ALDRICH: Hillary Clinton’s abominable national security record

By Gary Aldrich via The Washington Times

History of incompetence and dangerous decisions –

I have extensive experience in national security matters, including years  served in the House, the Senate and the White House, where I was detailed as  senior FBI special agent liaison and investigator with the Bush and Clinton  White House counsel’s office.

There was never a question that national security was a top priority for  George H.W. Bush’s executive branch. The security system was ironclad, serious  and professional.

The rest of the federal agencies followed the lead of the Bush  White House.

Our national security group consisted of the FBI, the CIA, the Department of  Defense and the Secret Service, all working united in a common mission. I cannot  recall a single complaint that the Bush administration ignored warnings or  suggestions of those ready to give their all — including their lives — to  protect the president and his White House, and our national security. We  performed our mission, and it was appreciated by the Bush team.

Contrast that with the mess that occurred when Bill Clinton and Hillary  Rodham Clinton took office. The administration, with few exceptions, did not  take national security seriously. National and White House security were not  priorities. We were shocked.

Because of an obvious disregard for security-related matters throughout the  executive branch, career professionals left the Clinton White House and their  respective agencies in droves. I knew many who did, and it was a sad day when  another one would greet us in the hallways of the Old Executive Office Building  with an announcement of retirement, transfer or outright resignation. I could  not blame them. I also approached my FBI managers with my own request for  reassignment.

Why did I want to leave one of the most unique assignments an FBI agent could  achieve? The bad attitude the Clintons had toward national security made it  impossible for us to perform our duties successfully. Their failure to properly  assess threat levels, along with their unwillingness to acknowledge that they  knew little about national security, was a recipe for disaster. We knew this  from experience.

Mrs. Clinton eventually was accused in congressional testimony of ordering  the hiring of Craig Livingstone — a former bar bouncer — to head the White House  security office. Mr. Livingtone also headed up liaison with the FBI. His was not  a serious appointment — he was a joke. Some of my security friends thought that  this was Mrs. Clinton’s way of showing us that she held no respect for us.

Lacking respect did not discourage Mrs. Clinton from using security agencies  as a hammer to attack and punish those who stood in her way. The FBI, the Secret  Service and the Internal Revenue Service hounded and then prosecuted seven  innocent men who worked for the White House travel office simply because they  were standing in the way of Mrs. Clinton’s political interests and ambitions.  She knew federal investigations would destroy those good men, but she wanted her  friends in those slots, and that was all that mattered.

No one could understand why Mrs. Clinton would want to insert herself into  security matters. She was neither elected nor appointed, and day-to-day security  issues were considered dry or boring. Security usually is not micromanaged by  the front office. Moreover, a good front office always staffs this important  function with the best candidates. One possible reason for Mrs. Clinton’s  unusual interest was that she and her husband had much to hide. There was no  statutory authority for her to be so involved, but that didn’t seem to matter,  either.

The Clintons left a wake of questionable activities behind them. Both had  come up from the same crowd — the anti-war left, where Saul Alinsky taught that  all truth was relative, a tool to be used to win. Having won the White House,  Mr. Clinton had little interest in staffing, as documented in articles and books  explaining the chaos, released after the fact.

Mrs. Clinton called on Arkansas Rose Law Firm associates to staff the Clinton  White House Counsel’s Office. Most memorable among these was Vince Foster, who  died in Fort Marcy Park of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound. Foster, a  seemingly decent man, was deputy counsel in charge of the overall security  program in the White House. He possessed no background or education for the job.  Foster’s deputy, William Kennedy, also a former co-worker of Mrs. Clinton,  supervised Craig Livingstone. FBI and Secret Service agents did their best to  work with this trio, but within days it was clear that there was not a dime’s  worth of experience between them regarding White House security or national  security. That didn’t seem to register in Washington, where perception trumps  logic and truth.

Soon the predictable happened, as the Clinton White House became a swamp of  scandal and chaos, eventually resulting in Mr. Clinton’s impeachment. We were  lucky that nothing worse than the Monica Lewinsky scandal occurred. The Clinton  White House — with a security system conceived and overseen by Mrs. Clinton — was an exceptionally soft target for espionage and also for a deadly terrorist  attack.

