You might want to look at his wife’s resume. Chri Wysocki linked Andrew McCarthy’s piece on Huma Abedinb, and it is a MUST read
Sorry to interrupt the Best Enabler of a Sociopath Award ceremony but, to recap, Ms. Abedin worked for many years at a journal that promotes Islamic-supremacist ideology that wasfounded by a top al-Qaeda financier, Abdullah Omar Naseef. Naseef ran the Rabita Trust, a formally designated foreign terrorist organization under American law. Ms. Abedin and Naseef overlapped at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA) for at least seven years. Throughout that time (1996–2003), Ms. Abdein worked for Hillary Clinton in various capacities.
Ms. Abedin’s late father, Dr. Zyed Abedin, was recruited by Naseef to run the JMMA in Saudi Arabia. The journal was operated under the management of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, a virulently anti-Semitic and sharia-supremacist organization. When Dr. Abedin died, editorial control of the journal passed to his wife, Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin — Huma’s mother.
Saleha Abedin is closely tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and to supporters of violent jihad. Among other things, she directs an organization – the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child. The IICWC, through its parent entity (the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief), is a component of the Union for Good (also known as the Union of Good), another formally designated terrorist organization. The Union for Good is led by Sheikh Yusuf 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. (As detailed here, the Obama White House recently hosted Qaradawi’s principal deputy, Sheikh Abdulla bin Bayyah, who also endorsed the fatwa calling for the killing of U.S. troops and personnel in Iraq.)
Like Sheikh Qaradawi, who helped write the charter for the IICWC, Saleha Abedin is an influential sharia activist who has, for example, published a book called Women in Islam that claims man-made laws enslave women. It reportedly provides sharia justifications for such practices as female-genital mutilation, the death penalty for apostates from Islam, the legal subordination of women, and the participation of women in violent jihad. Dr. Abedin has nevertheless been hailed in the progressive press as a “leading voice on women’s rights in the Muslim world” (to quote Foreign Policy). What they never quite get around to telling you is that this means “women’s rights” in the repressive sharia context.
And the apple does not fall far from the tree as they say. go read the rest of McCarthy’s piece, it should frighten you. Especially given her position, and her security clearance.
With an all-female jury seated (five white, one Hispanic) and opening arguments occurring today, understand that not only should the charge against George Zimmerman never have been filed, but that the case is remarkably backwards. The shooting of Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida, was an unremarkable event — similar self-defense related shootings occur regularly. In virtually all of those cases, the local police do their work, local prosecutors review it, charges are filed or declined, and only local communities are aware of or care about it. Whereas the Trayvon Martin case is an anomaly that reverses all of the conventions and behaviors normally present in the criminal justice system.
The Prosecution: Without conducting any new investigation, Corey’s office produced an affidavit that not only failed to produce any probable cause that Zimmerman violated any of the three essential elements of the offense. It was also factually incorrect and withheld vital information of Zimmerman’s innocence. Any attorney or police officer filing an affidavit promises to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. This one, filed by special prosecutor investigators T.C. O’Steen and Dale Gilbreath at the direction of de la Rionda and on behalf of Corey, fell far short of the most minimal requirements of the law. Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, attorney and commentator Mark Levin, attorney John Hinderaker of Powerline, and other notables took it to task in the harshest terms.
In response, an enraged Corey called the dean of Harvard Law School and, speaking with a representative of the Office of Communications, ranted about Dershowitz for 40 minutes and threatened to sue him and Harvard. Harvard was apparently unimpressed; Dershowitz still teaches there.
Defense attorney Mark O’Mara filed a motion for sanctions against de la Rionda for improperly withholding important evidence, and de la Rionda filed a petulant, angry, and unprofessional response that is a model of improper legal writing. He eventually admitted in court to withholding the evidence, with an excuse of: “I forgot about it.” Despite multiple defense requests, he forgot — for seven months — that his most important witness was a perjurer. Judge Nelson has yet to rule on O’Mara’s motion for sanctions despite de la Rionda’s admission.
Another example of de la Rionda’s malfeasance is his withholding — for many months — of digital color photographs of Zimmerman’s injuries taken immediately after Zimmerman was assaulted by Martin. It’s easy to see why de la Rionda would not want the defense to have those photos — they clearly depict Zimmerman’s badly broken and bleeding nose, and his bruised, lacerated, and bloody face, as well as multiple bloody cuts on the back of his head.
Recently, the IT director for the special prosecutor’s office blew the whistle on de la Rionda’s hiding of evidence from Martin’s cell phone, including photos of stolen jewelry, an image of Martin blowing what appears to be marijuana smoke, and an image of what appears to be Martin holding a handgun. Discovered in early January 2013, much of that and other evidence was not turned over to the defense until June.
It would seem that it is not justice, but furthering of agendas that is being sought here. What a disgrace.
