Gasp! Do you mean to suggest that our government is overpopulated with influence peddlers whose interests run inimical to the interests of the American people? Do you mean, beyond the Muslim Brotherhood, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army discovered giving a half-million US dollars to the Democratic Party? Or any number of foreign PACs who give millions of dollars to elected officials of both political parties? Oh, dear. The problem isn’t the Muslim Brotherhood. The problem is our political system which is not designed to police itself in the interests of the US Constitution or the American people.
The item is a joke with its own political motive and in fact is laughable from both a logical and even a factual basis.Gaffney is simply paid to push such rubbish and has a history of it. Sure he is articulate and presents his imformation as facts, but it remains all hearsay and without evidence to back up his claims. He was challanged a number of times and declined and continues to assert that their is a senatorial inquiry when it is the Senate's resident bigot West (obviously) who is inquiring as an individual. We can add that this is why it was shown on a Cat C (low-qual) and frankly questionable program that with its massive 37,000 viewers is more infamous for regularly misleading viewers on the status of Canadian politics.I will give credit to the anchor in asking the right question (but for the wrong reasons) that the person in question is a well known modern, moderate, non-hijab wearing ex-wife to a Jew). Gaffney illogically brushed that question aside and only referred to her family and their contacts.The fact is that this question is exactly who she is, a moderate and also Gafney said that she pushes 'wahhabism' which is a joke to say the least and I could not stop laughing for a good solid 15 minutes - simply put, what an idiot!! Simple facts - Wahhabists will never have any connection to a women like her, especially marrying a jew and a US politician (at the time). Wahhabism has actually a bad relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood that Gaffney should know and thus we can assume is avoiding. Unlike Gafney's ascertion - the MB does not want to "destroy America" that was the militant arm of the overall entity calling itself the MB, none of the political elements that for instance is in place in Egypt. Gaffney knows these things, and will avoid pointing out that there is no single MB, no singular leader and is cross-border and is more of a term. So who is he referring to?We must ask two serious questions. 1. What is Gafney's motives - other than selling books and fostering hate - what political agenda does he work for? Is it Ezra Levant's Canadian bullying? Was it for Breitbart's excessive compulsiveness? Perhaps the secret lies in his working with Robert James Woolsey who was a self-confessed McCarthiest and Clinton's biggest political appointment blunder. Gaffney's colour comes out in full floursih with his sponsoring for the far-right hate-rag "Family Security Matters" that has nothing to do with families.The second question is more easy, who the hell actually watches trash programs like this Sun Network anyhow? The other side to that question probably explains why their are so many ignorant people believing such rubbish in the USA and Canada, in fact it explains it all I think.....Damien Charles
Oh boy, Frank Gaffney. The guy is a cheap con.Now he's pimping for Bachmann. Beyond shameless.
Why should you suggest this item is a joke? I have seen no evidence that anyone intended this as humor. Or, have you merely intended to demean someone with whom you disagree. How mistaken you are if you regard this trivial argument as intelligent reasoning. You are an obvious proponent of Islam; you reek of biases.You apparently envy Gaffney’s considerable achievements. Do you have similar or equal bona fides? No? And what possible difference does it make if Gaffney receives income from offering his opinions and expertise? Are you attempting to suggest that anyone paid for their expertise invalidates their claims? If this is your argument, then should we ask Hillary Clinton for her resignation?I must say that I find your ranting convoluted and irrational. Who is this bigot West you are referring to? Beyond this, why should a request for investigation disturb anyone? By definition, public servants must be willing to subject themselves to public scrutiny as a condition of their rather significant salaries. Anyone not willing to undergo scrutiny have no business serving in government to begin with. Beyond this, presuming that what you say is true, an investigation may exonerate Huma Abadin, making her detractors appear foolish. Which is the better victory?Your claim that Huma is an ex-wife to a Jew demonstrates two things: your ignorance, and your prejudices. She remains married to Anthony Weiner —but I do give you high marks for your use of ad hominem distraction.I wonder why you think those fundamentalists who follow Wahhabism, or those associated with the Muslim Brotherhood are incapable of using apostate Muslims to their own strategic advantages. After all, isn’t it true that the greatest murderers of those professing Islam are themselves Muslim? Are you actually so obtuse, or is this feigned outrage all part of your attempt at disinformation?I note your protestations as those of a liar —and not a very good one. The Muslim Brotherhood has been working to undermine American society for the past 35 years as part of the Muslim Student’s Association, North American Muslim Trust, Islamic Society of North America, American Muslim Council, and the International Council of Muslim Thought (which by itself is unnerving). It is a judicially revealed goal of the Muslim Brotherhood to “settle America” through Jihad and the destruction of Western civilization from within. In Ikhawan in America, proponents claim as their goal paramilitary training, stockpiling of munitions, and counter-espionage. So we must conclude that you have revealed yourself as a proponent of radical Islam, or one of their useful idiots helping to achieve their goals. As Shakespeare once wrote, “The lady dost protest too much, me thinks.” As to your farcical questions, I assume Gaffney seeks to share his point of view —something we allow in free societies— which are at least equal to the rights of others to have and share their point of view; unless you happen to be Damien Charles, who is a liar, a fraud, and most importantly, a man who is no longer able to hide his agenda. Who watches Sun? Apparently, you do.