Five House members recently raised questions about Huma Abedin, an aide in  Mrs. Clinton’s State Department, whose family has ties with terrorist  sympathizers. This aide should not be a candidate for close access. Only those  completely above suspicion should ever be given close access to a Cabinet  secretary’s daily business or schedule. Such a person would require the highest  clearance possible. Agendas, comings, goings, identities, plans, what the  president says and thinks — that is a virtual treasure trove of key data if a  potential spy can access an inner circle participant. Of course, Mrs. Clinton’s  choice for a constant travel companion could be an innocent person, but if the  FBI director’s closest aide was the son of a Mafia boss, would that be deemed  acceptable?

On the heels of this national security background investigation mystery, now  there are four deaths — one of a U.S. ambassador — apparently because of other  lapses in national and embassy security procedures at Mrs. Clinton’s State  Department. She hired a former bar bouncer for White House security — who runs  the State Department’s security office?

Mrs. Clinton has a documented track record of interference and poor judgment  as she micromanaged the White House security program, sans credentials. In  recent days, she has said that what happened in Libya is her fault, and maybe  that’s the truth. The media ought to ask her some tough questions about State  Department security, and then seek to get some straight answers.

Read the rest here.

WE ARE AT WAR AND I WANT A LEADER! Obama campaigns with Beyonce and Clinton celebrates Muslim holiday!

The United States is in crisis mode while Obama skips security briefings to chat with ‘Pimp with a Limp’ and Hillary hosts Lockerbie bomber supporter!  We are at war and I want a leader – not a narcissistic detached campaigner who supports the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

The United States just lost four Americans, 17 others are wounded, and we have experienced another 9/11 terrorist attack – where is our President?  He is busy campaigning and scheduling appearances with David Letterman, Beyonce, and Jay Z.   Our ‘Commander in Chief’ passed up security briefings to discuss football and his favorite rappers with Pimp with a Limp.  But not to worry, Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett is still in charge at the White House!

Reports have also circulated that the attack in  Benghazi was an inside job and that the U.S. Department of State knew of the attack up to 48 hours ahead of time, yet chose to do nothing.

Well, not exactly nothing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was busy celebrating Muslim holiday Eid Mubarak two days after 9/11 attacks with Libyan ambassador Ali Sulaiman Aujali – the man who supported Scotland’s release of Lockerbie bomber.  But not to worry, Muslim-sisterhood member Huma Abedin has our backs!

Obama has put his campaign and ego ahead of national security and our safety.  Hillary Clinton is in denial.  Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco are burning flags and chanting ‘Death to America.’  Are they concerned?  Obama declined a meeting with our Israeli ally, Bibi Netanyahu, while endorsing and assisting the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East.  In “Audacity of Hope” he writes: “I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”  Well, sir, they are shifting in an ugly direction and we now know where you stand.

As the bodies of the four victims were returned to the US today, I was astonished to hear Clinton say this tragedy occurred because of a movie.  THAT is denial.  THAT was an excuse to kill Americans.  When will this administration understand that Islam is NOT a religion of peace?

As our President and Secretary of State play down the volatile situation in the Middle East, Newt Gingrich tells it like it is:

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton again perpetuated the kind of intellectual dishonesty that cripples the U.S. response to radical Islamists.

The president asserted we have to oppose “the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.”

Clinton reinforced his analysis when she said, “We condemn in the strongest terms this senseless act of violence.”

This concept of “senseless violence” is at the heart of the left’s refusal to confront the reality of radical Islamists.

These are not acts of senseless violence.

These are acts of war.

We are at war and we should demand a leader who will make our safety and the safety of our men and women serving in the Middle East his top priority!  Clint Eastwood nailed it – President Obama has failed us and it is time for him to go!

Related articles

Muslim Brotherhood Poster Child Huma Abedin – The Enemy Within?