Remember this masterful piece at Allergic to Bull There is lot to read and all of it is well worth your while, but let me highlight this part
And then there is the special case of Barack Obama. I say special because I can’t think of any other prominent individual whose pro-choice position is so radical that it so effectively cuts into his own position. First, for Obama, gun control is all about the children (see right):
That’s an image from his press conference when he announced his executive orders and legislative proposals for gun control, and he made sure to surround himself with kids who wrote letters to him pleading for gun control. Also for free candy. Really mostly, for free candy. And yes, that is a joke, but a joke with a point. There is a reason why kids don’t vote: because they lack the maturity to deal with life as it is. For instance, I had twoposts the other day talking about the relevance of rape, a crime that these kids probably don’t even know is a thing.
And of course Obama declared in a weekly address that “If even one life can be saved, we have an obligation to try”:
So if we can save one life, eh, Obama? Well, that is not what you thought when the issue came to infanticide. From Andrew McCarthy’s searing work on the subject:
There wasn’t any question about what was happening. The abortions were going wrong. The babies weren’t cooperating. They wouldn’t die as planned. Or, as Illinois state senator Barack Obama so touchingly put it, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”
No, Senator. They wouldn’t go along with the program. They wouldn’t just come out limp and dead.
They were coming out alive. Born alive. Babies. Vulnerable human beings Obama, in his detached pomposity, might otherwise include among “the least of my brothers.” But of course, an abortion extremist can’t very well be invoking Saint Matthew, can he? So, for Obama, the shunning of these least of our brothers and sisters — millions of them — is somehow not among America’s greatest moral failings.
No. In Obama’s hardball, hard-Left world, these least become “that fetus, or child — however you want to describe it.”
Most of us, of course, opt for “child,” particularly when the “it” is born and living and breathing and in need of our help. Particularly when the “it” is clinging not to guns or religion but to life.
But not Barack Obama. As an Illinois state senator, he voted to permit infanticide. And now, running for president, he banks on media adulation to insulate him from his past.
The record, however, doesn’t lie.
From later in the article:
My friend Hadley Arkes ingeniously argued that legislatures, including Congress, should take up “Born Alive” legislation: laws making explicit what decency already made undeniable: that from the moment of birth — from the moment one is expelled or extracted alive from the birth canal — a human being is entitled to all the protections the law accords to living persons.
Such laws were enacted by overwhelming margins. In the United States Congress, even such pro-abortion activists as Sen. Barbara Boxer went along.
But not Barack Obama. In the Illinois senate, he opposed Born-Alive tooth and nail.
In other words, these proposed laws would require doctors to try to save such a fetus’ life and naturally forbid all people from killing it. And indeed, this is not a matter of the choice of the mother. If the fetus is actually outside her body, and it can live, what consequence is it of hers? If she doesn’t want to raise it, I am sure many childless couples would be happy to adopt her baby. But that is what we are talking about: a baby, by the definition of all but the most radical.
Ah the smell of Liberal hypocrisy. If just one life can be saved? No, if just one more ultra-Liberal law that tramples basic human liberty can be passed by exploiting tragedies is more like it!
The Gateway Pundit has the scoop on the LA Times reluctance in 2008 to post a video of then candidate Obama toasting Rashid Khalidi at an Israel bashing hate fest in 2005. Andy McCarthy also wrote about this event in July of last year while reporting about Khalidi’s flotilla escapades.This is from the New York Sunvia Gateway Pundit:
In bringing professor Khalidi to Morningside Heights from the University of Chicago, Columbia also got itself a twofer of Palestinian activism and advocacy. Mr. Khalidi’s wife, Mona, who also served in Beirut as chief editor of the English section of the WAFA press agency, was hired as dean of foreign students at Columbia’s SIPA, working under Dean Anderson. In Chicago, the Khalidis founded the Arab American Action Network, and Mona Khalidi served as its president. A big farewell dinner was held in their honor by AAAN with a commemorative book filled with testimonials from their friends and political allies. These included the left wing anti-war group Not In My Name, the Electronic Intifada, and the ex-Weatherman domestic terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers. (There were also testimonials from then-state Senator Barack Obama and the mayor of Chicago.)
President Obama’s good friend, former PLO mouthpiece Rashid Khalidi, is back in the news. He has signed an appeal for funds to outfit another ship that, like the “peace flotilla,” would try to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza, the territory controlled by Hamas — the foreign terrorist organization that is the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian arm.
The ship would be called — wait for it — The Audacity of Hope. Campus Watch has the story,here.
