I’m sorry to have to say this, but recently Hillary Clinton said something really stupid – even for her.Breitbart reports, “Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton revealed to Islamic State terrorists that she would not send American ground troops to fight them, if she was elected president. Clinton criticized Trump for floating the possibility of sending American ground troops to fight ISIS. “Well, that is off the table, as far as I am concerned,” she said.”
I have to ask, why after the folly of Barack Obama and his telegraphing strategic decisions to the enemy, would Mrs. Clinton make such a very foolish assertion? We certainly don’t need another intransigent ideologue as commander in chief who won’t take counsel of events and realize the enemy has a vote.
Needless to say, we know who ISIS and the members of the global Islamic jihad are pulling for to be our next president. And perhaps the Muslim Brotherhood has also found a candidate to support?
If there’s one thing I just love to highlight it’s liberal progressive media hypocrisy. The left just loves to demonize GOP candidates when it comes to women’s rights — remember the “war on women?” And who can forget the disparaging of Governor Mitt Romney for saying he had a binder of resumes for women candidates for positions — how despicable.Well, I’m just waiting to hear what the left has to say about this little revelation, as reported by the New York Post, “Hillary 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 Web site is her support for the UN women’s conference in Bejing in 1995, when she famously declared, “Women’s rights are human rights.” 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. 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.
“A conjugal family established through a marriage contract between a man and a woman, and extended through procreation is the only definition of family a Muslim can accept,” the author, a Saudi official with the Muslim World League, asserted, while warning of “the dangers of alternative lifestyles.” (Abedin’s journal was founded and funded by the former head of the Muslim World League.)“Pushing [mothers] out into the open labor market is a clear demonstration of a lack of respect of womanhood and motherhood,” it added. 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.”
Here we are and Donald Trump has accepted the resignation of former campaign chairman Paul Manafort because of his “relationship” with former Ukrainian president and potential ties back to Vladimir Putin. What will be said of Huma Abedin’s association with this journal and its very sexist statements when it comes to women’s rights?
C’mon, it is laughable to believe “women’s rights are Islamic rights.” Consider what happens in the Islamic world with brutal female circumcision, honor killings, beatings, and the denial of basic rights to women, such as education. There’ve also been quite a few inquiries as to the Abedin family and its ties to the oldest Islamic jihadist group, the Muslim Brotherhood.
However, this article brings out a very good question and concern. Here is a woman who without a doubt will end up being the chief of staff to a Hillary Clinton presidency. She remains a very behind-the-scenes, somewhat shadowy figure, married to Anthony Weiner, which appears to be more optics than romantics, if you know what I mean. Not being a conspiracy kinda fella, but we all have our concerns about one Valerie Jarrett, and her seemingly modern day Rasputin-like power in the Obama White House. Could Ms. Abedin bring the same level of influence and impact, and to whose benefit?
Imagine if someone close within the Trump campaign was involved with a journal that made such questionable assertions about women’s rights? Needless to say it would be a full out “pile on” and the resurrection of the tired old “war on women” mantra. Then again, how is it that Mrs. Clinton has benefitted financially from countries with deplorable records when it comes to women’s rights…and that is not in question.
If any of us are under the misconception that Ms. Abedin’s parents, namely her mom, wouldn’t have access to the White House, that is delusional. And just as we question the impact and influence of those who’ve made contributions to the Clinton Foundation on American foreign policy — for whom would Ms. Abedin’s mother seek favors?
“Islamic values generate a sense of compassion in human and family relations” — right, no big deal with child marriages, multiple wives, beatings, and other abhorrent behavior such as female sex slaves.
And the other doozy: “Among all systems of belief, Islam goes the farthest in restoring equality across gender” – oh yeah, absolutely, women can be divorced by the man stating three times “I divorce you.” And a woman MUST have five male witnesses to testify on her behalf if she’s been raped — or else she faces stoning. I know the left just despises the fact that Christians don’t want to bake cakes for gay weddings…but what is the fate of gays and lesbians in Islamic nations — Saudi Arabia and Iran to name two.
I tend to believe we need to know just a little more about the woman, Huma Abedin, who is the closest confidant to Hillary Clinton. We knew little about Valerie Jarrett, and look where she is — and perhaps her Iranian background has something to do with the Obama administration’s acquiescence and continued subjugation by way of financial restitution to the Iranians. Doggone, does art imitate life? Because when I think of all this, it reminds me of the film, The Manchurian Candidate, both the original and remake – it’s being remade live before our eyes.