Posted August 12, 2012
Here are a series of articles questioning the National Security risks that might probably exist between Huma Abedin and the Muslim Brotherhood.
The contributors are ACT for America highlighting an Andrew Bostom essay, two articles from WalidShoebat.com and finally the best and the must read article by Danny Jeffrey that points the finger of shame-on-you toward John McCain, John Boehner, Lindsey Graham, Ed Rollins (former Bachmann for Prez Campaign Manager) and Fox News for putting Michelle Bachmann into cement shoes and tossing her in the river to placate political correctness and undoubtedly multiculturalist thinking.
HOW CRAZY IS THAT?
JRH 8/12/12
******************************
The Abedin family
Sent: August 9, 2012 12:17 PM
Two weeks ago, over 20,000 of you sent email letters to the U.S. House and Senate in support of the five Members of Congress who had the courage to raise questions about Muslim Brotherhood influence in our government.
Thank you.
A lot of heat was directed at these Members of Congress, and particularly Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, because of one letter’s reference to Huma Abedin, a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Since then, a great deal of information has emerged about Abedin and her family.
_____________________
http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2012/08/06/the-abedin-familys-pro-jihadist-journal/ The Abedin Family’s Pro-Jihadist Journal
Posted By Andrew Bostom On August 6, 2012
(Adapted from this essay [1])
Steadily burgeoning [2] evidence [3] indicates that one of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s closest aides, Huma Abedin, despite Ms. Clinton’s protestation [4], was inadequately vetted for either family, or personal ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Diligent, open [5] source [2] investigation [3] has already uncovered and documented numerous alarming connections. One can reasonably infer that a serious, formal Congressional investigation of the overall extent of Muslim Brotherhood influence operations—as requested [6] by Representatives Bachmann, Gohmert, Franks, Westmoreland, and Rooney—might yield even more disturbing findings.
Pending these sorely needed Congressional inquiries—replete with their probing investigative tools—much can still be gleaned from the public record. For example, over the past 33 years, Huma Abedin’s family has been responsible for the editorial production of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs [7] (IMMA)’s academic journal [8], known as Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs. Journal, from 1979-1995, and Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs [JMMA], from 1996. till now, starting with family patriarch Syed Z. Abedin’s, and Huma’s mother, Saleha Abedin [2]’s, founding [9] involvement [10] since 1979, and subsequently joined by Huma’s brother Hassan Abedin (1996 [11] to present [12]), Huma herself (1996 [11] to 2008 [13]), and Huma’s sister, Heba (married name Khalid, or Khaled [14]; 2002 [15] to present [12]).
Syed Abedin, in the inaugural edition of the IMMA journal, gives an effusive tribute [16] to one of his IMMA co-founders, Dr. Abdullah Omar Nasseef, Chairman [17] of the IMMA. During his concurrent tenure as Secretary-General of the Muslim World League—a combined [18] Saudi Wahhabi, Muslim Brotherhood-dominated organization—in July, 1988, Naseef also created the Rabita Trust [19], and became its chairman. On October 12, 2001, then President George W. Bush’s Executive Order named Rabita Trust [20] as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Entity, and the US Treasury Department froze its assets, while Naseef was still serving as the Trust’s chairman. Nasseef remained on the IMMA journal Editorial Board through 2003 [21], overlapping Huma Abedin’s tenure for 7-years (i.e., 1996-2003).
