Is there a Huma Abedin connection to Hillary Clinton's celebration of Muslim Holiday two days after 9/11?

There were two people introduced by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton inside the Ben Franklin room at a Muslim Eid dinner on September 13th, two days after Muslims attacked two U.S. Embassies and killed four Americans. One of the two people Hillary celebrated Eid with was Libya's Ambassador to the U.S., Ali Sulaiman Aujali.

The other was an individual who is the focus of this post - Farah Pandith. Clinton introduced Pandith at the 9/13/12 Eid dinner at around the 15:00 mark of this video.

On September 15, 2009 Pandith was sworn in as the U.S. Representative to Muslim Communities in a ceremony over which Clinton presided. Pay close attention to a couple of things. One, take note of the portrait of Thomas Jefferson behind the podium. Two, pay attention starting at the 8:15 mark as Hillary announces that Pandith will be getting sworn in with one hand on the Qur'an:

HERE IS A LINK TO THE VIDEO.

Before swearing Pandith in, Clinton seemed fixated on creating and establishing dialogue with Muslims all across the world that would focus on "what all of us have in common". Three years earlier, in 2006, Pandith seemed to demonstrate that she had some things "in common" with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Via GMBDR:

Ms. Pandith was one of the organizers of a March 2006 conference in Belgium called “Muslim Communities Participating in Society: A Belgian-U.S. Dialogue.” The conference brought together the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood with its Belgian/European counterparts and the participating American organizations included all of the major U.S. Brotherhood organizations- the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and the Muslim Students Association of the US and Canada (MSA).

Hours after Pandith's swearing in, she spoke at the White House iftar dinner on 9/15/09. Below is video of her speech. At about the 3:00 mark, Pandith makes reference to Huma Abedin while explaining that this particular iftar dinner was the 13th "shared" by both Abedin and Hillary. She later pointed to Hillary Clinton as being responsible for breaking new ground by beginning iftar / Eid celebrations starting in 1999. Hillary later corrected Pandith, saying the practice started in 1996, the same year that Huma Abedin began working with Clinton:



Within the next year, Pandith would meet with some individuals who should have raised some red flags. For example, on October 31, 2009 Pandith was in Saudi Arabia, where she met with the mother of Huma Abedin - Saleha Abedin - at Dar el-Hekma college, where Saleha served as a vice dean after having helped found the college.

Here is a photo of Pandith with Saleha, one of 63 leaders in the Muslim Sisterhood and close friend of Egypt's first lady Najla Mahmoud, on 10/31/09:



A few months later, Hillary and Huma would visit Dar el-Hekma as well.

Shortly after Hillary's visit with Saleha in Saudi Arabia, Pandith, by her own admission, traveled to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (OCIS) where she met with OCIS "Fellows" according to her own twitter feed:


Via the GMBDR:

The Oxford Centere has numerous ties to Saudi Arabia and the global Muslim Brotherhood. For example, the chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Oxford Centre is Abdullah Omar Naseef who has held important positions in Saudi Arabia including serving as Vice-President of the Kingdom’s Shura Council, President of King Abdul Aziz University, and was Secretary-General of the Muslim World League (MWL) from 1983-1993. In addition to his role as Oxford Centre Board Chairman, Dr. Naseef has also been associated with other UK Islamist organizations including the Islamic Foundation and the Markfield Institute for Advanced Studies.

Of course, one of the individuals who was a Fellow at OCIS at the time was the brother of Huma Abedin - Hassan Abedin. Moreover, the Chairman of the Board was Abdullah Omar Naseef, the same man who founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA). IMMA still lists Hassan and Saleha as members of the Editorial Board.

Last month, at the White House iftar dinner, President Barack Obama singled out Huma Abedin so that he could defend her against questions about her background. Also present at the iftar dinner was Farah Pandith, who posted this photo of herself with Huma and and Zeenat Rahman on her facebook page.