I'd say White Supremacists are the bigger threat. Nice deflection though!
I'd say White Liberals are a bigger threat than either. Nice try though!
I'd say vet her thoroughly and completely as you would anyone else with ties to the Sec of State. Problem solved.
Jack WhyteI am sure even you know the phrase "is this a joke"? I should not have to teach you English expression.I do not defend Muslims and in fact do not defend Islam, I simply point out errors and agendas. As there are no Muslims here to do so and I know Muslims, work with many and in fact have a degree in the field, I do so.Gaffney has a career based on a particular form of politics and lobbying that is riddled with bais and thus he is open to criticism. Income from opinions, advice and expertise is most certainly a justifiable employment, but Gaffney is actually lobbying for a cause, that is not the same.Any request for an investigation requires probable cause, not because one wishes to attack the current US Administration via a family connection overseas of an employee. Gaffney has in fact not offered any evidence at all. Clearly this is politically motivated, if not, the evidence would have been provided. In this case, in fact, the person in question has not only been cleared but would have been under extra scrutiny which is part-in-parcel of being a member of the staff of the Secretary of State and a sitting politician's spouse. Is there any avoidance of such "scrutiny" Jack? I was not aware that they are still maried, in fact it is irrelevant but I acknowledge that point.Wahhabism in general will never connect with westernized moderate Muslims except perhaps via the Saudi intellegence community. Those radical Wahhabis will by default rather spit on a politically active western Muslim like the lady in question, it is rather like getting Westbro to actively garner an African American Catholic married to a Muslim - it does not happen. The militant elements of the Muslim Brotherhood (which are not Wahhabist or Salafi by the way, as Gaffney has incorrectly said) would neither have the capacity nor the conviction to somehow implant a well educated westernised female moderate such as in this case. In all the above cases, being married to a Jew would further decrease the zero chance to in fact put her on a black-list instead. Your knowledge of the MB is so poor. The objective of the MB is clear. Their push has always been singular, to create a unified "Islamic society" globally. That certainly is in conflict with Western ideals and I have no doubt about their efforts. Having said that, they are also clearly identifiable and do not at present pose a threat to the integrity of the United States as each FBI Director has clearly said since 9/11. Those that were a threat have been basically removed from the game and ulitimately it was not them that were involved in terrorism, it was Al Qaeda and affilliates. You may not be aware but the MB does not support Al Qaeda and visa versa, perhaps because they compete for followers and also because the MB is not Wahhabi controlled which Al Qaeda is. Your reference to the MB's goal to “settle America through Jihad and the destruction of Western civilization from within" as somehow being "judicially revealed" is basically rubbish and if you have some evidence to back that claim I would be most happy to acknowledge it. I suggest you are in fact talking about fringe groups and that may because you simply have no idea what the MB actually is. Though you have decided to call me an idiot I feel obliged to call you a hypocrit. Yes free speech allows for haters like Gaffney and I did not say that he should be banned, did I? But yet you have attempted to deny the freedom from persecution and unwarrented smeer tactics against someone simply because it is one way to target the current Administration. I wonder if she was working for a Republican Sec State would this have come out at all? I doubt it.Lastly, you have mistakenly said " Who watches Sun? Apparently, you do." No, I watched AOW's link but have read about them on a number of times.PeaceDamien Charles
Brooke,do you have any evidence that she has not been vetted? Do you think that the State Department, Secret Service and FBI have not done so when she first appeared? Is the US that backwards that the rest of the world would but not there?Face it, this is not about her, it is about the elections and if she was working for a Republican Administration it would not have been raised (or raised by some lefty trying to do the same thing).Gaffney is a hack.Damien Charles
DC: That's just the problem. We don't know. We don't know if they did, or what process they used. After all, we had Van Jones in the White House.Maybe if this administration was a transparent as they promised they would be, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Damien Charles,reference to the MB's goal to“settle America through Jihad and the destruction of Western civilization from within" as somehow being "judicially revealed" is basically rubbishIndex of possibly-related material.