The current (April/May 2012) issue of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs journal (JMMA) features two essays, introduced with lavish praise by Editor Saleha Abedin [22], which champion, unabashedly:
§ The global hegemonic aspirations of major 20th century Muslim Brotherhood jihadist ideologues, such as the eminent Muslim Brotherhood theoretician, Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966), and Abul Hasan Nadwi (d. 1999)
§ The more expansive application of Sharia within Muslim minority communities residing in the West, with the goal of replacing these non-Muslim governing systems, as advocated by contemporary Muslim Brotherhood jihadist ideologues, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, and Tahir Jabir al-Alwani
|
One of these JMMA essays repeats [23], approvingly, Qutb’s pejorative characterization of the West as a “disastrous combination of avid materialism, and egoistic individualism.” Abul Hasan Nadwi, was a founding member of the Muslim World League, a member of the Organization of Islamic Conference (now Cooperation), a member of the World Supreme Council of Mosques, and a member of the Fiqh Council of Rabita. In a triumphal 1951 manifesto extolling Islamic supremacism, Nadwi had proclaimed [24] “Behold the world of man looking with rapture at the world of Islam as its savior, and behold the world of Islam fixing its gaze on the Arab world as its secular and spiritual leader. Will the world of Islam realize the hope of the world of men? And will the Arab world realize the hope of the Muslim world?” Citing Nadwi with admiration, the same JMMA article opines [23], “[T]he confrontation has taken the shape of an ‘Islamic project’ in the Muslim world against Western modernity…. The war that has been declared against Western modernity now seeks a new modernity…unlike Western modernity.”
Another featured essay [25] from the current issue [26] of the JMMA is a fitting complement to the journal’s endorsement [23] of the global Islamic supremacist agenda. This essay endorses [25] the so-called “innovative” application of the “Jurisprudence of Muslim Minorities,” living, for example, in the West, whose stated purpose is, “enforcement of shari’ah on the Muslim communities.” However, by the essay’s own expressed standard [25]: “The theory of the Jurisprudence of Muslim Minorities is most easily clarified by shedding light on its founders.”
The two founders of this legal doctrine, as the essay notes [25], are Yusuf al-Qaradawi of Qatar, and Taha Jabir al-Alwani of Virginia, USA.
Qaradawi has publicly advocated [27]:
§ The re-creation of a formal transnational United Islamic State (Islamic Caliphate)
§ The jihad conquests of Europe, and the Americas
§ Universal application of the Sharia, including Islamic blasphemy law, and the hadd punishments (for example, notably, executing so-called “apostates” from Islam)
|
Al-Alwani, writing as president of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a think tank created [28] by the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1980s, stated, regarding a (then) new English translation of the classic Shafiite manual of Islamic jurisprudence Reliance of the Traveller [29], “from a purely academic point of view, this translation is superior to anything produced by orientalists in the way of translations of major Islamic works.” Notwithstanding al-Alwani’s glowing tribute, Reliance of the Traveller [29] sanctions open-ended jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian Islamic Caliphate; rejection of bedrock Western liberties—including freedom of conscience and speech—enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death; discriminatory relegation of non-Muslims to outcast, vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to subservient chattel (who must be segregated and undergo female genital mutilation); and barbaric punishments which violate human dignity, such as amputation for theft, stoning for adultery, and lashing for alcohol consumption. Moreover,
§ Al-Alwani wished [30] Islamized Spain had conquered America and spread Islam in our hemisphere, not Christianity. He stated, “Perhaps some of them [Muslims from Spain] would have been the ones who discovered America, not someone else, and America could have possibly been today among the lands of the Muslims”
§ Al-Alwani was named [31] as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case against Sami Al-Arian who pled guilty to conspiracy to aid the terrorist organization, Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
§ al-Alwani published an essay online, discovered (and translated [32] from Arabic to English) in July 2011, entitled “The Great Haughtiness”, which promoted conspiratorial Islamic Jew-hatred replete with Koranic references, conjoined to modern “Zionist conspiracies”
|
The Abedin family “academic” journal is a thinly veiled mouthpiece for the Muslim Brotherhood’s Sharia-supremacist agenda. One can now add this conclusive, public record evidence to a host of other bona fide justifications for the Congressional inquiry demanded by Representative Bachmann, and her four intrepid colleagues. All Articles Copyright © 2007-2012 Dr. Andrew Bostom | All Rights Reserved
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage (For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.
