Hillary Clinton longtime lieutenant Huma Abedin’s exhaustively documented connections to Islamic terror are receiving renewed.
The evidence of Hillary’s aid, Huma Abedin’s connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Wahhabists is overwhelming, but an undercover video of her sentiments is rare. Months ago, Project Veritas released a video of Huma’s call to allow Muslim refugees to enter the U.S as it happened in Europe.
Now, as it turns out, her and her entire family have connections to a radical Muslim Muslim publication.
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.
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. According to the NY Post “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.”
Even if we were to accept that was fact (which I don’t for a second), why would she remain associated with a publication so controversial? I’d have to imagine it has something to do with the fact that she seconds some of those beliefs herself.