She referred to Huma as her "colleague" (Huma on far left, Pandith on far right):



Based on what we know about Huma Abedin's familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, coupled with what we know about Farah Pandith's willingness to both refer to her as a "colleague" and visit with "Fellows" of the OCIS, which included Naseef, Huma's brother, and the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood - Yusuf al-Qaradawi - at the time, a look into Pandith's background (Form 86) might be in order as well.

Did I mention she was sworn while placing one hand on the Qur'an?

Is it time to learn from Flight 93's Passengers yet?

The United States is being held hostage. In the wake of the attacks on our embassies, an anti-Muhammad video has been identified not just by the Muslim world, but by our own Government as the reason for those attacks. The real reason - enunciated in Arabic - is to use the video as a tool to get nations all over the globe to criminalize criticism of anything Islam.

In essence, Americans are supposed to surrender a right so sacrosanct to their country's founding principles that our forefathers, in crafting the Bill of Rights, made it a central component of the very first Amendment.

When people are taken hostage in bank robberies - or anywhere else for that matter - what is a common phrase that is universal to all hostage takers?

"Do what we say and no one will get hurt."

It's a phrase that's part of evil's DNA.

In the case of 9/11/01, the hijackers of the first three planes neutralized their passengers by using variations of that phrase. Here is the leader of the 19 hijackers - Mohamed Atta - telling people onboard American Flight 11 to be quiet and everything will be alright:



That leads to another strain embedded in evil's DNA; it lies and it deceives. It will tell you that as long as you do what it wants, you will be ok. Evil has no intention whatsoever of leaving you "ok" when you do what it wants. The flames of hate are fed by the pheromones of fear.

The 9/11 Commission determined that the hijackers of United Flight 175 subdued passengers, based on the accounts of eyewitnesses, by sending people to the back of the plane and telling them that compliance would keep them from being harmed.

Indications were that American Flight 77, which flew into the Pentagon, suffered the same fate; passengers were told to get to the back of the plane.

United Flight 93 was a different story because its passengers knew they weren't going to be ok if they did as they were told; news of what happened to the other planes gave them two options - die or fight.

They were told by hijacker Ziad Jarrah to be quiet until their "demands" were met. Fortunately for our White House and Capitol and, by extension, our president and congressmen, that didn't happen - thanks to those courageous Americans who represent all of us.

Here is what Jarrah told the passengers:



Perhaps the sickest irony of all is that Flight 93's passengers prevented the hijackers from attacking either the U.S. Capitol or the White House, two structures that house the leadership which should be doggedly protecting not only Americans themselves but every single aspect of the first amendment the people who agree with the 9/11 hijackers want to take away. Instead, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - Martin Dempsey - called a small Florida pastor to talk him out of exercising his first amendment rights so no one gets hurt.

Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress seem to want to bow to Sharia law and most Republicans are reticent to stand up to it. The message from the White House is that the 9/11/12 attacks are not against the United States but a response to an exercise of free speech (isn't that the same thing?).

Question: If the 9/11/12 attackers are burning the President of the United States in effigy while collectively invoking the name of Osama bin Laden, does that mean the attacks of 9/11/01 were not against the United States either, despite our financial center and Pentagon being primary targets?

The passengers who prevented Flight 93 from reaching its target represent the same Americans who are being told that a video is responsible for the Muslim riots in the Middle East.

Instead of the Obama administration and Congress doing all it can to defend - with all its might - the Constitution it swore an oath to defend, they appear to be on the brink of complying with the demands of those who attacked us on 9/11/12.

"Give up your right of free speech and no one will get hurt."

There comes a point at which storming the cockpit is better than the alternative. Losing the right of free speech will be one of those times.

Two Suspects identified in U.S. Embassy attack in Cairo

At act of war was committed against the United States in Cairo on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Now it's being learned that one of two people who could be most responsible is scheduled to visit the United States on September 15th for a business trip. This would be like inviting KSM into the United States after 9/11.

