Tag: Consulate

Benghazigate: Stinger Missiles Given to al-Queda? General Ham Told to Stand Down?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

benghazigate cartoon 5813On the night of September 11, 2012, the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya was attacked and overrun by Muslim Terrorists, who murdered 4 brave Americans in the process. The Administration’s curious reaction was to blame it on a Youtube video, which no one in the Middle East had ever seen. Eight months later, the truth of that horrible night is finally, slowly being revealed.

A Fox News Poll, released yesterday, shows 62 percent of voters believe that President Barack Hussein Obama could have done more to help the four Americans murdered at the consulate in Benghazi on that horrible night

Even Democrats are about equally likely to say the president could have done more (44 percent) as to say he did all he could (43 percent). Eighty-four percent of Republicans and 60 percent of independents think Obama could have done more.

Nearly two-thirds of voters who have served in the military think Obama could have done more.

…Overall, 27 percent think the president did everything he could to help.

…A 60-percent majority says the administration is covering up what happened. That’s more than twice as many as the 28 percent who say the Obama administration is being open and transparent.

Sixty percent of independents and a third of Democrats (33 percent) think the administration is hiding something on Benghazi. Almost all Republicans think so (88 percent).

Who should get more of the blame for what happened in Libya? About equal numbers say Obama should get more of the blame (32 percent) as say former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (31 percent). About one in six volunteers the response “neither” (16 percent) and about one in 10 says “both” are to blame (11 percent).

Republicans are more likely to blame Obama than Clinton by an 18 percentage-point margin. Democrats are more likely to blame Clinton by 12 points. Independents divide the blame evenly (28 percent Clinton, 27 percent Obama).

During Congressional hearings, Clinton was asked about who caused the violence in Benghazi. She answered with her now famous rhetorical question: “Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?”

A 56-percent majority disagrees with her. Thirty-three percent of voters agree with Clinton’s assessment.

Voters were also asked why the Obama administration changed the CIA explanation about the attack to remove references to al Qaeda. Half of voters (50 percent) think the administration made the change for political reasons to bolster the president’s campaign claim that al Qaeda was “on the run.” On the other side, 37 percent think the changes were made for security reasons related to the on-going initial investigation.

The administration initially said the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous protest sparked by a controversial online video. Later the White House acknowledged it was a planned terrorist attack and not a protest or a demonstration.

In general, a 53-percent majority disapproves of how the administration has handled the response to the attack in Benghazi. That includes about one in four Democrats (24 percent disapprove) and over half of independents (54 percent).

About a third of voters (32 percent) approve of the administration’s handling of Benghazi.

Interest in this story is high: 75 percent of voters say they are following news about Benghazi. That includes 35 percent who are following it “very” closely and another 40 percent “somewhat” closely.

According to PJ Media, several whistleblowers will be coming forth shortly, as soon as they have procured legal counsel. They have to, since they work in areas where they are not fully protected by the Whistleblower Law.

Two diplomats relayed this information to PJ Media. and they claim that what these new witnesses will reveal will be more explosive than what we already have learned from the testimony of previous whistleblowers.

The information revealed is supposed to be very damaging to President Obama and Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is presently the Democratic Front-runner for their Presidential Nomination in 2016.

These new revelations are supposed to reveal that Amb. Chris Stevens was in Benghazi to buy back Stinger missiles from the Libyan Rebels , which our idiot State Department, headed by Mrs. Clinton, sold to them.

Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.

Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”

This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.

The other part of the revelations will involve pressure which was put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

An article by John Griffing,  published on AmericanThinker.com, on November 17, 2012, reported that

…Already uncovered in the [Benghazi] controversy is how there had been pleas for more security for the Americans in that location, how forces who were nearby could have responded, and how there were orders stopping that from happening.

It is within this context that questions are being asked about the scheduled replacement of General Ham, head of Africom, only a few years before his mandatory retirement date, especially since his replacement occurred so close to the consulate attacks. Africom is headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany. This command encompasses all of Africa and its adjacent waters except for Egypt.

