December 21, 2013

(Shiek) In an era when the most minute and lurid descriptions of her husband’s anatomical and sexual details are common talk, Huma Abedin’s familial and professional connections to the world of jihad are unspeakable.
In a nutshell – quoting former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy writing at National Review this week – Huma Abedin “worked for many years at a journal that promotes Islamic supremacist ideology that was founded by a top al-Qaida financier, Abdullah Omar Naseef.” That would be for at least seven years (1996-2003), by the way, during which Abedin also worked for Hillary Clinton.
Let this sink in for just a moment. The journal Huma worked for – which promotes Islamic supremacism and was founded by al-Qaida financer Naseef, who also headed the Muslim World League, a leading Muslim Brotherhood organization – is called the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. It was edited first by Huma’s father, Syed Abedin, and now by her mother, Saleha Abedin. Saleha is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood. Mother Abedin also directs an organization (the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child) that comes under the umbrella of the Union for Good, another U.S.-designated terrorist organization. As McCarthy reminds us, “the Union for Good is led by Sheikh Yusef al-Qaradawi, the notorious Muslim Brotherhood jurist who has issued fatwas calling for the killing of American military and support personnel in Iraq as well as suicide bombings in Israel.”
Given these alarming professional and family associations, it is hard to imagine how Huma Abedin ever received the security clearance necessary to work closely with the secretary of state. But she did, and from her powerful post, she undoubtedly exerted influence over U.S. policy-making. (In his National Review piece, McCarthy lists specific actions that bespeak a shift in U.S. foreign policy to favor the Muslim Brotherhood.)
Isn’t the Abedin-Clinton national security story at least as newsworthy as Weiner’s private parts?

The Bush letter nine years on

April 14, 2013

(Carl) Rick Richman reminds us that Sunday is the 9th anniversary of the famous Bush letter that effectively promised Israel the ‘settlement blocs.’ At the time, the letter was overwhelmingly endorsed by both Houses of Congress, but in 2009, President Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, tried to pretend that it didn’t exist, and Obama has continued to behave as if the letter did not exist.
US Secretary of State John FN Kerry is unable to pretend the letter didn’t exist. But that doesn’t mean he’s going to back Israel’s position. Rick Richman explains.

At an April 9 press conference in Tel Aviv, Bow Shapira from Israeli TV (Channel 1) told Kerry he wanted to ask about “a guarantee from the past”–the 2004 Bush letter, which he described as “telling that blocs of settlements can stay, cannot [be] removed from the territory.” His question about the guarantee was straightforward: “well, does it exist?” Kerry responded in part as follows:

I remember that commitment very well because I was running for president then, and I personally have supported the notion that the situation on the ground has changed, and obviously, we’re talking about blocs that are in a very different status. I’m not going to get into telling you what ought to happen with respect to any particular piece of geography today because that’s for the parties to decide in their negotiation. But I have certainly supported the notion publicly myself that we need to deal with the ’67 lines, plus the swaps that reflect some of the changes that have taken place since then.

It is not surprising that Kerry remembered the commitment so well. He appeared on “Meet the Press” on April 18, 2004–four days after the Bush letter was issued–and was asked directly about it by Tim Russert:

MR. RUSSERT: On Thursday, President Bush … said that Israel can keep part of the land seized in the 1967 Middle East War and asserted the Palestinian refugees cannot go back to their particular homes. Do you support President Bush?
MR. RUSSERT: Completely?

Kerry’s response to the Israeli reporter last week is significant, because he recognized: (1) that the Bush letter was in fact a commitment, subsequently endorsed by both the Senate (95-3) and the House (407-9) in concurrent resolutions; and (2) that he supported it at the time, in unambiguous terms.

But it is indicative of the continuing problem President Obama created with his refusal in 2009 to endorse the Bush letter that an Israeli reporter felt it necessary to ask whether the U.S. commitment exists. The president has been attempting to assure Israelis with his have-your-back, all-options-on-the-table rhetorical commitments, but they remember that in the past he did not feel constrained to respect even a written commitment to Israel.

