As usually happens when Michele Bachmann speaks uncomfortable truths, the DC pantywaits can’t wait to criticize her. That was certainly the case when Michele joined with other conservatives in calling for an investigation into Huma Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organization.

Thankfully, Andrew McCarthy, the man who led the prosecution of the Blind Sheikh, has written this brilliant article highlighting the connections between Huma Abedin’s family and the radical elements of the Muslim Brotherhood:

Ms. Abedin’s father, the late Syed Z. Abedin, was an Indian-born Islamic academic who founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs in Saudi Arabia. That institute was backed by the Muslim World League. As the Hudson Institute’s Zeyno Baran relates, the MWL was started by the Saudi government in 1962 “with Brotherhood members in key leadership positions.”

It has served as the principal vehicle for the propagation of Islamic supremacism by the Saudis and the Brotherhood. That ideology fuels the “Islamic extremism” that, only a year ago, had McCain so worried that he thought allowing the Brotherhood into the Egyptian-government mix “would be a mistake of historic proportions.”

Considering this administration’s drift from ally to Israel to meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood, it’s perfectly justified to ask what, if any, influence Ms. Abedin has had. It’s certainly worth noting this information:

MWL promotes Wahhabism, the extremist form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia. In the 1980s, the League’s Pakistan office was run by Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood and brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden. Khalifa was the co-founder of the Benevolence International Foundation and he helped to finance Operation Bojinka, a foiled 1995 plot that would have simultaneously detonated bombs aboard eleven U.S.-bound airliners, blowing them up in mid-flight over the Pacific Ocean and the South China Sea.

It’s impossible to think that the Muslim World League, which promotes Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia and helped finance Operation Bojinka, is anything but a terrorist organization.

At minimum, there’s justification to look into Ms. Abedin’s connection to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is what Michele Bachmann, Lynn Westmoreland, Louie Gohmert, Trent Franks and Tom Rooney asked the IG to do:

McCain blasted Representative Bachmann and the others, falsely accusing them of doing to his friend Huma what he had actually done to ElBaradei, namely, implicating her as “part of a nefarious conspiracy.”

To the contrary, the House members have drawn no such conclusions. Instead, they have pointed out the State Department’s dramatic, Brotherhood-friendly policy shifts during Ms. Abedin’s tenure as a top adviser to the State Department’s boss.

Sen. McCain’s temper might’ve clouded his judgment. That wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened. There’s much more to Ms. Abedin’s family:

And it is here that we get to Huma Abedin’s mother, the Pakistani-born academic Dr. Saleha Abedin.

Dr. Abedin, too, has been a member of the Muslim Sisterhood, “which is essentially nothing more than the female version of the Brotherhood,” according to Walid Shoebat, a former Brotherhood member who has renounced the organization.

One thing is inescapable: Michele Bachmann had more than ample justification for calling on the IGs to study these connections. While it’s true that she ruffled some feathers in saying what she said, it’s equally true that she said what the PC Establishment didn’t have the cajones to say.

Here’s a glimpse into what Dr. Abedin’s organization believes:

D / Sheikh Abdul Fattah

Confirmed that he personally rejected these amendments fully, especially the item on the rhythm of punishment including his daughter circumcised, either the father or the mother or the doctor; may not be criminalized or prohibition of origin is permissible in Islam.

International Islamic Committee for Women and Children

The criminalization of female genital mutilation (FGM), clashed and completely incompatible with Islamic law, which did not provide for the prohibition, as Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi is one of the drafters of the Charter, where he says:

“Juristic evidence and consensus on the inevitability of medical male circumcision only, while scholars differed in the female genital mutilation did not collect the mustahabb but they differed between being a duty or honor or desirable)

Apparently, Huma Abedin’s mother approves of practices associated with neanderthal living during the Stone Age. These aren’t the beliefs of people living in the 21st Century.

Rep. Bachmann’s statements have a substantive basis. The group’s request that the five departments’ IGs look into their request is more than reasonable. Meanwhile, Sen. McCain’s diatribe seems like one of his infamous temper tantrums, not the statement of an elder statesman.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

9 Responses to “McCarthy, Michele Bachmann vs. McCain, Muslim Brotherhood”

  • IndyJones says:

    McCains temper tantrums are like Richard Lugars temper tantrums. Fortunately Lugar is nearly gone. Bachmann is one of the few that realize Islam is a political system and not a religion it wants others to believe. Islam abhors liberty and free will, it more effectively reflects the values of marxism, fascism, nazism, and socialism. To question any part of it brings a death sentence or gulag.

  • Kevin Slator says:

    Maybe I missed this, but I’m not seeing any connection between Huma Abedin and the MWL, as distinguished from any connection her parents may have or have had.

  • Gary Gross says:

    Kevin, you aren’t going to argue that someone who was raised by two radical parents isn’t worthy of extra scrutiny for a security clearance, are you?

  • IndyJones says:

    That is the point Bachmann is making in asking for an investigation. The ties are unknown but the close ties through family can not be ignored. There are too many in government with the appearance of close ties to the Muslim brotherhood.

  • John N says:

    I think it is ignorant to blindly question someone on this without some type of proof. What some of you are saying is that we blindly follow in our parents footsteps and this applies to everyone.

    My parents blindly follow Christianity and know nothing of science. After 12 years of Catholic school, I know that religion is a tool to control the population and that science is better solution to many of the problems we face in life than religious teachings of those in power decreed by some guy 2000+ years ago.

    So let’s not bash people for who they are unless there’s definitive proof. I remember Catholics being taunted in the 60s and 70s and this happens over and over again when ignorant people like Bachmann are rallying up even more ignorant people that will follow her because they don’t know any better.

  • sue l says:

    To John n: it might be a good idea for you to study a little history in regard to science before criticizing Christianity. A Catholic monk discovered the “big bang” theory before any secular scientist, Mendel; father of genetics. Or lemaitre or Roger bacon or Nicklaus Copernicus or magnus or Nicole irremediable etc. From astronomy to physics to biology to chemistry to mathematics from the Jesuits ….it goes on and on. Christians have contributed more to science than secularists. Your argument collapses with the facts. God is Truth..

  • Jeff Baumann says:

    Compare these two statements.

    Michelle Bachmann suggested looking into the activities of Huma Abedin, which might pose a problem for the United States government. John McCain resisted and rejected such suggestions.

    Mike McQueary suggested looking into the activities of Jerry Sandusky, which might pose a problem for Penn State University. Graham Spanier resisted and rejected such suggestions.

    Any questions?

  • Bob J. says:

    John N writes: “So let’s not bash people for who they are unless there’s definitive proof.”

    Odd. That doesn’t seem to stop you from bashing your own parents.

    And since you haven’t offered any ‘definitive proof’ that there’s no God and instead offer your own opinion as fact, the rest of your post is, shall we say, hypocritical. From a purely analytical standpoint, of course.

Leave a Reply