Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s right hand girl, has always worried me. Normally, when someone has close ties and/or involvement with the enemies of America, it is highly unlikely they will be granted a security clearance for any government work. If those close ties are their immediate family, the idea they would not only be granted a security clearance, but be allowed to work hand in glove with any cabinet member, and particularly the Secretary of State, would be unimaginable. In that position, such a potential security risk would have access to many of the nation’s most sensitive secrets, even information that can only be accessed in a SCIF, a facility secured against eavesdropping.
Add in this: Abedin’s e-mail, recently made public, that Clinton is “often confused,” and Abedin’s position might be among the greatest enemy intelligence coups in world history. An “often confused” Secretary of State would be easily manipulated, secrets easily stolen and provided our enemies.
What’s that you say? “Abedin’s position might be among the greatest enemy intelligence coups in world history?” “Might? Where’s your proof?” Thousands of well-qualified Americans have been denied security clearances—a prerequisite for many government jobs—for far less troubling reasons. The point is, where America’s national security secrets are concerned, we don’t need proof. This isn’t the criminal justice system. No one is under arrest when they’re applying for a government job; their lives and liberty are not in question. To ensure America’s secrets, secrets that can and do cost lives and can seriously damage America, are safe we must be proactive, denying access to anyone that might betray them. If there is doubt, they don’t get the job.
This raises several interesting questions: did the FBI, the agency primarily responsible for such vetting under normal circumstances, do a complete, competent investigation of Abedin and her background? If they did, and discovered the information long publically known about Abedin, how could she possibly have been granted the clearance to be a top aide for the Secretary of State?
In other words, is the FBI, and our security apparatus, competent? If not, did they knowingly give security clearance to a woman with very close ties to the existential enemies of the United States and Western Civilization? If so, why? We now have little doubt that the FBI is a subsidiary of the Obama/Democrat political machine. What Obama wants, what Hillary wants, they get, and national security be damned. The alternative to knowingly giving a serious security risk access to some of our highest level secrets for political reasons is gross incompetence. I’ll discount, for the purposes of this article, the idea that our national security professionals are so sympathetic to the jihad they would knowingly give Islamist assets almost unrestricted access.
But now-assuming the FBI hasn’t known this for years–it’s even worse. The New York Post reports:
Clinton’s top campaign aide, and the woman who might be the future White House chief of staff to the first female US president, for a decade edited a radical Muslim publication that opposed women’s rights and blamed the US for 9/11.
One of Clinton’s biggest accomplishments listed on her campaign website is her support for the UN women’s conference in Bejing in 1995, when she famously declared, ‘Women’s rights are human rights.’ Her speech has emerged as a focal point of her campaign, featured prominently in last month’s Morgan Freeman-narrated convention video introducing her as the Democratic nominee.
However, soon after that ‘historic and transformational’ 1995 event, as Clinton recently described it, her top aide Huma Abedin published articles in a Saudi journal taking Clinton’s feminist platform apart, piece by piece. At the time, Abedin was assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs working under her mother, who remains editor-in-chief. She was also working in the White House as an intern for then-first lady Clinton.
Keep in mind that Abedin and her family’s primary radical Muslim affiliation is with the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the premier, anti-American, anti-Israel Islamist organizations in the world. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton warmly supported Muslim Brotherhood control of Egypt after the ouster of Hosni Mubarak.
This, from Open Democracy.net, illustrates the depth of the Brotherhood’s depravity:
Voting in the Egyptian presidential election is underway and what better way to win over votes of the poor than through offering badly needed low cost services and free goods. The Muslim Brotherhood, who have a track record in community outreach through services and goods, have added a new service for Egyptians: circumcising girls for a nominal fee. The practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) or female circumcision as it is popularly called, involves the removal of the clitoris and part of the labia minora under the pretext that this will protect a girl’s chastity. FGM, although practiced for thousands of years, has been on the decline in the past decade thanks to a socially sensitive and nationwide campaign to show that FGM is neither religiously prescribed, nor linked to a woman’s moral behaviour. Thanks to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis, the progress made in eliciting positive social change on curbing the practice now risks being reversed.
Back to the NY Post:
Headlined ‘Women’s Rights Are Islamic Rights,’ a 1996 article argues that single moms, working moms and gay couples with children should not be recognized as families. It also states that more revealing dress ushered in by women’s liberation ‘directly translates into unwanted results of sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility and indirectly promote violence against women.’ In other words, sexually liberated women are just asking to be raped.
In a separate January 1996 article, Abedin’s mother — who was the Muslim World League’s delegate to the UN conference — wrote that Clinton and other speakers were advancing a “very aggressive and radically feminist” agenda that was un-Islamic and wrong because it focused on empowering women.
‘Empowerment’ of women does more harm than benefit the cause of women or their relations with men,’ Saleha Mahmood Abedin maintained, while forcefully arguing in favor of Islamic laws that have been roundly criticized for oppressing women.
‘By placing women in the ‘care and protection’ of men and by making women responsible for those under her charge,’ she argued, ‘Islamic values generate a sense of compassion in human and family relations.’