Given that Obama doesn’t live up to his commitments, why should Israel give up real assets to appease him?


The Terrifying Mindset of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

February 16, 2013

Joseph Curl

Her words are already long gone from the daily flow; in fact, they never really resonated at all, were all but ignored by the mainstream media, and were characterized more as a feisty in-your-face comeback than what they truly were.
And what they truly were was horrifying — but at the same time a deep insight into the Democratic mindset, as well as a peek at what may be coming in 2016.
Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton finally appeared to answer questions before two congressional panels on exactly what happened at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.

That day, the consulate was overrun by heavily armed terrorists, some with rocket-propelled grenade launchers, others with high-powered assault weapons. They swept past the almost nonexistent security, killed the U.S. ambassador and set the building on fire. They followed when dozens of Americans fled to a more-heavily fortified annex nearby, but U.S. forces did nothing during the next 10 hours and three more were killed, including two Navy SEALs.
For weeks, the White House and top administration officials said the assault was merely a protest turned violent: The angry mass had gathered to protest a short video posted on YouTube that Muslims reportedly found offensive. It was, they said, spontaneous, and it was, they said, all about that video.
The hearing last week was a fact-finding mission: Lawmakers charged with oversight of the State Department gathered to ask the secretary of state — for the first time — what went wrong, and to find out, if possible, the cause of the deadly blunder. More, they wanted to hear from the secretary herself just why the administration had said for so long that a video caused an impromptu protest that led to the death of the U.S. ambassador.
Asked during a Senate hearing why they had given out faulty information for so long, Mrs. Clinton grew angry and, with her voice rising, her hands flailing, said: “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?!”
And that, in a nutshell, sums up the frightening Democratic mindset. The administration had buried the matter for months in an internal investigation: No one from the White House to the State Department would comment on what happened, turning away queries with the simple: “It’s under investigation.” And they weren’t about to start explaining now.
Remember, the story had changed completely just hours before another congressional hearing months earlier. State Department officials, speaking with anonymity, had scrambled to hold a hastily-arranged conference call with reporters to say, in essence, “Oh, turns out it was terrorists, not just protesters, who attacked in Benghazi. And oh, nothing to do with any video.” That call came just before officials planned to tell a completely new story, but this time to lawmakers, where — as Mrs. Clinton learned after her husband’s affair with a White House intern — lying under oath is a felony.
So, lawmakers still wanted to know why the administration dispatched aides to the Sunday talk shows right after the deadly attack to say it was the culmination of a spontaneous attack over a video. Later, Mrs. Clinton and President Obama would say that they were merely offering up the best information at the time, but as information dribbed and drabbed out over the following months, it turned out that no one in the intelligence community ever said the attack was spontaneous or caused by a video posted on YouTube nearly six months earlier.
But Mrs. Clinton made clear at the hearing that she didn’t have to answer to anyone — certainly not elected lawmakers, let alone the American people. “What difference does it make?!” she bellowed. Now, this hearing was in fact a hearing intended to find out why the administration said the attack came after an impromptu protest over a video. Senators made clear in the days preceded the hearing that they planned to ask just that, get the answer to that most pressing unanswered question.
“You know, to be clear,” the secretary explained, as if to children, “it is, from my perspective, less important today, looking backwards, as to why these militants decided they did it [sic], than to find them and bring them to justice.”
So, from her perspective, there doesn’t need to be any investigation into why the administration said what it said. It’s like a child breaking a lamp, lying about it to his parents, and then saying, “Look, we could go on and on about who said what about breaking the lamp, but fixing the lamp now is really all that’s important — let’s move on.”
And that is terrifying. The secretary of state said simply, “The ends justify the means.” The Obama administration had lied about what happened in Benghazi to help secure a second term for the president, buried the murder of Americans in a private investigation, then, when finally questioned, said, “What difference does it make!?” what we said way back then.
The tactic is, of course, how Democrats operate. They feel that what they are doing is morally superior; thus, however they can achieve their goals is above question or reproach. In fact, in this case, they can lie about it — bald-faced — and then dismiss lawmakers’ questions with an indignant huff.
It is, as we know, exactly how the Clintons operate. Bill Clinton lied for weeks and months over his sexual dalliance with an intern only a few years older than his daughter — even under oath — and Democrats decried the probe as a witch hunt. Remember when Mrs. Clinton made $100,000 through spurious cattle futures contracts? Of course not: By the time it all came around, the Clintons said, “Oh, that old stuff?” Or the time the Clintons announced they had suddenly found papers demanded by investigators for years? And don’t even ask about Vincent W. Foster Jr.