Tarek Fatah and Ezra Levant discuss Huma Abedin and her alleged links to the Muslim Brotherhood.  As a former Personnel Security Specialist and Adjudicator with the Department of Defense, I would love to know why this women has access to Hillary Clinton and most probably our national security secrets.  I hope the next administration takes our national security seriously, unlike the Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer currently in office.

The Muslim Students’ Association Pledge of Allegiance:  “Allah is my lord; Islam is my life; the Koran is my guide; the Sunna is my practice; Jihad is my spirit; righteousness is my character; and paradise is my goal. For I enjoin what is right; I forbid what is wrong; I will fight against oppression; AND I WILL DIE TO ESTABLISH ISLAM.”  As a member, Huma Abedin surely recited this pledge!

 

 

We need to be less politically correct and more defense oriented or we will soon be wondering ‘What the hell just happened?’

Islamists in the United States Government

Discover the Networks: via The Counter Jihad Report

This section of DiscoverTheNetworks features profiles of Islamists who have secured positions of influence in federal, state, and local government. Some of these individuals were elected to their offices by the voting public; others were appointed by elected officials. It is important to emphasize that the men and women profiled in this section are not included here merely because they are Muslims. Indeed, many Muslims in government positions perform their duties competently and in a manner that is consistent with America’s national-security needs. As journalist Andrew C. McCarthy, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and author of The Grand Jihad, puts it:

“I don’t know how many Muslims work in the U.S. government, but I feel pretty safe saying there are thousands. As a federal prosecutor on terrorism cases, I had the privilege of working with several of them. These were patriotic American Muslims, and a number of Muslims who may not be Americans but who have embraced America and the West. Without them, we could not have infiltrated jihadist cells in New York and stopped terrorists from killing thousands of people. Without them, we could not have translated, understood and processed our evidence so it could be presented to a jury as a compelling narrative. Pro-American Muslims serve honorably in government, in our military, in our intelligence services, and in our major institutions.”

Such individuals are to be distinguished from Islamists, who, to varying degrees, support and/or whitewash the radical and supremacist agendas of Sharia Law and jihadism, be it of the violent or the stealth variety, and of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations. A number of the Islamists featured in this section participate in events hosted and sponsored by organizations with ties to Islamic extremism, jihadism, and terrorism. They refuse to unambiguously condemn the actions and objectives of such entities as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood. And they are apt to ascribe Islamic terrorism not to any particular doctrines that are central to Islam itself, but rather, to objectionable Western “policies” that allegedly antagonize Muslims and constitute a veritable “war against Islam.” In June 2012, five Republican lawmakers (most prominently, Rep. 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 as a close aide to 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.” Few political figures of either major party were able to see, or were willing to acknowledge, the legitimacy of the concerns raised by Bachmann, et al. President Barack Obama, for one, defended Huma Abedin as “a good friend … who has worked tirelessly … in the White House, in the U.S. Senate, and most exhaustingly, at the State Department, where she has been nothing less than extraordinary in representing our country and the democratic values that we hold dear.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi likewise dismissed the “baseless accusations” against Ms. Abedin. Similarly, prominent Republicans such as John McCain and John Boehner firmly disavowed the concerns articulated in the aforementioned letters. This section of DiscoverTheNetworks was established to provide the pertinent facts about the influence on American policy of Muslims who argue that concerns over radical Islam’s inroads constitute “Islamophobia” that leads inevitably to violations of civil rights; who have Islamist commitments of their own, or sympathies for others who hold such views; or who seek to advance the agendas of groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

RESOURCES

Our Government and the Muslim Brotherhood By Andrew McCarthy August 9, 2012

PROFILES

* Huma Abedin

* Azizah Al-Hibri

* Arif Alikhan

* Andre Carson

* Mohamed Elibiary

* Keith Ellison

* Rashad Hussain

* Suhail Khan

* Mohamed Magid

* Dalia Mogahed

* Eboo Patel

* Louay Safi

* Kareem Shora

* Nawar Shora

ISLAMIST INFLUENCES ON PRESIDENT OBAMA:

Huma Abedin: Assistant Editor of Islamist Journal (How did she obtain a Security Clearance?)