‘Among all systems of belief, Islam goes the farthest in restoring equality across gender,’ she claimed. ‘Acknowledging the very central role women play in procreation, child-raising and homemaking, Islam places the economic responsibility of supporting the family primarily on the male members.
This is rather difficult to square with the Koran and with Muslim, particularly Islamist, practice around the Muslim world, where women are treated little better than cattle, and honor killings, rape, genital mutilation, wife-beating and honor killings of women and girls are common.
She added in her 31-page treatise: ‘More men are victims of domestic violence than women . . . If we see the world through ‘men’s eyes’ we will find them suffering from many hardships and injustices.’ [skip]
“Huma Abedin does not apologize for her mother’s views. ‘My mother was traveling around the world to these international women’s conferences talking about women’s empowerment, and it was normal,’ she said in a recent profile in Vogue.
Presumably Huma meant her mother’s view were “normal”—certainly for Islamists they are—not that her mother’s travels and speaking were normal. For Muslim wives and daughters of Islamist men, they certainly are not. Huma also apparently justified, if not explicitly supported, the 9-11 attacks:
Huma continued to work for her mother’s journal through 2008. She is listed as ‘assistant editor’ on the masthead of the 2002 issue in which her mother suggested the US was doomed to be attacked on 9/11 because of ‘sanctions’ it leveled against Iraq and other injustices’ allegedly heaped on the Muslim world. Here is an excerpt:
‘The spiral of violence having continued unabated worldwide, and widely seen to be allowed to continue, was building up intense anger and hostility within the pressure cooker that was kept on a vigorous flame while the lid was weighted down with various kinds of injustices and sanctions . . . It was a time bomb that had to explode and explode it did on September 11, changing in its wake the life and times of the very community and the people it aimed to serve.
As one might expect from a presidential campaign reeling with scandalous disclosure after scandalous disclosure, the Clinton Campaign is lying. The New York Post follows up:
Hillary Clinton confidante Huma Abedin played no formal role in a radical Muslim journal — even though she was listed as an editor on the hate-filled periodical’s masthead for a dozen years, a campaign rep claimed Sunday.
‘My understanding is that her name was simply listed on the masthead in that period,’ Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said hours after The Post broke the bombshell story. ‘She did not play a role in editing at the publication.
Well of course not! That’s why she was listed on the masthead as “Assistant Editor” for 12 years. This, of course, is in Clintonworld. In the real world, one tends not to be listed as an editor unless they are actively engaged in editing and writing for a given publication. Editors, unlike contributors, are virtually always salaried members of a publication staff. A retired person that served as an editor for many years might be listed as an editor emeritus, but publications don’t list non-editor editors.
Merrill said Abedin was just a figurehead and not actually on staff at the Saudi-based and -funded Journal of Minority Muslim Affairs, which featured radically anti-feminist views and backed strict Islamic laws roundly criticized for oppressing women.
Oh, but of course! What publication wouldn’t want a 23 year-old recent college graduate, an unknown in the world of arts and letters, as an editorial “figurehead?” What greater draw could there be than that? Who better to increase readership and strengthen a brand?
A journalism major at George Washington University, Abedin, 40, was listed as ‘assistant editor’ of the journal from 1996 to 2008, when her name was removed from the staff box and she went to work for Clinton at the State Department.
Her brother, who was an associate editor, and a sister, also employed as an assistant editor, are listed as staff members.
Merrill repeatedly refused to say if Abedin was paid during her tenure at the publication.
He also declined to say whether Clinton, who has made championing women’s rights a centerpiece of her campaign, was aware of her longtime aide’s position at the publication or its extremist views.
Imagine that. Of course, if Hillary pushed to employ Huma despite her anti-American family and associations, she’s not going to admit she knew anything about them. Merrill’s refusal to say if Huma was paid tells the story quite well. If she wasn’t, why not disclose that, particularly since the Clinton Campaign is trying to distance Huma and Hillary from Huma’s life-long Islamist associations? But if she were paid, that doesn’t comport well with her supposed “figurehead” status.
The always excellent and informative Discover The Networks, provides background on Huma and her family:
Huma Abedin was born in 1976 in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Her father, Syed Abedin (1928-1993), was an Indian-born scholar who in the early 1970s had been affiliated with the Muslim Students Association at Western Michigan University
Huma’s mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is a sociologist known for her strong advocacy of Sharia Law. A member of the Muslim Sisterhood (i.e., the Muslim Brotherhood‘s division for women), Saleha is also a board member of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief. This pro-Hamas entity is part of the Union of Good, which the U.S. government has formally designated as an international terrorist organization led by the Muslim Brotherhood luminary Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
When Huma was two, the Abedin family relocated from Michigan to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. This move took place when Abdullah Omar Naseef, a major Muslim Brotherhood figure who served as vice president of Abdulaziz University (AU), recruited his former AU colleague, Syed Abedin, to work for the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), a Saudi-based Islamic think tank that Naseef was preparing to launch. A number of years later, Naseef would develop close ties to Osama bin Laden and the terrorist group al Qaeda. Naseef also spent time (beginning in the early 1980s) as secretary-general of the Muslim World League, which, as journalist Andrew C. McCarthy points out, “has long been the Muslim Brotherhood’s principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology.” IMMA’s close ties to the Muslim World League are further evidenced by the fact that IMMA’s in-house publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA), has long listed its official address as 46 Goodge Street in London — precisely the same address as that of the Muslim World League’s London office. In one noteworthy article written by Abedin’s mother, JMMA blamed America for having brought the 9/11 attacks upon itself. Another JMMA piece, from 1999, alleged that Jewish Americans who were pro-Israel had been able to ‘work the [political] system’ in the United States to their own advantage, and had been ‘greatly aided by the American memory of the Holocaust.”