This is what’s coming in 2016. A politician running for president who need not answer questions from anyone. And that truly is horrifying.
• Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times. He can be reached at


Greta Van Susteren interviews #Hillary #Clinton about #MiddleEast ,Pres #Morsi and #Benghazi.

January 31, 2013

You see the way this feminist hussy is trying to spin why an insecure embassy was in Libya? We were giving the Muslim Brotherhood weapons, but Clinton spins it. We were there to keep the weapons from going to Israel? Those were our weapons. Wow… that takes some progressive chutzpah. The lies never… ever… ever… stop!

Video – Greta Van Susteren interviews Hillary Clinton about Middle East ,Pres Morsi and Benghazi.HT: BarrackNow. Greta brings up Morsi’s 2010 comments, which included him saying the Jews were descendants of “apes and pigs”, and that Egypt must “nurse its children on hatred of the Jews”. A few hours before Greta’s interview, reports came out that a close Morsi aid said the Holocaust never happened and that the Jews secretly moved to the U.S.
Hillary’s response?
At the 1:58 mark, she says “We were quite concerned about those statements” and that “the Egyptian presidency has repudiated” the comments.
What more proof does one need that the Democratic Party has more contempt for Christians and conservatives than for the Muslim Brotherhood? Virtually the entire Barack Obama administration, for more than four years, has been engaged in class warfare that involves much more critical and relentless criticism of conservatives who haven’t even come close to talking like Morsi.
At the 3:30 mark, when asked about Morsi personally, Hillary said:
I think he has a lot of the right intentions“.
Wait a minute. A leader of the Muslim Brotherhood who also happens to be the President of Egypt has pure intentions?! The intentions of the Brotherhood include the annihilation of Israel and establishing a global caliphate.

Benghazi: Hillary Clinton Asks What Difference It Makes?

January 23, 2013

(The PJ Tatler » [VIDEO] Pressed for Answers on Her Response to the Benghazi Attack, Hillary Clinton Fumes ‘What Difference Does It Make?’)Most of the Senate Republicans tasked with questioning Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarding the terrorist attack in Benghazi failed to lay a glove on her. They never bothered to ask any questions regarding why she blamed the attack on a movie. Sen. Ron Johnson broke the pattern of weak questions, though, and asked Clinton about the talking points that the administration used after the attack to blame a YouTube movie. Clinton briefly flew into a rage.
h/t Washington Free Beacon

What difference does it make Hillary asks? As if going over the process that led to the deaths could not avoid the death. Amb. Stevens was giving weapons to Muslim Brotherhood groups. Those weapons are showing up in the hostage crises in Algeria. Hillary seems to think that the only victims in Benghazi were the four that died there. There is a systematic problem. Obama and Hillary were allied with the Muslims and Obama is still running things… in fact Obama by nominating Hagel has become more determined then ever to ram his dangerous views of killers into permanent U.S. policy

Clinton calls on Israel to embrace moderate Palestinians, negotiations

December 1, 2012

Hillary Clinton wastes no time… Celebrates Muslim Holiday two days after 9/11 Attacks with man who supported Scotland’s release of Lockerbie Bomber.