It is notable that Ham is to be removed from a post with a three-year rotation after only one and a half years.

When announcing Ham’s replacement, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta praised Ham’s service. A report from the department said leaders remain “fully confident” in Ham’s performance.

Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said that Ham “has the full confidence of the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.” Little attributed the change to Ham’s “decision to retire,” which he described as “an entirely personal decision.”

Officials have denied there were other reasons for the change. “Gen. Ham’s departure is part of routine succession planning that has been ongoing since July,” said a government statement.

So…where did the “pressure” on Gen. Ham come from? 

My guess? The top of the Food Chain.

In the wake of Fast and Furious, the White House could scarcely afford another gun-running scandal.

Only, this would be worse. Stinger Missiles???!!! People who are supposed to be looking out for US, gave a bunch of Muslims Terrorists Stinger Missiles? What if some of those “toys” found their way back to America? Can you even imagine what kind of destruction Muslim Terrorists could achieve with those things?

What the He!! were Obama and Clinton thinking? Are they both that cotton-pickin’ stupid and naive?

Ambassador Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith, and Glen Doherty would probably answer with a resounding “Yes!!!”…if they could.

Stay tuned. The revelations are only going to get worse. 

Until He Comes,

KJ

“What Difference Does it Make?”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

Hillary2One month after being called to testify before a Senate Committee, outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton finally graced them with her presence. To say she showed her hindquarters and prevaricated it off, at the same time,  is being kind.

(But then again, I am a Christian Southern Gentleman.)

James Taranto reports or The Wall Street Journal that

Hillary Clinton is ending her tenure as secretary of state in fiery fashion. “You really get the sense that [Mrs.] Clinton barely managed to restrain herself from dropping an F-bomb there,” remarks New York magazine’s Dan Amira. He refers to an exchange between the secretary and Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing this morning.

Johnson pressed her about the administration’s conflicting explanations for the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which killed the ambassador and three other Americans. “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,” said the secretary snappishly to the senator. “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? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.”

So it’s “our job to figure out what happened” but it doesn’t make a difference what happened? Huh? What would we do without rhetorical questions? We suppose we’d answer them, as Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin does:

“The answer to her question is clear. An administration that sought, for political purposes, to give the American people the idea that al-Qaeda had been “decimated” and was effectively out of commission had a clear motive during a presidential campaign to mislead the public about Benghazi. The fact that questions are still unanswered about this crime and that Clinton and President Obama seem more interested in burying this story along with the four Americans that died is an outrage that won’t be forgotten.”

Especially if she runs for president in 2016. As we watched this exchange, it occurred to us that Mrs. Clinton was back in a familiar role, and an ironic one for someone who is supposed to be a feminist icon. Once again, she was helping the most powerful man in the world dodge accountability for scandalous behavior.

As I said, she was prevaricating her hindquarters off, because the truth condemns her, President Barack Hussein Obama, and the entire feckless, anti-American Administration.

On October 25th, 2012, contributor Peter Ferrara summarized what actually happened in an Op Ed for Forbes.com:

As the anniversary of 9/11 approached, the Obama Administration should have known that more security was necessary to protect diplomatic missions in the increasingly hostile country, especially on that sensitive date. But they did just the opposite, reducing security. The Wall Street Journal reported on October 10 that the Administration removed a well armed, 16 member, security detail from Libya in August, to be replaced by the Libyan security personnel that Ambassador Stevens had just told them could not be relied upon.

Based on documents released by the House Oversight Committee, the day of the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, September 11, the White House situation room starts receiving emails at about 1 pm that the mission is under hostile surveillance. The only response was that the Pentagon sends a drone armed with a video camera so that everyone in Washington can see what transpires in real time, as it happens, at the White House, at the State Department, at the Pentagon, at the CIA.

