esam calling for the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners. Perhaps the most attention-grabbing moment comes at the 3:00 mark, when Esam calls on George W. Bush to "stop calling Islam 'Islamic fascism'".
Unfortunately for Esam, that's not what Bush said and by alleging that he did, Esam entered dangerous territory. Peaceful practitioners of Islam should have agreed with Bush's word choice. Those who didn't warrant increased suspicion.
Here is video of George W. Bush referring to America's enemies as 'Islamic fascists'. It would be the first and last time he used that term.
The subject of Huma Abedin's Form 86 has come up in the past. Should we not also learn about her time at the MSA and if she had any connections with Board members who succeeded her, especially since a few of them have turned out to be either notorious and/or suspicious?
Ben Barrack is a talk show host and author of the book, Unsung Davids
Rep. Allen West (R-FL) is now calling for Obama to release the Fast and Furious documents that have been subpoenaed by Congress in response to the campaign's demand for Romney to release multiple years of tax returns. This is such a blatantly obvious response to Obama's tactics that it makes Romney look politically weak not to do so. Thank goodness West is out there doing it for him (somebody has to do it).
Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) set high stakes in an offered “deal” with President Obama on Friday.
Obama’s campaign isn’t backing down on requests to see Mitt Romney’s tax returns — on Friday, campaign manager Jim Messina offered to stop asking if he releases five years' worth — but the freshman Florida congressman had a counteroffer for Obama.
“Show us your sealed college records and Operation Fast and Furious White House memos, and we will all show you our tax returns,” West wrote on his Facebook page Friday.
The Hill goes on to say this is not new, that Trump has called on Obama to release his college transcripts. The problem is that demanding the release of the Fast and Furious documents is a much more salient argument because it goes to the very heart of many of the Obama campaign's claims about what Romney is guilty of doing / not doing.
The collective charges against Romney represent the penultimate example of projection.
Regular readers to this blog know that I have been calling on Romney to hit back at the Obama campaign by demanding Obama release the Fast and Furious documents. Romney has had countless opportunities to do so.
When Obama granted amnesty to illegals and attempted to portray himself as someone who cared for the welfare of Mexicans, Romney should have pointed to Fast and Furious, an operation that led to the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans.
When David Axelrod compared Mitt Romney to Richard Nixon for being too secretive, Romney should have pointed to the fact that Obama more closely mirrors Nixon by asserting Executive Privilege to prevent Congressionally subpoenaed documents from being released.
When the Obama campaign raised cain about when Romney left Bain and said that Romney might be a 'felon', Romney should have pointed to Fast and Furious. If anything is felonious, it's that operation, which included the involvement of officials at the highest levels of Obama's Justice Department.
When an Obama Super PAC ad implied that Mitt Romney is responsible for the death of a woman who got cancer, Romney should have brought up Fast and Furious, an operation that the Obama administration is ultimately responsible for. Hundreds of people are dead as a direct result of it, including Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
When the Obama campaign demands that Romney release his tax returns, Romney should demand that Obama release the documents over Fast and Furious that he asserted Executive Privilege over as Eric Holder was being found in both criminal and civil contempt of Congress.
If you're in the camp of those who believe Romney needs to fight, harping on Obama's actions in response to his Attorney General being held in criminal and civil contempt of Congress - bipartisan in both cases - going after the president over Fast and Furious is a no-brainer.
West shouldn't be saying what Romney should be saying; Romney should.
The shooting that took place inside the Family Research Council (FRC) is beginning to look more and more political in nature. FRC, headed by Anthony Perkins, is a socially conservative organization that supports the traditional definition of marriage and opposes gay marriage. One could say that FRC and Chick-fil-A are on the same page.
Floyd Lee Corkins was taken into custody after shooting a security guard in FRC's lobby. It turns out that Corkins has done extensive volunteer work at a gay rights organization and was carrying several Chick-fil-A sandwiches in his backpack at the time of the shooting. Oh, and one more thing; the FBI has reported that Corkins made a political statement prior to the shooting.