By Kasey Jachim

How are members of the Muslim Brotherhood, with links to terrorist organizations, able to obtain security clearances?  I used to work for the Department of Defense as an adjudicator for personnel security clearances.  In the 80’s and 90’s the main questions regarding ties to ‘terrorists’ usually centered around foreign nationals (USSR) and sometimes the KKK and Neo-Nazis (would you conspire to take up arms against the US government?).  I only had a few cases regarding ‘loyalty’ issues and they were not of a serious nature.  Then came Desert Storm.

I remember the surge in temporary security requests for those working on Desert Storm – some of those requesting them were volunteers who had families in Iraq.  Even then I was told not to question their loyalty to the US – after all they had sworn allegiance to serve and protect didn’t they?  Evidently our government officials have never heard of Taquiya!

In today’s political climate I can only imagine how hard the job of the adjudicator has become.  Is it politically correct to request further investigation if someone has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood?  Hamas?  Hezbollah?  I think we all know the answer to that one and I fear the worst!  So then, how did Huma Abedin obtain a security clearance?

Huma Abedin: Assistant Editor of Islamist Journal

By Ryan Mauro via Radical Islam

Rep. Michele Bachmann and four other members of Congress are getting dumped on by members of both political parties for their letter requesting information about the influence of Muslim Brotherhood-tied groups and individuals in the U.S. government. The case of Huma Abedein, Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Clinton, has gotten almost all of the attention but their question about her is legitimate: Was her family’s close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood taken into account when granting her a security clearance?

The potential security concerns mentioned in the State Department’s published guidelines include:

  • “contact with a foreign family member… if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure or coercion.”
  • “connections to a foreign person, group, government, or country that create a potential conflict of interest between the individual’s obligation to protect sensitive information or technology and the individual’s desire to help a foreign person, group, or country by providing that information.
  • “performing or attempting to perform duties, or otherwise acting, so as to serve the interests of a foreign person, group, organization or government in conflict with the national security interest.”

Keep those criteria in mind as you consider the backgrounds of three of Abedin’s relatives.

Her mother, Dr. Saleha Abedin, is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood, the Brotherhood’s female counterpart. She serves in the Bureau with the wife of Mohammed Morsi, Egypt’s new Brotherhood president.

She is also a member of the Muslim World League, which terrorism expert Andrew McCarthy describes as “the Muslim Brotherhood’s principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology.” The organization she leads, the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child, is part of the Muslim World League.

Her organization is not a moderate group that mistakenly got involved with the Muslim World League. Its charter is written by Brotherhood leaders including Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, an open supporter of Hamas. It is therefore unsurprising that the organization wants to get rid of laws against marital rape, permit marriage below the age of 18 and institute other elements of Sharia Law. She is also a board member of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief (which the group she leads is part of), a group banned in Israel because it belongs to Qaradawi’s Union of Good, a network of “charities” set up to fund Hamas. The U.S. froze the Union of Good’s assets in November 2008.

If you have any remaining doubt that Dr. Saleha Abedin subscribes to Islamist ideology, look at a book she translated and published by her organization in 1999 titled, “Women in Islam.” It says that man-made laws enslave women, which is an undeniable call for Sharia Law. It calls for legislation based on Sharia Law, such as stoning adulterers and eliminating the death penalty for those who kill apostates. The Center for Security Policy has a 28-page analysis of it.

Huma Abedin’s late father, Dr. Syed Abedin, was also intimately involved with Islamists. He led the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs based in Saudi Arabia. It is backed by the Muslim World League and is an entity of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, a very extreme Islamist group. The Institute also published Mrs. Abedin’s book. Huma herself was an assisstant editor of the Institute’s journal as far back as 1996 and as recently as 2008, which means she was there when it published her mother’s extremist book. This screenshot from September 2008 shows that Huma, her mother and brother were all simultaneously editors of the journal.

Huma Abedin’s brother, Hassan, had a fellowship with the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, an entity that is very cozy with the Muslim Brotherhood, at the same exact time as Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi served on the board.