__________________________
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
While we Announce, will Huma Denounce?
By Walid Shoebat
August 10, 2012
I am ANNOUNCING that in the coming days, we will release a bombshell more explosive than before. This time, it’s the link between the family of Huma Abedin, the closest advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Wahhabist grand plan in Saudi Arabia. It is a plan that represents a grave threat to the United States. I promise you’ve never heard anything like this before—not in a million years.
Let’s start with the man who founded the Abedins’ organization, the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), which will be included in our upcoming report. His name is Abdullah Omar Nasseef and he founded a group that was identified by the U.S. Treasury Department as a terrorist entity that funded al-Qaeda. That makes Nasseef an al-Qaeda financier. I guess it’s no big deal and a bit taboo to say it is. So I will choose my words carefully:
The Abedins were not in bed with terrorists and Huma’s mother was not a member of the Brotherhood.
Now that I’ve cleared the runway, here’s the politically incorrect, factual truth:
Huma’s mother is a leader in the Muslim Brotherhood and the Abedins were in bed with terror-king-pins. It is much worse than anyone thinks. That detail can be read [here]
During my time in Chicago, I was a Muslim Brotherhood activist. Imam Jamal Said was my recruiter; his colleague was Abdullah Azzam, the founder of al-Qaeda. Had the 9/11 attacks happened a decade earlier than they did, any attempts to implicate me or Said would have been met with charges of “guilt by association”. In a legal sense, those arguing on my behalf would have been right.
However, if I then proceeded to apply for a position at the State Department, which required issuing me a security clearance, those associations would have disqualified me from being eligible. What amazes me is that today, the liberals couldn’t care less about Huma’s associations while being very concerned about mine. Conversely, Tea Party conservatives are rightly concerned about Huma’s associations and have no problems with me.
The reason? I publicly denounced my past allegiances. Huma has not. Why?
Had I applied for the position Huma now holds under Clinton – at the time I was loyal to the Brotherhood – the likely response would have been something like:
“We’re sorry Mr. Shoebat, but your associations lead us to believe that there may be a conflict of interest between your loyalties to the Muslim Brotherhood and the interests of the United States.”
Guilt by association may not apply in criminal cases but in matters of national security, associations absolutely do. As the closest advisor to the Secretary of State, Huma Abedin should unequivocally denounce the Muslim Brotherhood as well as her family’s connection to it. That should only be a start.
In a recent interview with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer cried out:
“…Huma Abedin, who is a wonderful, wonderful person… it smacks to start raising all of these issues, of McCarthyism, to say she’s not really loyal because she’s Muslim.”
A lie always grows out of a bed of truth; the five courageous congressmen did not express concern over a particular “Muslim”. They expressed concern over the “Muslim Brotherhood”. Imagine if Blitzer had said:
“to say she’s not really loyal because she’s Muslim Brotherhood.”
He would have looked like a doofus.
Blitzer continued as a character witness:
“You don’t know her; I know her. You know, she’s married to a Jewish guy, Congressman Anthony Weiner and she is not part of a Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy or anything like that. That’s ridiculous to even raise her name like that.”
Once again, the point is missed. The issue is Abedin’s affiliations with individuals and entities that sympathize with or represent the Muslim Brotherhood. It’s an issue, not in a criminal sense; it’s an issue in a national security clearance sense.
Abedin’s marriage to a “Jewish” man has obviously become a factoid the left wants to exploit. The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank finds this relevant too. In an op-ed, Milbank wrote:
“If Abedin is in fact a Muslim Brotherhood plant spreading Sharia law in the United States, she’s using unorthodox methods: posing provocatively for a Vogue spread, then marrying and having the child of a Jewish congressman who sent out a photo of his genitals on Twitter.”
