As Allen West reported just hours ago, all eyes are now on Hillary Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin.
West wrote; I’m just waiting to hear what the left has to say about this little revelation that Abedin edited a radial Muslim publication that opposed women’s rights and blamed the U.S for 9/11.
While Clinton was touting her support for the 1995 Women’s conference in Beijing, her top aide Huma Abedin published articles in a Saudi journal taking Clinton’s feminist platform apart, piece by piece.
Can the Democrats not find a Muslim who isn’t connected to a radical publication? Last month, Muslim DNC speaker Khizr Khan questioned whether or not Donald Trump had even read the Constitution, a moment that was replayed countless times throughout the news. It was later discovered that Khan had written that the Constitution must always be subjugated to Sharia. Oops. Now, Huma is under fire, and the spin has already begun.
Via The New York Post: Top 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.” 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.
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.
While the Clinton campaign would like there to be some ambiguity over whether or not Huma played a role within the organization, she was hardly the only Abedin working there.
Her brother, who was an associate editor, and a sister, also employed as an assistant editor, are listed as staff members. Abedin’s Pakistani mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin, remains editor-in-chief.
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.
The journal supported a strict interpretation of Islamic Sharia laws, which call for beheadings, require women to cover their bodies and faces and advocate death for “infidels” — which in their view includes just about everyone but the most extreme religious hardliners.
The publication also blamed the US for the 9/11 terror attacks, which were carried out largely by Saudi nationals.
In a 1996 article, Abedin’s mother wrote that Clinton was advancing a “very aggressive and radically feminist” agenda that was un-Islamic 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 wrote.
I wonder if her views have changed since then. Considering that she’s remained as editor in chief of the publication, I doubt it. I’m sure Hillary would be thrilled to hear what the rest of the Abedins think about her.
[Note: This post was authored by Matt Palumbo. Follow him on Twitter @MattPalumbo12]