The drone documents no crowds protesting any video. But at 4 pm Washington receives an email from the Benghazi mission that it is under military style attack. Subject: “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack.” The email states,

“The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”

The attack was then fed to all of them, the White House, the Pentagon, the State Dept., the CIA, through live video feed. A later email that day reported, “Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.” The feed showed no protest of any supposedly offensive You Tube video.

Just one hour flight time away were U.S. Air Force bases that could have been rousted in minutes to send fighter planes and attack helicopters that could have routed the attackers in minutes of fighting. As Investors Business Daily editorialized on October 24, “Within an hour’s flight time from Libya, at the large naval air station in Sigonella, Italy, and at bases in nearby Aviano and Souda Bay, were fighters and AC 130 gunships that can be extremely effective in dispersing crowds or responding to a terrorist assault.” But the order for the rescue never came. Maybe because Barack Obama did not want to offend Muslim sensibilities by such a show of force.

I was going to show the well-publicized picture of the blood stained wall of the American Consulate, but, that image is probably already seared in your mind, as it is in mine. 

In fact, there are a lot of images that race through my mind as I sit here at my computer.

I remember the image of a lone terrorist, brandishing a machine gun, standing in front of the burning Benghazi Consulate.

I also remember the image of Benghazi barbarians dragging a murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens through the streets, taking pictures every few yards, with their cell phones. 

My mind envisions the image of two brave Americans, up on a roof holding off 100 Muslim Terrorists, trying desperately to hold out for help which was denied to them, until finally the overwhelming numbers which comprise the horde of barbarians, murdered them as well. 

I imagine Ambassador Stevens’ elderly mother, making the trip from the West Coast to the East Coast to pick up the lifeless body of her abused and murdered son, whom she and her entire family were so proud of.

Finally, I remember the show of hypocrisy involving members of this anti-American Administration solemnly welcoming the bodies of those brave Americans home.

Secretary Clinton…the truth makes a big difference…to the families of those that were so savagely murdered that fateful night…and to the millions of Americans who still believe in this “Shining City on a Hill”.

Americans deserve the truth.

And, you should be ashamed.

BenghaziGate: Was it Hillary’s Fault?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

In the latest chapter of the rapidly developing real story of the mass murder at the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on 9/11/12, it appears the Former First Lady may have refused to send military backup that fateful night.

Eli Lake reports for The Daily Beast:

On the night of the 9/11 anniversary assault at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the Americans defending the compound and a nearby CIA annex were severely outmanned. Nonetheless, the State Department never requested military backup that evening, two senior U.S. officials familiar with the details of military planning tell The Daily Beast.

In its seventh week, discussion about what happened in Benghazi has begun to focus on why military teams in the region did not respond to the assault on the U.S. mission and the nearby CIA annex. The only security backup that did arrive that evening were former special-operations soldiers under the command of the CIA—one from the nearby annex and another Quick Reaction Force from Tripoli. On Friday, Fox News reported that requests from CIA officers for air support on the evening of the attacks were rejected. (The Daily Beast was not able to confirm that those requests were made, though no U.S. official contacted for this story directly refuted the claim either.)

It’s unlikely any outside military team could have arrived in Benghazi quickly enough to save Ambassador Chris Stevens or his colleague Sean Smith, both of whom died from smoke inhalation after a band of more than 100 men overran the U.S. mission at around 9:30 p.m. that evening and set the buildings inside ablaze.

But military backup may have made a difference at around five the following morning, when a second wave of attackers assaulted the CIA annex where embassy personnel had taken refuge. It was during this second wave of attacks that two ex-SEALs working for the CIA’s security teams—Glenn Doherty and Tyrone Woods—were killed in a mortar strike.

Normally it would be the job of the U.S. ambassador on location to request a military response. But Stevens likely died in the first two hours of the attack. The responsibility for requesting military backup would then have fallen to the deputy chief of mission at Benghazi or officials at the State Department in Washington.

“The State Department is responsible for assessing security at its diplomatic installations and for requesting support from other government agencies if they need it,” a senior U.S. Defense official said. “There was no request from the Department of State to intervene militarily on the night of the attack.”