Actually, marrying a Jew is no evidence of Huma’s loyalty to the United States. In fact, it’s additional cause for concern. If I asked Blitzer and Milbank to define Muruna they would sit there baffled, they know zip when it comes to Arabic or Muslim Brotherhood foreign policy. Yusuf Qaradawi, the spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood who has been close to – and served by – the Abedins, explains it:
“Is it permissible, then, to have alliances with powers that are non-Muslim? Can Muslims work in banks that practice usury? … For the young Muslims they should not leave their jobs in banks and insurance agencies despite their work being evil, since their experience in these agencies would gain experience for what would benefit the Muslim commerce … whoever examines the issues in light of the Doctrine of Muruna would find that entry into these arenas is not merely a project, but a preference and a duty.”
Muruna (Flexibility) which includes “sanctioning Sharia prohibitions for an interest” is completely justified by the Brotherhood. If Huma had denounced the Brotherhood, there would be no need for Weiner to have to convince his mother-in-law Saleha Abedin that he is cured of sexting, nor would Huma arrange for Hillary to speak at Dar al-Hekma College where her mother worked.
Americans will get it, sooner or later. Blitzer continued by saying:
“You can raise all sorts of questions about the Muslim Brotherhood … all that is legitimate…”
Ah, ha! It used to be taboo to even question any possible infiltration; Bachmann was justified.
The remainder of Blitzer’s comment…
“…but to take a woman, who is a wonderful American patriot and to start throwing her name out there as if she’s some sort of spy… because maybe some distant relative or something…”
…will go into the bin of history.
Last year, Blitzer’s network demanded my vetting, despite my public denunciation of the Muslim Brotherhood.
However, CNN thinks vetting Huma is taboo.
Good grief.
_____________________
© 2012 Walid Shoebat. All Rights Reserved.
Top Executive Media Publishing
++++++++++++++++++++++
Barack Obama defends Huma Abedin at Iftar Dinner
August 11, 2012
The list of Huma Abedin defenders continues to grow; the latest person to do so publicly is none other than President Barack Obama himself – at the recent White House Iftar dinner with Huma in attendance. Such high praise in light of the facts about Abedin is indeed curious.
President Obama on Friday voiced strong support for Huma Abedin, saying the top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has been “nothing less than extraordinary in representing our country and the democratic values that we hold dear.”
Obama praised Abedin during remarks at a White House iftar dinner to mark the end of the fasting during the Ramadan holiday observed by Muslims. Abedin has been subject to unproven accusations by some House Republicans, including Michelle Bachmann (Minn.), that she is part of a conspiracy by the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate the top reaches of the U.S. government.
That last sentence printed by Nakamura is a bald-faced lie. Of the five letters sent to various Inspectors General back on June 13th – all signed by Bachmann and four other congressmen – reference is made to Huma Abedin in only one of those letters – the one addressed to the Deputy IG at State. In that letter, there are two sentences that refer to Abedin. They are as follows:
…the Department’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin, has three family members – her late father, her mother and her brother – connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations. Her position affords her routine access to the Secretary and to policy-making.
Both of those sentences are entirely factual. What Nakamura is doing is what the left, in general, has been doing with this story all along – distorting it and smearing those with legitimate questions. Nakamura would have you believe that the two aforementioned sentences from Bachmann, et. al. are accusations. How can statements of fact be accusations? All we’re left to conclude is that Nakamura is inferring from those statements of fact, a certain motive he believes to be behind the letter. That would mean, as a journalist, Nakamura is questioning motive. Chris Matthews once said of journalists who question motive…
“It’s the worst thing you can do in journalism is try to figure out motive; there’s no way to determine it.”
See for yourselves:
We have laid out the case – and continue to do so – that the concerns about Huma Abedin’s background are more than mildly legitimate. Based on her affiliations, a security clearance should not have been issued to her. Again, as both Andrew McCarthy and Cliff Kincaid have stated repeatedly, associations may not matter when you’re talking about criminal cases but they most certainly do matter when you’re talking about security clearances.