Damien Charles,More. You'll notice that Andy Whitehead basically won the law suit.The connections between the MB and CAIR are indisputable.CAIR is enraged with Bachmann. Very telling on CAIR's part!
Damien Charles,One more thing before I deal with the home care vet, who is coming here shortly so as to discuss the possible euthanasia of one of our cats....Face it, this is not about her, it is about the elections and if she was working for a Republican Administration it would not have been raised...Probably so. I won't dispute that one at all.
Robert and Jack, I have neglected to thank both of you for taking the time to comment at this blog site. My oversight has been due to schedule overload.Carry on, please.
@ Damien Charles Any request for an investigation requires probable cause ….Not true. Every applicant for a government job, including political appointees must undergo a background investigation. Once hired, all employees are subject to “further inquiry.” As you claim to be a barrister, you should know that any citizen can make known facts that would prompt additional inquiries —unless the subject is protected by political influence. When security is the issue, government investigators have an obligation to verify or refute Gaffney’s claims. I wonder, do you ever tire of being wrong?You’re correct to point out that Abedin’s marriage to Weiner is irrelevant, but you’re the one who brought it up. It became relevant when you displayed your anti-Hebrew bias and misogynist attitude; it explains much about you, Damien Charles. Wahhabism in general will never connect with westernized moderate Muslims except perhaps via the Saudi intellegence community. Those radical Wahhabis will by default rather spit on a politically active western Muslim like the lady in question … Stephen Schwartz disputes your claim. Not only do we know that most US mosques contain Wahhabi literature, Schwartz testified that, “… adherents of Wahhabism, the most extreme, separatist, and violent form of Islam, and the official sect in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, have come to dominate Islam in the United States.” This testimony was delivered to the United States Senate in 2003. Your reference to the MB's goal to “settle America through Jihad and the destruction of Western civilization from within" as somehow being "judicially revealed" is basically rubbish and if you have some evidence to back that claim I would be most happy to acknowledge it. I did my research, Damien … now you do yours. You might begin with the Washington Post, September 2004 and read, United States v. Holy Land Foundation, involving material support of a the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, tax evasion, and money laundering. If Mr. Gaffney is a hater, what are you? Never mind answering; I know what you are.
Jack Whyte,Thanks for providing clarity to a comment which is not only convoluted but condescending, as well.
Liberalmann,This post is not a deflection. You should feel really stupid today -- when you see that I am indeed dealing with the topic of Sikhism.Let's get something straight right now. Nobody -- and I do mean NOBODY tells me what to post. Least of all YOU!I am irritated with you.I have plenty of things going on in my life -- at times, life-and-death matters or something akin to such matters. Therefore, blogging is not always a priority.