It is vital to note that IMMA’s “Muslim Minority Affairs” agenda was, and remains to this day, a calculated foreign policy of the Saudi Ministry of Religious Affairs, designed, as Andrew C. McCarthy explains, “to grow an unassimilated, aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West.” For details about this agenda, click here.
What sort of family has any relationship with Osama Bin Laden, or anyone remotely like him? Wouldn’t that tend to set off nuclear-level warning alarms in any security clearance search? Apparently not in the Obama Administration. This was not, by far, Huma’s only connection to radical, violent Islam:
From 1997 until sometime before early 1999, Abedin, while still interning at the White House, was an executive board member of George Washington University‘s (GWU) Muslim Students Association (MSA), heading the organization’s “Social Committee.”
It is noteworthy that in 2001-02, soon after Abedin left that executive board, the chaplain and ‘spritual guide’ of GWU’s MSA was Anwar al-Awlaki, the al Qaeda operative who ministered to some of the men who were among the 9/11 hijackers. Another chaplain at GWU’s MSA (from at least October 1999 through April 2002) was Mohamed Omeish, who headed the International Islamic Relief Organization, which has been tied to the funding of al Qaeda. Omeish’s brother, Esam, headed the Muslim American Society, the Muslim Brotherhood’s quasi-official branch in the United States. Both Omeish brothers were closely associated with Abdurahman Alamoudi, who would later be convicted and incarcerated on terrorism charges.
Interesting, isn’t it, that Huma has, for her entire life, been surrounded by and indirectly and directly associated with many of the big names in the radical Islamist movement. This is particularly interesting:
From 1996-2008, Abedin was employed by the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) as the assistant editor of its aforementioned publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA). At least the first seven of those years overlapped with the al Qaeda-affiliated Abdullah Omar Naseef’s active presence at IMMA. Abedin’s last six years at the Institute (2002-2008) were spent as a JMMA editorial board member; for one of those years, 2003, Naseef and Abedin served together on that board.
An editorial board is a decision-making management committee. They decide the content, direction, and focus of the publication. In other words, Huma not only knew precisely what was published, but had an active role in deciding what was published.
At least some in government recognized the potential national security implications of Huma’s presence in the State Department:
In June 2012, five Republican lawmakers (most prominently, Michele Bachmann) sent letters to the inspectors general at the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State, asking that they investigate whether the Muslim Brotherhood was gaining undue influence over U.S. government officials. One letter, noting that Huma Abedin’s position with Hillary Clinton ‘affords her routine access to the secretary [of state] and to policymaking,’ expressed concern over the fact that Abedin ‘has three family members—her late father, mother and her brother—connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations.’ Some other prominent Republicans such as John McCain and John Boehner disavowed the concerns articulated in the letters.
Of course they did. We can’t prevent radical, jihad-approving Muslims from having access to our national security secrets, can we? That would be wrong!
Huma Abedin’s brother, Hassan Abedin, has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and is currently an associate editor with the JMMA. Hassan was once a fellow at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies, at a time when the Center’s board included such Brotherhood-affiliated figures as Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Abdullah Omar Naseef.
Huma’s sister, Heba Abedin (formerly known as “Heba A. Khaled”), is an assistant editor with JMMA, where she served alongside Huma prior to the latter’s departure.
It’s very simple. Under no circumstances should someone like Huma Abedin have a security clearance. We need not prove she is an Islamist spy, only that there is a risk she could be. We know that she, like Hillary, has been careless with America’s secrets. Not only that, our enemies could easily blackmail someone like her. She is uniquely vulnerable, and from her work history, family and associations, it’s possible blackmail would not be necessary.
Nor does it matter how much Hillary Clinton thinks she needs Abedin. Security regulations are in place to protect all of us from people with poor judgment like Hillary Clinton. There has to be someone, some agency capable of saying “no. This person cannot have a security clearance. Find someone else that doesn’t have decades of direct involvement with our deadliest enemies.” Unfortunately, it now appears obvious the FBI and the rest of our national security apparatus are not capable of such independent vigilance.
Of course, if Hillary is elected, Huma will have access to everything. That’s a state of affairs our enemies will not fail to exploit, and Hillary Clinton will gladly assist them through her foolish carelessness and disdain for America. Because of Huma Abedin’s connection to Hillary Clinton, any national security threat will be, just as it has been to this point, concealed and stonewalled.