Ah yes, another “peace flotilla”, another attempt to prevent Israel from controlling what gets into Gaza. Israel has a blockade because it does not want, for some crazy reason, arms to be shipped into Gaza, which is governed by Hamas, a terrorist organization sworn to destroy Israel. Israel allowshumanitarian supplies into Gaza, but has its policy to prevent weapons that Hamas will use to attack Israel. These “peace” flotillas, are a scam, meant to provoke Israel, and to make Israel look as if it is denying humanitarian aid to the Palestinians.
Recall the flotilla last year, which attempted to ignore warnings from the Israeli Navy? The flotilla was stopped, and the Israeli troops that went on board were brutally attacked.
An IDF video clearly documents brutal attacks with metal clubs by the flotilla’s Muslim radicals on Israeli Navy commandos. The video shows that the “peace activists” were trained in terrorism and tried to kill the soldiers before Navy officers issued an “open fire” order.
The demonstrators had clearly prepared their weapons in advance for this specific purpose,” IDF spokesmen said.
The attackers assaulted the commandos as they descended on deck by rope from helicopters hovering above the flotilla. The Navy soldiers were virtually defenseless because of their orders as the attackers beat them with metal clubs and knives and fired at them with two pistols that had been snatched from the commandos.
The soldiers were under orders not to shoot, but the “open fire” command was given after stun grenades failed to disperse the attackers. Nine people were killed, most of them from Turkey, where the radical IHH group organized the flotilla.
Naturally, the Left blamed Israel for the “massacre”. You see the Left defines Israeli troops defending their lives when they are attacked by terroristsas a massacre.
The appeal is posted at the siteUSTOGAZA.ORG, which says the ship will sail from the US to the Eastern Mediterranean, where it will join ships from “Europe, Canada, India, South Africa and parts of the Middle East.” The appeal employs the word “we” when speaking of the upcoming trip, which gives the impression that the signatories intend to be aboard.
The site’s opening paragraph is laden with falsehoods of commission and omission:
This is an important moment in history. In the aftermath of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla massacre and increased world-wide scrutiny of Israel’s blockade of Gaza, the Israeli government has mounted a huge public relations campaign spreading the lie that by letting a few more items into Gaza the blockade has been lifted. This is not the reality. Gaza is still under siege, vital building materials and other supplies are banned, exports of goods from Gaza are denied and neither ships nor people can travel without permission from Israel, permission which Israel will not give. Gaza is essentially an open-air prison under a U.S.-backed Israeli blockade.
See, it notes the “massacre” and repeats the lies that Israel is banning legitimate aid supplies from entering Gaza, which, according to these Leftists, is just an open air prison. I am stunned they did not throw out the Concentration Camp Card.
Now, why should Obama’s relationship with Khalidi concern us? I think that is pretty easy to see, especially when you consider Obama’s recent demand that Israel return to its 1967 borders, which Israel says are indefensible.
Interesting news in a Washington Timeseditorialthis morning. It is all worth reading, including the first part, which deals with the strong evidence that, in funding Imam Feisal Rauf’s sojourn to the Arabian Peninsula, the State Department is effectively paying for him to raise funds for the Ground Zero mosque project — broadly opposed by Americans who are also being kept in the dark about its financing.
Then there’s the next part of the editorial:
Americans also may be surprised to learn that the United States has been an active participant in mosque construction projects overseas. In April, U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania Alfonso E. Lenhardt helped cut the ribbon at the 12th-century Kizimkazi Mosque, which was refurbished with assistance from the United States under a program to preserve culturally significant buildings. The U.S. government also helped save the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque in Cairo, which dates back to 642. The mosque’s namesake was the Muslim conqueror of Christian Egypt, who built the structure on the site where he had pitched his tent before doing battle with the country’s Byzantine rulers. For those who think the Ground Zero Mosque is an example of “Muslim triumphalism” glorifying conquest, the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque is an example of such a monument – and one paid for with U.S. taxpayer funds.
The mosques being rebuilt by the United States are used for religious worship, which raises important First Amendment questions. U.S. taxpayer money should not be used to preserve and promote Islam, even abroad. In July 2009, the Office of the Inspector General published an audit of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) faith-based and community initiatives that examined whether government funds were being used for religious activities. The auditors found that while USAID was funding some religious activities, officials were “uncertain of whether such uses of Agency funding violate Agency regulations or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution” when balanced against foreign-policy objectives.
For example, our government rebuilt the Al Shuhada Mosque in Fallujah, Iraq, expecting such benefits as “stimulating the economy, enhancing a sense of pride in the community, reducing opposition to international relief organizations operating in Fallujah, and reducing incentives among young men to participate in violence or insurgent groups.” But Section 205.1(d) of title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations prohibits USAID funds from being used for the rehabilitation of structures to the extent that those structures are used for “inherently religious activities.” It is impossible to separate religion from a mosque; any such projects will necessarily support Islam.
Be sure to read McCarthy’s thoughts on the stupidity of our government doing Muslim outreach! Unbelievable how stupid our government can be at times.