One close associate of the Abedin family is Abdullah Omar Naseef. He is the former Secretary-General of the Muslim World League. He founded the Rabita Trust, which had its assets frozen  by the U.S. government in October 2001 for its support of terrorist groups.

Huma’s father met Naseef when he was a visiting professor at King Abdul Aziz University, where Naseef was the dean. There are mixed reports about whether Naseef or Huma’s father originally created the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, but it was clearly a joint endeavor and was backed by Naseef’s Muslim World League. Huma, her mother and her brother have worked for the IMMA’s journal.

Naseef’s Rabita Trust has been renamed as Rabita al-Alam al-Islami. Huma’s mother is a member of it. Naseef and Huma’s mother are also on the Presidency Staff Council of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief together under the leadership of Qaradawi. Naseef was also on the board of the Oxford Centre for Islamic States alongside Qaradawi when Hassan Abedin had a fellowship there. Naseef remains the chairman of the board.

All of these ties are extensively documented and detailed by the Center for Security Policy, Andrew McCarthy, Nonie Darwish and former Islamist Walid Shoebat, who just wrote a 38-page paper on the topic. Top Republican leaders have harshly condemned the questions asked by Bachmann and her colleagues. Speaker of the House John Boehner, Rep. Jeff Flake, Sen. Scott Brown and Sen. Lindsey Graham (who now talks positively about the Brotherhood) all joined in. Sen. Marco Rubio went beyond the issue of Huma Abedin and said he didn’t believe the information in the letters altogether. But the most vocal attacker is Sen. John McCain:

“[the letters have] few unspecified and unsubstantiated associations of members of Huma’s family, none of which have been shown to harm or threaten the United States in any way. These attacks on Huma have no logic, no basis and no merit. And they need to stop now,” McCain demanded.

The main criticism of Bachmann and her colleagues is that this is, in the words of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), “a six degrees of separation drinking game.” That’s a perception that the Brotherhood’s modus operandi creates.

For example, imagine you want to write about a mosque run by the Muslim Brotherhood through its affiliate, the North American Islamic Trust. You must prove that the mosque is owned by the Trust. You must then explain that the Trust is part of the Islamic Society of North America and that group is part of the Muslim Brotherhood. To someone unfamiliar with the Brotherhood, it can easily appear like an argument based on faulty guilt-by-association and multiple degrees of separation.

I was on Thom Hartmann’s radio show debating this topic and he dismissed the concerns because the security clearance vetting process is supposed to address them. In Part 4 of the MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com course, Dr. J. Michael Waller explains two problems with the process today, partially because of the overwhelming amount of security checks that must be performed and daily quota requirements.

First, the reviewing personnel are focusing almost exclusively on evidence of illegal activity, such as that found in criminal records. Most Muslim Brotherhood operatives are going to avoid committing crimes. Secondly, the Muslim Brotherhood is a hostile foreign entity. During the Cold War, membership in the Communist Party meant that you were considered to be under the “operational control of a foreign entity.” The Muslim Brotherhood is not treated that way today.

The ridicule and outright dismissal of the letters’ overall concern about the Muslim Brotherhood-tied groups and individuals working with the U.S. government is more unsettling than the attacks on the specific Huma Abedin issue. The Muslim Brotherhood’s own documents state that it seeks to influence U.S. government proxy via front groups. Brotherhood operatives have claimed success in infiltrating the government as far back as 1988.

The letters’ concern about Brotherhood influence operations may sound like a fantasy, but such operations are to be expected. Foreign governments, companies, special interest groups, lobbyists and activists all try to influence the government. Why should we expect the Brotherhood to act any differently?

Huma Abedin isn’t being accused of being a terrorist or Brotherhood operative. She may very well be an anti-Islamist Muslim that has rejected the views of her family. If that is the case, she should tell her story and educate Americans about what she has learned about Islamism from her family members’ activities.

Read more here.