The Obama administration paves the way for sharia law
Jack WhyteYou have contradicted yourself again. Yes every job requires background investigation and yet you and others imply that it was not done in this case. Further inquiry most definitely requires "probable cause" and that also includes if a member of public presents it, not just hearsay and inuendos. That is why people are protected from time wasters, political point scorers or with some form of vandetta. I find it rather a poor logic form on your part to assume that the subject has not been part of an investigation from the get go. As even AOW agrees, the subject is political point scoring and nothing to do with the person in question or any real danger to national security.Your wishes does not represent the reality in the case of Weiner. Though it is not relevant because she is not a risk as mentioned above, the fact is that the anti-semitism of the MB and other Islamist groups and societies (such as Wahhabism) makes that point relevant as it simply makes any such links impossible. It was, if you bother to look, actually Gaffney who made such a blatantly illogical link to Wahhabism and her that it was raised. So rather blindly infering that I am anti-semitic open your eyes and note the events, facts and context before making a fool of yourself.No, Stephen Schwartz does not dispute my comment and I suspect he would agree with me. That you read into his comment what you wish as apposed to what he said tells me a great deal.Stephen Schwartz is very correct in the attempted influence peddling by the Wahhabi sect via the "Doah" arm of the Saudi Ministry of Religious Affairs (the external affairs section that pays for mosques, distribution of literature and salaries of any Imams that can plant). I have no doubt that their influence is strong and they have the monitory backing as well. That is and has not been the point. They are influencing the main-stream Muslim community organisations in the United States and unfortunately both the US authorities and the Muslim communities are letting it happen. However, they are pushing their brand of Islam which is totally at odds to the subject here in question - that somehow they are linked to Ms Abeddin and thus the State Department or that they have any link the MB. As I said before, the Wahhabis and the MBs would be in fact competitors. Thus, you got it wrong, again....If you call that research then I wonder what level of education did you recieve Jack. As I said there are most certainly elements of the MB that are radical and militant and those elements have been designated by many countries as a terrorist or terrorist supporting organisation. Again your adding things that you wish and want as compared to actual facts. The point, again, that I made is that the loose mix of groups that claim to be the MB in the United States are linked to various organisation and that globally there is no single MB. Also those groups are broken not only into geographic and polotically diverse elements but some have also revolutionary, militant and radical arms that are not necessarily a part of the political main group - such as the MB in Egypt that is both the best organised but yet the most diverse when it comes to offshoots. The political group is now in power, parliament and with their President. The militant groups that have been kicked out of the main body is responsible for the attacks on Copts and possibly even tourists. My goal is accuracy. I take no sides when it comes to disputes and political debates, but I most certainly will point out agenda-based bais, factual errors and blatant hate-peddling-for-a-profit. My agenda also comes from being a supporter of Kantian philosophy which in the end drives me to point out the two things I cannot stand. Arrogant Ignorance and Ignorant Arrogance. I suspect you suffer both.Damien Charles
AOW,I have no doubts that CAIR is tainted by a number of external political affiliations and interestingly the two main Spanish Muslim associations have said that because of that they will not have official contact with them.Since I am attempting to point out some basic logic to Jack Whyte it is worth my pointing out one mistake that many make. That there is no single MB and that we are talking actually about a particular offshoot/version of the MB in the US. From that basis it is in fact incorrect to say that "the MB is" influencing CAIR or whoever.The organisation called "al-ʾIḫwān al-Muslimūn" based in Cairo is by far the most prominent and in a sense is also the spiritual headquaters to a great deal of MB factions, but for instance they are not peddling power with the MB splinter groups in the US as the founders of the MSA, ISNA and AMC were mostly Palestinian and Jordanian in origin and thus they are under the influence of Hamas, PLO and Hisb ut-Tahrir but by proxy will call themselves the MB.The Holy Land Foundation and Holy Land Trust is a good example and Jack Whyte mistakenly raised it as somehow proving some incoherent point. That fund was raised as a supposive Islamic Charity fund but in fact was raised for peddling funds to a designated terrorist and Hamas henchman called Abu Marzook. It was exposed and ultimately closed down and charges