The president, however, would have the final say as to whether or not to send in the military. By 11 p.m. Benghazi time, 90 minutes after the assault began on the U.S. mission, Obama met with the National Security Council to discuss the attack. NSC spokesman Tommy Vietor said the president “ordered Secretary Panetta and Chairman Dempsey to begin moving assets into the region to prepare for a range of contingencies” at that meeting.

Last summer, the second “issue” of  reutersmagazine.com debuted at the Aspen Ideas Festival. This edition featured an article titled “Hillary vs. the World”.

While actually a Liberal Fluff Piece, it does offers some insight into the way the Liberals and the Former First Lady view her job as the US Secretary of State, a job she has proven to be woefully unqualified for:

…Three and a half years later, there have been remarkably few accounts of feuding between Obama’s White House and Clinton’s State Department—and virtually none between the president himself and his celebrity diplomat. Even so, no one even attempts to claim that Clinton and Obama have forged anything other than a solid professional relationship. If there’s an inner circle of Obama decision-making, Clinton is not in it. And the optimistically ambitious foreign policy agenda of early 2009 has inevitably collided with reality; long since jettisoned are many of the early ideas about reshaping the world for the Obama era—from talking directly to Iran’s ayatollahs to forging a durable Mideast peace built on an American-led push to end Israeli settlements in the West Bank. On the campaign trail, Obama has transformed himself instead into an unlikely tough guy, emphasizing his decision to launch the risky special ops raid that killed Osama bin Laden (which Clinton supported), as well as his moves to draw down the American presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Clinton and then-Defense Secretary Bob Gates argued in favor of Obama’s 2009 troop surge.)

For her part, Clinton tends to tout a list of accomplishments that are somewhat short of transformative, if still substantial—from her leadership in pushing a strategic “pivot” to Asia, announced last fall in an article for Foreign Policy, to the extensive personal diplomacy she poured into quickly mobilizing the NATO coalition that launched air strikes to topple Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi. More broadly, if less tangibly, she has put new emphasis at a time of global financial crisis on the role of what she calls “economic statecraft,” including the appointment of the State Department’s first chief economist. She has launched a major reboot of American development efforts modeled on the Pentagon’s quadrennial strategic reviews and has called for an “Internet freedom agenda” that would mobilize new technology on behalf of democracy activists and dissidents the world over, an agenda that has seemed both problematic—bad guys have these tools too—and prescient in anticipating the technology-fueled protests that swept the Middle East during last year’s Arab Spring.

Then there’s managing her in-box, where never a day goes by without some new global headache being added to the mix, a headache that will inevitably require a Clinton phone call, or a meeting, or a flight halfway around the world after having just gotten off a plane. Asked how she approaches the job, Clinton often replies by saying she has to do it all. She has to watch, as she puts it, “the trend lines and the headlines.”

Hillary, along with her boss, President Barack Hussein Obama had a lot to lose, if the Islamic Terrorist attack on the Consulate in Benghazi was revealed to be what it actually was, to the world, in real time. That’s why they came up with the cock and bull story about the “offensive Youtube Video”.

The Benghazi mass murder at our Consulate by those Muslim Terrorists would blow “Smart Power!” all to Hades and back, again. And, the CIC and the SOS simply could not allow that to happen.

Unfortunately for them, their lies are rapidly being replaced by the truth.

Just in time for Election Day.

BenghaziGate: Four Brave Americans Sacrificed for Political Expediency.

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

Yesterday, we found out more details about the sickening actions of the Obama Administration surrounding their non-response to the Islamic Terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi and the murder of four brave Americans.

Charles Woods is the father of Tyrone Woods, who was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya. He recently did an interview with Conservative Radio Host Lars Larson. Here is an excerpt:

“When [Obama] came over to our little area” at Andrew Air Force Base, says Woods, “he kind of just mumbled, you know, ‘I’m sorry.’ His face was looking at me, but his eyes were looking over my shoulder like he could not look me in the eye. And it was not a sincere, ‘I’m really sorry, you know, that your son died,’ but it was totally insincere, more of whining type, ‘I’m sorry.’”