Suppose Michele Bachmann is right? (Islam seeks Supremacy, not Coexistence)

By Cal Thomas via WORLD Magazine

Like the ghosts of Shakespeare’s Banquo or Dickens’ Jacob Marley, the  specter of the late commie-hunting congressman from Wisconsin, Joseph  McCarthy, will always be with us. It is summoned up today, by some on  the left, who use it as a tool to thwart legitimate questions about  people and ideologies that seek to destroy America.

According to many commentators, the McCarthy spirit has inhabited Rep.  Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. In several letters to high-ranking government  officials, Bachmann has raised questions about Huma Abedin, a  Muslim-American, who is deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State  Hillary Clinton. Bachmann’s concern is Abedin’s relatives in the Middle  East, some of whom—such as Abedin’s mother—she claims “are  connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations.”  Abedin’s job, according to Bachmann, “affords her routine access to the  secretary and to policymaking.” And, as a result of that access, says  Bachmann, “The State Department, and in several cases, the specific  direction of the secretary of state, have taken actions recently that  have been enormously favorable to the Muslim Brotherhood and its  interests.”

Sen. John McCain says Abedin is “a dedicated American.” Even if he is  correct, the larger issue is being obscured. Many in government and the  media don’t want to face the possibility that infiltration is a tactic  of Islamic extremists who repeatedly say they want to destroy not only  Israel but the “Great Satan” America. Such objectives should be taken  seriously, given their violent history.

If you revile Rep. Bachmann, perhaps former British Prime Minister Tony  Blair is more to your liking. Charles Moore of the London Daily  Telegraph writes that Blair “… now thinks he underestimated the power  of the bad ‘narrative’ of Islamist extremists. That narrative—that  ‘The West oppresses Islam’—’is still there; if anything, it has  grown.’ It seeks ’supremacy, not coexistence.’” Blair also expressed  fear that “The West is asleep on this issue.”

Blair’s view is echoed in Battle for Our Minds: Western Elites and the  Terror Threat, a new book by Michael Widlanski, a specialist in Arab  politics and a former journalist for mainstream publications such as The  New York Times, the Cox Newspapers-The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and The  Jerusalem Post. Widlanski’s main point is that political correctness has  stifled the West’s ability to understand and fight terror.

Among Widlanski’s criticisms is that the West “came to rely on ‘experts’  without field experience in, or scant knowledge of, the Middle East:  people who do not speak the languages, did not study the cultures, and do  not know the history. Even worse, some ‘experts’ have been forgiving  and even sympathetic to the terrorists and their aims.”

National Public Radio reported last month that “The FBI has conducted  more than 100 investigations into suspected Islamic extremists within  the military.”

What else would infiltration look like? It’s more than an academic  question, or a subject for spy novelists. Those who attack Michele  Bachmann should answer it.

It might look like CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations,  which sent a nasty letter to Bachmann concerning her comments about Ms.  Abedin. CAIR’s executive director, Nihad Awad, wrote, “We remain  eternally grateful that, like Sen. Joseph McCarthy before you, your  power is limited, enumerated, and constrained by our nation’s  constitution.”

According to The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report (GMBDR), “an  intelligence digest covering developments in the worldwide Muslim  Brotherhood network,” documents released in the 2007 Holy Land trial in  Dallas, in which federal prosecutors brought charges against the Holy  Land Foundation for funding Hamas and other “Islamic terrorist  organizations,” revealed the founders and current leadership of CAIR  were part of the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood. A recent  post on the GMBDR website discussed an interview with the deputy leader  of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, in which he confirms a relationship  between his organization and CAIR.

Investigative research posted by the GMBDR “has determined that CAIR had  its origins in the U.S. Hamas infrastructure and CAIR and its leaders  have a long history of defending almost all individuals accused of  terrorism by the U.S. government, frequently calling such prosecutions a  ‘war on Islam.’”

In 2009, according to GMBDR, a U.S. federal judge ruled, “The government  has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA  (Islam in North America), and NAIT (North American Islamic Trust) with  (Holy Land Foundation), the Islamic Association for Palestine, and with  Hamas.”

This is what infiltration looks like.