laid. In the United States all such groups that are not Shia are placed under the singular name of "Muslim Brotherhood" but as mentioned above, many of these are Hamas and have no links to say the main MB organisation in Egypt.In the UK the MB groups are most definietely peddled directly from Cairo and they are ironically not the problem with radicals in our part of the world. It is the unsanctioned extreme offshoots that are making all hell for everyone.Yes there is a problem with certain radical Islamist groups in America but that is a problem that can be fixed only after you correctly identify the problem which can only be done after you get rid of all the third-party agendas that are trying to benefit from it. That includes the dirt politics of people like Michelle Bachmann who makes accussations every week without subjstance (because she makes millions in donations from it), neo-con lobbiests like Gaffney and profiteers like Spencer and Gellar whom worked out that money can be made from it. We can add then there is the Horrowitz factor - the rich far-right Zionists whom finance, lobby and actively coordinate the Settler Movement in Israel. You wonder if guys like him are in fact Israelis using all the benefits of the US for their own political gains in the ME. For them the goal is simple, place as many settlements as possible, provoke attacks on them by Palestinians and thus force Israel to annex the West bank into a larger Israel. They pay most of the main websites that are anti-Islam that push the same trash constantly, that there is no real Palestinians, Muslims and Arabs are violent, etc, etc. Frankly speaking, most so-called anti-jihadist blogs get their stuff from them.The real problems of the ME and facing the Muslim World and our own such as terrorism and radicalism is very important and should never be downplayed by anyone, but we must ask how much is also exagerated and skewered for the above interest groups?RegardsDamien Charles
AOW,that item about paving the way to Sharia law is really a push on logic.The subject is about the demand by American Muslims to equate anti-Islamic rhetoric to be treated on the same basis as anti-Semitism. For my part that request is justified.Equally justified is that certain stereotyping and basically incorrect language in security training manuals be removed.If, and of course the quality of this report is under question, the idea that actual security processing and response to possible terrorism be removed would be absolutely unacceptable. The reality of a war by Islamists needs to be dealt with and frankly it is a good message to Muslims in the West that they must contribute to fighting them if they want that scrutiny to be removed.Briebart's legacy, as usual, falls flat.Damien Charles
DC has no dearth of BS and that's about it! I could go on-and-on but, WHY?
Damien Charles,Both exaggeration and minimalization have been problems throughout the history of mankind. I hate to use the Third Reich analogy, but it fits, doesn't it?A nation needs one kind of rule of civil law. Religious laws, within certain limits, have always been accommodated here in the United States. For example, a Roman Catholic may obtain a legal divorce but cannot remarry within the Catholic Church without an annulment. At least, such used to be the case.In my view, the separation of established religion is something to be avoided. Just as I wouldn't want to be placed in the Puritan pillory (a civil punishment) because of not keeping the Lord's Day, so should Muslim cab drivers not be allowed to refuse fares for religious reasons. It's one thing to offer halal as an alternative in a school cafeteria, it's another to offer ONLY halal (some of which I actually like, BTW). I say the same about Kosher and whatever else you name. I'm using the school cafeteria as an example because the cafeteria is taxpayer funded.
AOW,cannot agree more with your comments. I remember a good reference by Fareed Zakaria on CNN the other week when it comes to faith and government. "Religious friendly government and government friendly religion."For me that says it all.CheersDamien Charles
JonBerg,your active and detailed participation is, as always, heart-warming. I always look for your contribution, in particular giving details to your opinions.Damien Charles
"your active and detailed participation is, as always, heart-warming."Duly Noted!
FYI, Andrew McCarthy & Frank Gaffney discussed Muslim Brotherhood influence in DC on CSPAN:
Andrew C. McCarthy, well that is no suprise then. He is a expressed political and a part of the hard-hawkish right and attacks Obama so his stance on this subject should be considered agenda driven and not indpendant and evidence driven. He is also a founder of FDD which is so hawkish that even Global Security called it a factor in pro-military pro-conflict influence. Some have also referred FDD as being a mouthpiece for Likud though I think that is far-fetched but it certainly is unwavering and blindly a supoorter of Israel "no matter what".In the end, it is the same all BS.Damien Charles
We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:1. Any use of profanity or abusive language2. Off topic comments and spam3. Use of personal invective