September 15, 2012

Hillary Clinton wastes no time… Celebrates Muslim Holiday two days after 9/11 Attacks with man who supported Scotland’s release of Lockerbie Bomber.(Barracknow).Two days after an act of war was committed against the United States in both Egypt and Libya, on sovereign American territory, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in the Ben Franklin Room in Washington, D.C., celebrating the end of Ramadan (Eid Mubarak). With her was Ali Sulaiman Aujali, Libya’s Ambassador to the United States, who resigned from that position under Gadhafi in early 2011 but became Libya’s Ambassador to the U.S. again in August of that year.
Here is how Clinton began her speech, via the State Department website:

Good evening, and although I am many weeks overdue in saying it: Eid Mubarak. No matter how belated we are honoring Eid and the end of Ramadan, this is a cherished tradition here at the State Department. And I would like to thank all of you for being here, including the many members of the Diplomatic Corps.
Tonight, our gathering is more somber than any of us would like. This comes during sad and difficult days for the State Department family. We lost four Americans. They were good and brave men. They were committed to the cause of building a brighter future for the people of Libya. And we condemn the violence in the strongest terms, the violence against our posts in Benghazi, in Egypt, and now in Yemen.
The Libyan ambassador is with us tonight, and I want to take a moment to thank him for the support that his government and the Libyan people have shown to the United States in this tragedy, particularly the outpouring of feelings of grief and loss because of the killing of our ambassador.
Ambassador Aujali, would you mind saying a few words?

Before we get to the words of Aujali, perhaps we should take a look at his previous positions as well as his willingness to associate with Muslim Brotherhood-connected groups. AllGov reported in February of 2011 that Aujali was a supporter of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing:

In September 2009, he defended the transfer of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi from Scotland to Libya by explaining that most Libyans thought Megrahi was falsely convicted.

Question: What did al-Megrahi and the perpetrators of the 9/11/12 attacks have in common?
Answer: The blood of dead Americans on their hands.
In July of 2011, one month before he became ambassador again, Aujali spoke at the annual Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) convention. Not only that but he was introduced by none other than Council on American Islamic Relations Chicago (CAIR-Chicago) Executive Director Ahmed Rehab.(Who left for Egypt to help the ‘Arab Spring).
How many times must it be said that both the ISNA and CAIR were unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terrorism financing trial in the United States? The ISNA was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood group (by a Muslim Brotherhood document) that seeks the destruction of the United States from within.
One day after the recent 9/11 attacks, Aujali appeared alongside ISNA President Mohamed Magid and Haris Tarin, the director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). Two other individuals present are case studies in how Muslim Brotherhood groups in the U.S. provide politically correct cover for themselves by forming ‘interfaith’ coalitions, which are made up of useful dupes or complicit deceivers. In this instance, those two men are Rabbi David Saperstein and Rev. Welton Gaddy.
Incidentally, Tarin, Magid, and Saperstein each have something in common when it comes to Huma Abedin, Clinton’s closest advisor. They all have either defended her or, in Magid’s case, sat with her at the White House iftar dinner last month, at which Barack Obama spoke in support of Abedin.
Of course, Aujali, at both the event on September 12th with Magid, Tarin, et. al. and at the Eid dinner on the 13th, expressed sympathy for the victims of the 9/11/12 attacks.
Indications are that the attacks on U.S. Embassies in Cairo, at least, had the backing of the Salafist Nour Party. It’s important to understand that Salafism is essentially the Muslim Brotherhood without the mask. An example might be the contrast between the most recognized cleric in Great Britain – Salafist Anjem Choudary – and Ground Zero mosque Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf. Both men seem to seek similar ends but through different means.
When Salafists – who seem to have no trouble waving al-Qaeda flags – commit acts of violence and murder, as was committed in the 9/11 attacks of both 2001 and 2012, Brotherhood entities and individuals necessarily must distance themselves from such things, especially in the United States.
Read the full story here.

She’s getting excited now