Woods says that shaking President Obama’s hands at his son’s memorial service was “like shaking hands with a dead fish.”

“It just didn’t feel right,” he says of his encounter with the commander in chief. “And now that it’s coming out that apparently the White House situation room was watching our people die in real time, as this was happening,” Woods says, he wants answers on what happened—and why there was no apparent effort to save his son’s life.

“Well, this is what Hillary did,” Woods continues. “She came over and, you know, did the same thing—separately came over and talked with me. I gave her a hug, shook her hand. And she did not appear to be one bit sincere—at all. And you know, she mentioned that the thing about, we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video. That was the first time I had even heard about anything like that.”

Woods continues: “Apparently even the State Department had a live stream and was aware of their calls for help. My son wasn’t even there. He was at a safe house about a mile away. He got the distress call; he heard them crying for help; that’s why he and Glen risked their lives to go that extra mile just to take care of the situation. And I’m sure that wasn’t the only one received that distress call—you know, come save our lives … I’m sure that other people in the military, in the State Department, in the White House, received that same call that he would receive. And I’m sure that most military people would jump at the chance … to protect that life [and] not leave anyone behind.”

Woods made clear that he isn’t “mad,” but that he wants to the “truth” to be told because he feels ” abandoned.”

Woods says he was told by military officials that the military could have “come above [the area] and completely carpeted area,” and therefore saved the officials in Benghazi, Libya. But that someone gave the command for the American military not to save the lives of the Americans under attack.

“When I heard, you know, that there’s a very good chance that the White House as well as other members of the military knew what was going on and obviously someone had to say, don’t go rescue them. Because every person in the military–their first response [would be], we’re going to go rescue them. We need to find out who it was that gave that command–do not rescue them.”

The tragedy known as BenghaziGate took an even sicker  turn yesterday…

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators twice to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to “stand down.”

Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.

CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood, [on orders from General Petraeus] though, denied the claims that requests for support were turned down.

“We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi,” she said. “Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.”

That means that the order to stand down had to come from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and/or President Barack Hussein Obama.

We also learned yesterday, that there were two drones circling overhead, as four brave Americans were being slaughtered. Obama and his Administration knew exactly what was happening, yet, for the sake of political expediency, chose to do nothing about it.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta yesterday, called the criticism of the Obama administration’s handling of the Libya terror attack “Monday morning quarterbacking.”

Meanwhile…

Republican senators are demanding that the Obama administration make public the surveillance video taken during last month’s deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, which killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte wrote to President Barack Obama’s defense secretary, CIA director and attorney general demanding that the video be declassified.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for that video, Senators. Obama  will stall until after the Presidential Election, when he “will have more flexibility”.

Did Budget Cuts Lead to Throats Being Cut?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

Evidently, the money designated for Ambassador to Lybia Chris Stevens’ protection had to be used for something more important: like Michelle’s vay-cays or improving Obama’s Golf Game.

Fore!

The Washington Times reports that

Investigators looking for lessons from the fatal terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi might want to start on Capitol Hill, where Congress slashed spending on diplomatic security and U.S. embassy construction over the past two years.

Since 2010, Congress cut $296 million from the State Department’s spending request for embassy security and construction, with additional cuts in other State Department security accounts, according to an analysis by a former appropriations committee staffer.

Rep. Michael Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, made clear Wednesday that congressional staff will be looking into the attack, in addition to a probe by the State Department’s inspector general and another State Department investigation required by federal law.

The cuts to the embassy construction, security and maintenance budget was almost 10 percent of the entire appropriation for that account over those two years, said Scott Lilly, now a scholar at the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

“Anytime we cut that account back, we are putting people’s lives at risk, people who are serving the country” in dangerous places abroad, said Mr. Lilly.

The cuts mean that “a lot of places you’d intended to secure better, you don’t reach” this year, he added.