The names of the two men identified by Arabic sources discovered by Walid Shoebat are Wisam Abdul Waris and Nader Bakkar. The reason behind the attack seems to be quite simple - and very Alinsky-esque. The riots were intended to create a crisis that was allegedly caused by an anti-Muslim film, whereby an agenda could be pushed that would criminalize (internationally) attacks on Islam.

Via Shoebat:

The attacks on U.S. Embassies had very little to do with the latest film and much more to do with the old story of the Muhammad Cartoon and the failure of Muslims to prosecute internationally the culprits who drew the Muhammad cartoons. This will be another attempt to change the laws globally.

Wisam Abdul Waris of Dar Al-Hekma (House of Wisdom) – about whom the Nour Salafist party announced publicly that its call to demonstrate was in support of – began a call to push for the passage of laws to be placed in the Egyptian Constitution – as well as internationally – that would make it illegal to criticize Islam.

In an interview posted to YouTube on September 9th, Wisam said the following (translation by Shoebat):

We have moved to review... all the legal procedures today by which we created The Voice of Wisdom Coalition (I’itilaf Sawt al-Hekma); it will hold accountable everyone who insults Islam locally and internationally, in accordance with every country’s laws. We all know the problems Yasser Al-Habib had in London and after that in Berlin… in Germany, an extremist group was allowed to publicize cartoons that insult the prophet in front of the Salafist Mosque in Berlin, through a legal decision. So what we did was to ask Sharabi Mahmoud to reject this legal decision on behalf of the Egyptian people who are Muslim; for this reason, we created this coalition. We also made an official request from the Church in Egypt to issue a public announcement, to state it has nothing to do with this deed.

This is where Nader Bakkar comes in. As a prominent member of the Nour Party, he echoed Wisam's sentiment and the official facebook page of the Nour Party posted the following:

Salafi Nour Party officially joined the Commonwealth of ‘voice of wisdom’ with Wisam Abdul Waris, as well as with Nader Bakkar, the party’s official spokesman and Dr. Ahmed Khalil Khairallah, member of the supreme body.

Said Bakkar:

"Ahmed Khalil, of the supreme body, and I joined the Association of the voice of wisdom with Dr. Wisam Abdul Waris as official representatives from Nour Party and the Salafist call."

On his personal facebook page, Bakkar said the following:

"…after the movie that abused the Prophet (peace be upon him), none will dare object to our determination to put an article in the constitution that criminalizes insults of the divine through portrayal or animation of the prophet, His companions, and all His House and mothers of the believers… this is the least we can do."

It's important to understand that this entire episode smacks of Middle Eastern-style Community Organizing. Ratcheting up the 'never let a crisis go to waste' mantra involves CREATING a crisis that you don't let go to waste. In this case, mobs of Muslims riot while pointing to a film as the source of their rage. Meanwhile, characters like Wisam and Bakkar can help push an agenda that involves criminalizing criticism of Islam.

Saul Alinksy's Rules for Radicals comes in quite handy at this point. In particular, check out Rule #8.

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

So if criminalizing criticism of Islam is on the international agenda of the Muslim world, where is it on the Obama administration's agenda? This video from July of this year should answer that question quite simply. It is an exchange between Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), - one of the five courageous Congressmen who are asking legitimate questions about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the U.S. Government - and Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division:

Video: Gunmen in Libya say, 'Don't Shoot us! We were sent by Mursi!'

The first 1:30 of this video is of no use if you don't speak Arabic. However, once it changes to the raw footage of a fire fight in Benghazi, it becomes very interesting very quickly. Listen carefully - the news report loops the portion of the video - as one gunman can be heard shouting the name 'Mursi' (Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood president).

The full translation according to Shoebat is basically a plea to prevent friendly fire.

'Don't Shoot us! We were sent by Mursi'



This doesn't just point to the attacks on U.S. Embassies in Egypt and Libya being jointly coordinated; it would seem to point to the President of Egypt, who happens to be of the Muslim Brotherhood, as being involved in both attacks.