From 8-22-16 episode of The Rob Zicari Show LIVE 10-1pm M-F
If you are a woman and you think a Hillary Clinton presidency will advance your rights and make America a better place, you are sadly mistaken. Why? Because Hillary’s closest advisor is an Islamist who supports a culture that not only oppresses women, but blames the U.S. for 9/11.
I read a great article over the weekend in the New York Post written by Paul Sperry. Sperry breaks down Huma Abedin’s radical Muslim connections in a way that laymen can understand. Breitbart News has reported on Abedin’s ties to radical Islam and groups like the Muslim Brotherhood for years, but the rest of the media have dismissed these ties as discredited and say they are nothing more than junk conspiracy theories.
This is legit. Hillary Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin was assistant editor for a Saudi publication called the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs while she worked as an intern for Hillary when she was first lady. Huma’s mother is still the editor-in-chief. Paul Manafort recently resigned from the Trump campaign, partly due to allegations of his working as a political consultant for Ukraine’s ruling party from 2007-2012. Imagine if Manafort had worked for a country that was responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans. A country that puts homosexuals to death and won’t let women leave their homes unless accompanied by a man and won’t let them drive a car.
From the NY 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 website is her support for the UN women’s conference in Bejing in 1995, when she famously declared, “Women’s rights are human rights.” Her speech has emerged as a focal point of her campaign, featured prominently in last month’s Morgan Freeman-narrated convention video introducing her as the Democratic nominee.
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.
So Hillary picked Huma and Bill picked Monica Lewinsky. Why do you think that is?
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.
If a Republican had someone in their ranks that spewed this type of philosophy, they would be crucified. Remember Todd Aiken? His political career ended when he said that victims of “legitimate rape” rarely get pregnant. Liberals say that only a small percentage of the Muslim population engage in terrorism, but I say that anyone who believes women should be raped for wearing a short skirt is one step away from being a suicide bomber. It’s a primitive, savage thought process that has no place in civilized society.
“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.
Now remember, Hillary Clinton’s whole thing is about empowering women, being the first female president and shattering the glass ceiling. A person who may possibly be her chief of staff worked for a magazine that doesn’t believe in women’s rights. Not the mention the millions of dollars the Clintons have taken from the Saudi government.
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.
This Huma Abedin’s mother endorsing Sharia law.
“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.”
She seemed to rationalize domestic abuse as a result of “the stress and frustrations that men encounter in their daily lives.” While denouncing such violence, she didn’t think it did much good to punish men for it.
She added in her 31-page treatise: “More men are victims of domestic violence than women . . . If we see the world through ‘men’s eyes’ we will find them suffering from many hardships and injustices.”
Perhaps this is why Huma and Hillary have both been able to forgive their philandering husbands. Bill Clinton and Anthony Weiner aka Carlos Danger aka The Mongoose encounter stress and frustration and suffer from many hardships and injustices, so they should be able to put their ding-a-lings wherever they want. Huma and Hillary see the world through Bill and The Mongoose’s eyes, so having them wave their penises around is no big whoop.
Huma continued to work for her mother’s journal through 2008. She is listed as “assistant editor” on the masthead of the 2002 issue in which her mother suggested the US was doomed to be attacked on 9/11 because of “sanctions” it leveled against Iraq and other “injustices” allegedly heaped on the Muslim world. Here is an excerpt:
“The spiral of violence having continued unabated worldwide, and widely seen to be allowed to continue, was building up intense anger and hostility within the pressure cooker that was kept on a vigorous flame while the lid was weighted down with various kinds of injustices and sanctions . . . It was a time bomb that had to explode and explode it did on September 11, changing in its wake the life and times of the very community and the people it aimed to serve.”
This was written by Huma Abedin’s mom in 2002 in a journal where Huma was listed as an assistant editor.
When the media tries to dismiss Huma Abedin’s ties to radical Islam as discredited conspiracy theories, they are lying. They are trying to hide the truth. I have to commend Paul Sperry for writing this article.
I don’t give a crap that Paul Manafort worked for a pro-Russian Ukranian government. Ukraine didn’t attack us on 9/11. Nobody from the Ukraine walked into a nightclub in Orlando and gunned down 49 people or slaughtered 14 in San Bernardino. Huma Abedin was the editor of a magazine where her mother said America had it coming on 9/11.
If this isn’t anti-American, I don’t know what is. If saying a woman deserves to be raped because she doesn’t cover herself in a beekeeper’s outfit isn’t anti-American, I don’t know what is. Yet these are the people that Democrats say we should let into the country, and if we don’t we’re Islamophobic. We’re anti-American.
The fact that Huma Abedin could possibly have a high-ranking role in our government is frightening.
Huma Abedin is Clinton’s longest-serving and, by all accounts, most loyal aide. The devout, Saudi-raised Muslim started working for her in the White House, then followed her to the Senate and later the State Department. She’s now helping run Clinton’s presidential campaign as vice chair and may end up back in the White House.
The contradictions are hard to reconcile. The campaign is not talking, despite repeated requests for interviews.
Until now, these articles which Abedin helped edit and publish have remained under wraps. Perhaps Clinton was unaware she and her mother took such opposing views.
But that’s hard to believe. Her closest adviser served as an editor for that same Saudi propaganda organ for a dozen years. The same one that in 1999 published a book, edited by her mother, that justifies the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation under Islamic law, while claiming “man-made laws have in fact enslaved women.”
Huma Abedin’s relatives believe in female genital mutilation. How is this in line with American values? How does the media ignore this?
And in 2010, Huma Abedin arranged for then-Secretary of State Clinton to speak alongside Abedin’s hijab-wearing mother at an all-girls college in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. According to a transcript of the speech, Clinton said Americans have to do a better job of getting past “the stereotypes and the mischaracterizations” of the oppressed Saudi woman. She also assured the audience of burqa-clad girls that not all American girls go “around in a bikini bathing suit.”
So Saudi women aren’t oppressed? Being forced to cover yourself from head to toe is not oppressed? Not being able to leave your house or drive a car is not oppressed? Female genital mutilation is not oppression? Are you kidding me?
Hillary Clinton’s closest aide worked for a publication that believes women deserve to be raped and America deserved 9/11. I would say this trumps Paul Manafort working for a pro-Russian Ukranian government. What do you think?