A person is not required to have done anything wrong to be denied a high-ranking government position, or more immediately, the security clearance allowing access to classified information that is necessary to function in such a job. There simply need be associations, allegiances, or interests that establish a potential conflict of interest.
It is simply not possible for this reality to be lost on every one of Abedin’s defenders, to include Nakamura and now the President of the United States.
By the way, we’re not questioning motive here; we’re calling Abedin’s defenders out for doing so.
Read Nakamura’s article here.
_______________________
© 2012 Walid Shoebat. All Rights Reserved.
Top Executive Media Publishing
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
THE NEW GATE KEEPERS
By Danny Jeffrey
August 10, 2012
There is so much flap and hype going on today about "You didn't build that" and Chick-fil-A, that many are missing out on issues that really matter, but then the very purpose of flap and hype is to distract us from the real dangers.
There is a well known phrase about "Enemies at the Gate". I am here to tell you that they are not simply at the gate; they are the new gate keepers, and that they are not only within the gates, but are already well entrenched and holding the high ground. We are facing the end of this nation as it was, and most Americans are either distracted, disinterested, or in a state of denial.
Most, by now, have heard at least some mention of Michelle Bachman and her four fellow Republicans of the House Intelligence Committee, raising serious questions about the wisdom of having a person such as Huma Abedin serving in the capacity of Deputy Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton. To be precise: Michelle Bachman, Trent Frank, Louie Gohmert, Thomas Rooney, and Kynn Westmoreland are standing very much alone in defense of liberty.
Critics are claiming that Michelle Bachman has accused Huma Abedin of being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood(MB). She has not, but to the media truth is malleable and the same can be said about a great deal of our Republican leadership. Well, truth matters to me, and to my conservative friends who are trying to wake people up ... I'm going to try to wake You up, because this is getting really ugly and what is happening now is but the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
We have all heard of Saul Alinsky and know that he is dangerous and that his methods have developed a huge percentage of our problems of today. He thankfully is long since dead, but his rule number thirteen is one of his disciples' favorites and they are using it to discredit Michelle Bachman and conceal the Stealth Jihad that is taking place right under the noses of an unaware public.
Rule #13: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that should be regarded as universalitdies. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen'." They used this tactic on Sarah Palin and you saw the results. Now it is Congresswoman Bachman's turn. She has become a serious danger to them and she must be singled out and "frozen". The other favorite tactic of Alinsky followers is Rule #5 which calls for ridiculing the victim once she has been isolated.
One of the odd things about this issue is that Ms. Bachman did not actually start it, but she has the courage to address the information provided in a ten part course on the MB in America by Frank Gaffney.(Link is at the end of this essay in Suggested Reading) Gaffney has about twenty five people on his staff, including retired generals, admirals, ambassadors, and other dignitaries, add to that the four other Congressmen who signed the letter and note that the MSM, the Democratic Party and our traitors in the GOP are all attacking and ridiculing one person, as per Saul Alinsky Rules #5 and #13.
Shortly I shall I provide a red link to this extremely important letter and I truly hope you will take a few minutes and read it as it will add clarity to what I am discussing. As an extra incentive to encourage your reading it before proceeding, allow me to add this: In the two hundred and thirty six years this nation has existed there has never been such a danger as we face under the Obama administration. I am convinced that Michelle Bachman is literally risking her life in presenting this evidence, and if her efforts are ridiculed away then we have lost another wedge into the Marxist stronghold that has taken control of America.
As you read the letter watch for her accusing Huma Abedin of being a member of the MB as McCain and other Islamist operatives imply. You won't find it because they are Lying!
We all know of Obama's Executive Orders but none of us have been aware of the true power that Hillary Clinton wields. As you read the letter note how she uses "personal intervention" to allow a high ranking member of the MB to enter the country illegally, intent on promoting civilization Jihad. Pay attention to the mention of "The Istanbul Process" that is being used to circumvent the First Amendment and set up "Blasphemy" laws to deny us the right to criticize Islam.