On Wednesday, 28-year-old Floyd Lee Corkins of Herndon, Va., allegedly entered the lobby of the Family Research Council and shot the security guard. According to the FBI, Corkins had a 9mm handgun, two magazines of ammunition, 50 rounds of additional ammo and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches in his backpack. According to the FBI, he “stated words to the effect of ‘I don’t like your politics...’”
...The suspect, Floyd Corkins, had been volunteering for the last six months at The DC Center for the LGBT Community. The DC Center released a statement condemning the violence, which was signed by 40 other local and national LGBT groups.
That leads us to the very left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), primarily because of the standard set by the left-wing media, pundits, and movement. The SPLC actually has a 'Hate Map' that identifies entities and individuals it views as being hateful. The FRC is on that map and listed as being 'Anti-Gay'.
First, some context and why SPLC's map is relevant.
Within hours of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting on January 8, 2011, New York Times writer Paul Krugman blamed Sarah Palin for using a map that showed 'crosshair' targets on districts in the country that were held by vulnerable Democrats prior to the 2010 elections; Giffords' district was one that had a target on it and Krugman pounced:
We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She’s been the target of violence before. And for those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist. (Her father says that “the whole Tea Party” was her enemy.) And yes, she was on Sarah Palin’s infamous “crosshairs” list.
Instead of being fired for journalistic malpractice, Krugman remained a hero to the left. A consequence was that a new, very low standard had been set. Using Krugman's standard, perpetrators of acts of violence could not only escape 100% accountability for their actions but that people who had nothing to do with it could be blamed. In this case, Krugman implied that Jared Loughner shot Giffords because Sarah Palin released a map that was clearly intended to identify vulnerable Democrats to be targeted... for DEFEAT AT THE BALLOT BOX.
Making matters worse for Krugman, as usual, were facts. Not only did Palin's map have absolutely nothing to do with the Tucson shootings but if Loughner was political at all, he was a leftist (he identified the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf as two of his favorite books).
Now, back to Corkins and the FRC shooting. Unlike Palin's map - intended to generate voter enthusiasm in certain districts - the SPLC's 'Hate Map' is quite plainly intended to identify groups with which it disagrees as being legitimate targets of hatred themselves based on their political views.
At a press conference on Thursday outside the FRC headquarters in downtown Washington, FRC President Perkins said, “I want to express my appreciation to the groups and organizations that we do not agree with on many public policy issues who have also expressed their outrage at what took place here yesterday. For that, I appreciate it. I appreciate them making those statements.”
“But I would ask them to go a step further and to join us in calling for an end to the reckless rhetoric that I believe led to yesterday’s incident that took place right behind me,” he said.
“And that does bring me to my final point,” said Perkins. “Let me be clear, that Floyd Corkins was responsible for firing the shot yesterday that wounded one of our colleagues and our friend Leo Johnson. But Corkins was given a license to shoot an unarmed man by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center that have been reckless in labeling organizations hate groups because they disagree with them on public policy.”
“And I believe the Southern Poverty Law Center should be held accountable for their reckless use of terminology that is leading to the intimidation and what the FBI here has categorized as an act of domestic terrorism,” he said. “There’s no room for that in a society such as ours that works through differences that we have on issues in public policy through a peaceful means.”
It is probably not advisable for Perkins to say that SPLC gave Corkins a 'license to shoot' because that can take away from his contention that Corkins was solely responsible for the shooting. However, when applying the standard set by the likes of Krugman, it's a valid point.
The FRC shooting appears to be much more politically motivated than the Giffords shooting was. Let's see, the shooter works for a gay rights group, carries 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches in his backpack, proceeds to walk into the lobby of a socially conservative organization, and says openly that he doesn't like the politics of that organization while shooting people.
Yet, Krugman and his left-wing media colleagues are silent.