He said he did not know whether the cuts had impacted security at the Benghazi consulate that was stormed on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks by heavily armed Islamic extremists, who burned down the building and killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

A State Department official told The Washington Times that there was no impact on security in Benghazi from the cuts.

Since 1999, the official said, the department has spent $13 billion on 94 new secure diplomatic facilities “and security upgrades to existing properties that have moved more than 27,000 people into safer, more secure facilities.”

The cuts were the latest in a series of squeezes on State Department spending. Congress has appropriated less money for the department than requested in every year since Fiscal 2007, according to budget figures.

“During both the latter years of the Bush presidency and throughout the Obama presidency, the administration has recommended boosting spending on foreign aid and [State Department] foreign operations, including security, and Congress has always cut it back,” said Philip J. Crowley, a former State Department spokesman.

“There is simply not a constituency on the Hill to increase spending on diplomacy and development. Resources do matter.” said Mr. Crowley, now a fellow at the George Washington University Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication.

In a completely unrelated story (I’m sure), published on July 25, 2012, at AmericanThinker.com:…

…Walid Shoebat published this 37-page booklet entitled “Proof: Huma has Ties to Muslim Brotherhood — Countless Documents Surface” and this was followed up with Tuesday’s update that “Huma Abedin Served on Board with Al-Qaeda Godfather”. Shoebat states that the latest discoveries “include but are not limited to “[p]roof that Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin served on the Board of IMMA from at least 12/02/02 – 9/24/08” and that “Al-Qaeda Godfather Abdullah Omar Naseef served on IMMA’s Advisory Board from at least 12/02/02 – 12/03/03.”

…Besides extensively citing all of Huma Abedin’s family connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and Muslim Sisterhood, Shoebat maintains that “[n]either Huma Abedin, Hillary’s aid [sic] or any major western media even mention what is common knowledge in the Arab circles regarding Hassan Abedin, [and] his connections or activities.” Hassan is Huma’s brother.

Why the virtual silence?

Abedin’s brother had a strong working relationship with Abdullah Omar Naseef and Yusuf Qaradawi. Naseef “chaired other entities considered major security concerns for the United States and ran a charity front for terror.” There is no “six degrees of separation” among these men as has been maintained by the mainstream media. Central to Shoebat’s investigation are the overlapping ties of Abdullah Omar Naseef to a number of Muslim Brotherhood offshoots. One such group WAMY or World Assembly of Muslim Youth maintains that “[t]he Jews are humanity’s enemies: they foment immorality in this world.”

Saleha Abedin, Huma’s mother, through the Sisterhood branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, works to advance the Brotherhood agendas against Western interests and policies. In his report, Shoebat shows the interlocking tentacles among various Muslim Brotherhood members which leave “no doubt that the Muslim Brotherhood is the author and the one setting policies and standards for the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), which Saleha Abedin chairs. IICWC’s ‘official policies include marital rape, child marriage, female genital circumcision and polygamy.'”

In a 16 page letter, written last summer to Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison, Rep. Michele Bachmann wrote:

The concerns about the foreign influence of immediate family members is such a concern to the U.S. Government that it includes these factors as potentially disqualifying conditions for obtaining a security clearance, which undoubtedly Ms. Abedin has had to obtain to function in her position. For us to raise issues about a highly-based U.S. Government official with known immediate family connections to foreign extremist organizations is not a question of singling out Ms. Abedin. In fact, these questions are raised by the U.S. Government of anyone seeking a security clearance.

Of course, nothing ever happened, except for President Obama defending Ms. Abedin, in front of his Muslim guests, at his annual Ramadan Dinner.

Given the fact that the Muslim Terrorists seem to know more about the timing of Administrative Initiatives and inner workings of our government than do most of our elected representatives up on Capitol Hill, as proven by the attack on the Benghazi Consulate, I would say that it may be time to actually investigate Ms. Abedin, and any other Muslims with questionable familial ties, in key Administrative positions in our Government, wouldn’t you?