Hillary also bypasses Congress under a different title than Executive Privilege. You will see the term "Waiver of Congressional Restrictions" used multiple times as she openly breaks our laws. One such waiver allowed her to give 1.5 BILLION Dollars to Egypt. She also uses a waiver to illegally aid the Palestinian Authority and give $170 Million to Hamas and Fatah. This funding of our enemies is taking place in the middle of an economic meltdown of our nation while we are being subjected to massive cuts in military expenditures and facing the spectre of a looming war.
This is the letter. It is from congress and in a PDF file so it cannot be cut and pasted. It must be read in its entirety and believe me it is worth it.
(Pause)
Assuming that you have now read the letter in question, I'm certain that you saw Huma Abedin mentioned, but not accused. Far more that Huma, Hillary Clinton and her actions were the prime topic of the Congressional letter. But the powers that be know that few Americans will really read this letter and so they can distort the truth and proceed to set up a Saul Alinsky scenario. One of his favorite methods is to Isolate and attack. Out of the many people in the background of that letter only one has been isolated, Ms. Bachman. As you have seen, Hillary was the primary person discussed but it would not be advantageous to complain about the Congresswoman criticizing the Secretary of State.
So, another isolation begins ... Huma Abedin. They make it appear that the poor little Muslim American patriot and her religion are being viciously attacked by the kooky Islamophobic Congresswoman from Minnesota. John McCain, John Boehner, Lindsey Graham, and the whole line up of good old RINOs pile on. That includes the new and improved Fox News and one of their star bloggers, Ed Rollin, one time leader of the Bachman for President campaign. We already know the truth about McCain and Boehner. This is quite indicative of Fox's change of politics. "Shame on you Michelle!"
Actually it should be shame on Fox News and all of the traitors in the Republican Party.
This video from C Span was released but a few hours ago. Eventually it will be on YouTube where it is easy to work with but for the moment we must deal with what is available. Use the slider under the video and watch as Andrew McCarthy, member of Frank Gaffney's Team BII, explains that the five members of Congress actually did not press the Huma Abedin issue nearly as far as they could have. Those statements can be found beginning at the thirty three minute mark. Watch about six minutes of the speech and you will learn that the Congressional five did not state all they knew about Ms. Abedin, suggesting instead that the Inspector General do his own research into the danger they were bringing to his attention.
There is a distinct difference in the methods of conservatives and Progressives. In this essay I am documenting evidence and endeavoring to present it in a clear cohesive fashion. Frank Gaffney did the same in his ten part course I mentioned that became the foundation for the Congressional Five's letter. If you watched the C Span video linked above, you saw Andrew McCarthy lay out his case with clarity. Progressives differ...
Nothing could better epitomize an effective Alinsky attack than this article from the Washington Post. Spin masters have a great advantage over their readers. They know that most people see a headline, they may read a few paragraphs, note the presence of multiple links suggesting those links prove the authenticity of what is being presented, and they accept the premise that is put forth without question.
Unlike much of the hysteria and sensationalism I have seen from amateur bloggers on the internet, this item from WaPo is a first rate hit job. No effort was spared in the process of crucifying Michelle Bachman. I hope you choose to read the piece as it will give you a better understanding of the enemy, the danger, and the lengths they will go to in order to stop this knowledge from becoming widespread. The author in the opening attack writes of Michelle Bachman stirring up storms in Washington and writes "What is different about this firestorm and its outcome and why is it significant?"
It is significant! Frank Gaffney and the members of his think tank laid out the full case of the Islamic infiltration that is rapidly destroying this nation. Those five brave members of Congress took the Gaffney course and are now trying to disseminate the information to all who will listen. Naturally from the Soros/Obama/Clinton viewpoint they must be silenced. That requires a two pronged approach; a frontal assault and smear campaign, and distraction. The frontal assault is coming from the MSM, the Democratic Party, and a large part of the Republican party. Newt Gengrich and a few others defend Bachman, but by and large, she has been isolated and is under heavy fire.