Government and media elites may not like to hear it from Rep. Bachmann,  but suppose her concerns are valid? If people are uncomfortable with  her, they can listen to Tony Blair. All ties between Americans and  Islamic extremist groups need further and serious investigation.

Read more here.

Michele Bachmann Fires Off 16-Page Bombshell to Muslim Congressman, Keith Ellison

Via Walid Shoebat. . . Former Muslim Brotherhood Member Now Peace Activist

Yes, there is a Huma Abedin angle to this story but a certain Muslim Congressman seems to be in the middle of digging himself a bit of a hole.

On July 12th, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Muslim-MN) sent a two-page letter to the five congressmen who sent five separate letters to five separate Inspectors General on June 13th. The June 13th letters raised serious concerns about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration inside the U.S. Government. Among the concerns raised with the OIG at the State Department are the familial connections of Hillary Clinton’s closest aide – Huma Abedin – to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Ellison attempted to pit Bachmann against Republicans like Herman Cain and Chris Christie by pointing out that her source in the June 13th letters seemed to be one person – Frank Gaffney. Gaffney has rightfully been very critical of said Republicans in the past for their comments and actions relative to Muslim Brotherhood front groups.

Moreover, Ellison seemed to allege in his July 12th letter that Gaffney was Bachmann’s only source.

Here is how Ellison ended that letter:

Despite Mr. Gaffney’s record of unsubstantiated allegations, you appear to have based your letters to the Inspectors General on his views.

I request that you provide my office a full accounting of the sources you used to make the serious allegations against the individuals and organizations in your letters. If there is not credible, substantial evidence for your allegations, I sincerely hope that you will publically (sic) clear their names.

Ask and ye shall receive, Congressman…

Bachmann responded to Ellison by sending him a 16-page bombshell (via SC Times) that is strewn with 59 separate footnotes, proving unequivocally that Gaffney is hardly her only source. Says Bachmann:

I do note that the facts we presented in the Inspector General request letters are based on information presented by U.S. Government officials in court documents, court evidence, correspondence and briefings with Congress and public statements, in addition to known media reporting. These letters were far from sole-sourced as you maintain in your letter.

While I can’t speak on behalf of the other signatories of these letters, nor am I able to get into the private discussions and documentation received by the various House committees represented by the signatories on these matters that motivated these letters to the various Inspectors General, out of respect to you I am happy to respond to some of your concerns, provide the sources you ask for, as well as clarify a few points that may have been misunderstood or misrepresented.

Furthermore, Ellison’s defense of groups that should be identified as enemies of the United States puts him in dangerous territory and Bachmann exploited it. In citing the Holy Land Foundation Trial – along with attempts by CAIR and ISNA to be removed from unindicted co-conspirator list – Bachmann quotes from the Judge’s declination of that request:

Finally, CAIR, NAIT, and ISNA ask the Court to strike their names from any public document filed or issued by the government (Mot. at 6.) While it is clear from the Briggs line of cases that the Government should have originally filed the unindicted co-conspirators’ names under seal, the Court declines to strike CAIR, ISNA and NAIT’s names from those documents. The Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas. (Bachmann’s letter cites the Judge’s Memorandum Opinion Order)

Ellison is dangerously close to outwardly defending groups tied to Hamas – a designated terrorist organization – and he’s doing so on the Congressional record. Bachmann basically check-mates Ellison in the very next sentence:

It should be noted that Article 2 of the Hamas Covenant identifies Hamas as a Muslim Brotherhood entity while Article 7 calls for the global killing of all Jews (Bachmann cites – of all things – Yale Law School).

Ellison is attempting to smear Bachmann while defending Huma Abedin from much needed scrutiny. Bachmann merely wants to investigate Abedin’s familial connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. It’s already known that Huma’s mother – Saleha Abedin – is one of the Muslim Sisterhood’s 63 leaders. Is Ellison willing to overlook or deny this? That also puts him on very dangerous ground.

Ellison might want to re-think his position or he will be openly choosing the wrong side as more evidence is produced.

On second thought, Congressman, just keep telling us how you really feel. In a bizarre way, it’s kind of refreshing.

Read more here.