The distraction segment of the plan: Most conservative have a high regard for Bachman but they have been busy ... supporting Chick-fil-A. Quite honestly I had never even heard of Chick-fil-A until this latest flap began, so it was easy for me to be totally objective and watch as events play out. One comment from the CEO of the company that he did not support same sex marriage led to someone who did advocating a boycott of the chicken franchise. There's nothing wrong with that. That is the American way, just another legal form of protest.
Think back to when Campbell Soup announced halal meat in their products. Some conservatives proclaimed a boycott, which some have observed while others have not. Nothing drastic! No great rallies, no sit ins, no mad rush by Muslims to buy all of the Campbell soup in town. So, what is the difference? Glad you asked! The difference is that this craze was engineered.
Progressives do not think as we do. To us a crisis is a crises. To a devious mind a crisis can be turned into an opportunity. Recall Rahm Emmanuel's words, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." They don't, and if a crisis is not available they will, and did, create one. They will do whatever it takes to generate a smoke screen and divert your attention from what they don't want you to know. So while Americans are rushing off to decimate the chicken population in support of a man who is opposed to same sex marriage, Michelle Bachman who desperately needs our help is being hung out to dry. There is more on this in Suggested Reading under the title "Madness ... Sheer Madness".
Alinsky was a brilliant, diabolical, anarchist and members of the Obama machine have learned their lessons well. Everyone should study his tactics that they may be aware when those tactics are directed at them. If you want to know more, also in Suggested Reading, "Fortune Favors The Bold".
It is always "Divide and Conquer", and we are divided on so many issues. That is what led to my writing this article. Congresswoman Bachman has picked up the gauntlet for America. In doing so she has put herself under constant fire from all who lean left and all media including Fox News. In her corner she has Newt Gengrich, Allen West, Frank Gaffney a few others and me. Most Americans are not even aware of the problem, and that is sad, but there is one thing that is even sadder. That is when someone who is fully aware of what is going with the Bachman/Chick-fil-A scenario simply doesn't care.
This is a headline from the left wing rag Politico:
ROMNEY: CHICK-FIL-A, HUMA ABEDIN 'NOT PART OF MY CAMPAIGN'
That headline tells me two things: Others are also aware of the connection between the Chick-fil-A craze and the Michelle Bachman crucifixion, and that Romney does not want to be involved in things such as national security and issues of right and wrong.
Danny
Prologue: Ms. Bachman and a few other brave souls are taking on the entire Marxist machine in our nation's capitol. We all complain that our leaders do not represent us, but she has proven that there are a few who do. She has been targeted, isolated and attacked and most of our fellow citizens are not even aware that a battle is taking place. You have read this. If you have any doubt about my conclusions reread it. If you agree with my thoughts send this information far and wide.
Michelle Bachman is trying to save America, it would be only appropriate for America to return the gesture.
This from Michelle BachmanSuggested Reading...
___________________________
I'm sixty seven and since Ronald Reagan left office I have watched my country slowly deteriorate as freedoms are lost and the value of our currency dwindles. This has been a slow but steady decline until Barrack Obama entered the White House. I will not refer to this man as President. That is a job that deserves respect and he has earned none at all. I am convinced that were it not for the Tea Party stirring up the public we would now be living under a total dictatorship. He seeks only power and has no loyalty at all to the United States, and as long as he is in office I shall write to any who will read and speak of what he is and what he is doing to this country.
FREEDOM RINGS 1776 is a conservative voice, defending the views of those who still believe in the constitution and opposing any and all who would lead us from our tried and true beliefs. We who still believe in the spirit of 1776 must oppose anyone who would set this nation on a course that will fundamentally transform America.
Danny Jeffrey
