A Perfect Fit

[Flanders]

The Michele Bachmann/Hillary Clinton story might grow serious legs if enough people ask Jeffrey Lord's fabulous question:

Is Huma Abedin to the Muslim Brotherhood what Alger Hiss was to the Soviet Union?

I deliberately said Hillary Clinton rather than Huma Abedin. Hillary is the person establishment “Republicans” must shield while Abedin can be written off as another victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy because of her long service to the Clintons:

But as Bachmann and company point out, Ms. Abedin plays a much more serious role in her own job as a senior aide to Secretary Clinton. (Abedin also worked in the Clinton White House as well.)

Why must Hillary Clinton be shielded?

Democrats never got over Alger Hiss going to jail for perjury. Big shots go to jail all of the time, but Hiss singlehandedly exposed Democrats for what they are. Six decades have passed since Hiss went to jail and he still personifies the Washington Establishment who have to be sweating bullets over the possibility of another top insider being nailed for the one crime Americans will never forgive: TREASON.

There is far too much good stuff in Jeffrey Lord’s piece for me to cover. Nevertheless, I want to address what I consider the most important part:

Why are Republican Senator John McCain, Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rodgers (R-MI) acting in the growing Abedin controversy as Washington Establishment Democrats of the 1940s did in the Hiss episode? Which is to say, writing off the dangers of a foreign enemy whose goal is to infiltrate the U.S. government -- because, well, the people in question are part of the Washington Establishment?

In his 1962 book Six Crises Nixon discussed how and why he was so furiously disdained. The how?

As soon as the Hiss case broke and well before a full bill of particulars was even available, much less open to close critical analysis, they [Hiss defenders] leaped to the defense of Alger Hiss -- and to a counterattack of unparalleled venom and irrational fury on his accusers."​

The why? Nixon recounts being at one Washington dinner party after it became clear that Hiss had been stealing State Department documents and giving them to Chambers in the form of microfilm -- the famous "Pumpkin Papers" (so-named because Chambers had hidden them in a pumpkin on his Maryland farm).

A New Deal lawyer at the dinner party was so angry with Nixon for outing Hiss he shouted:

"I don't give a damn what the facts are. Even if Hiss admits he's guilty, these investigations are dangerous and will have a terrible and disastrous effect on the country -- because the net result is to cast reflection on the United Nations and all the other progressive aspects of the Roosevelt-Truman foreign policy."​

As I’ve said many times, the Washington Establishment never makes a decision that adversely affects the United Nations. That’s been true since the day the United Nations succeeded the League of Nations. The New Deal lawyer referred to in the above excerpt makes my case:

In addition to the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945, the sneaks who got this country into the UN knew what they were doing when they designed a foundation that was a masterpiece of betrayal. A foundation that would withstand every challenge when their descendants carried on. Treason became legal the minute the US became a member of an underhanded organization that was, and is, determined to tear down America. Membership in the UN meant that no American official betraying this country on the UN’s behalf could be prosecuted for treason. Only lawyers could design something like that.

Designer Treason

Clearly, Michele Bachmann exposed a wound that has been festering since Alger Hiss’ betrayal in spite of everything the media has done to hide the open sore. Here is why:

Alger Hiss began LEGALLY betraying this country before the United Nations opened for business. As executive secretary of the Dumbarton Oaks Conference he helped drew up plans for the United Nations while WWII was still being fought. In 1945 he was secretary-general of the United Nations Conference on International Organization held in San Francisco.

The last thing the government media wants to see is another six decades of covering up a Hiss-type betrayal “. . . writing off the dangers of a foreign enemy whose goal is to infiltrate the U.S. government . . .”. The fact that Hillary Clinton is a perfect fit for Hiss’ role must be driving media decision-makers crazy. In short: Clinton must be shielded by the Beltway Establishment in order to protect the United Nations.

Finally, Jeffrey Lord’s astonishing article offers three reasons why everyone should read it; 1) a must-read analysis of the Michele Bachman/Hillary Clinton story; 2) a reminder of what Alger Hiss did to this country; 3) a guide to identifying the people governing this country who are following in Hiss’ footsteps.

Is Huma Abedin the New Alger Hiss?
By Jeffrey Lord on 7.24.12 @ 6:09AM
Washington GOP Establishment hits Bachmann for fighting Muslim Brotherhood.

The American Spectator : Is Huma Abedin the New Alger Hiss?

 

[whitehall]

If it wasn't for the unrelenting support by the mainstream media Hillary would have been sent back to her old Alinsky stooges to teach in some left wing collage like Bill Ayers. Hillary not only is a hypocrite but she is a hypocrite on steroids. How can we forget her leadership in ruining the lives of every woman who came forward with allegations of relationships with her husband with the "bimbo eruption squad" that the left wing media chuckled about? We know by now that Bubba Bill was nothing but a dumb ass hillbilly sociopath who preyed on a generation of women and Hillary covered for him in exchange for political power. What freaking logic did democrats use when they agreed to appoint her as secretary of state? Didn't WW2, Korea and VietNam convince democrats that our enemies understand our weaknesses better than the left wing media acknowledges?

 

[Flanders]

If it wasn't for the unrelenting support by the mainstream media Hillary would have been sent back to her old Alinsky stooges to teach in some left wing collage like Bill Ayers. Hillary not only is a hypocrite but she is a hypocrite on steroids. How can we forget her leadership in ruining the lives of every woman who came forward with allegations of relationships with her husband with the "bimbo eruption squad" that the left wing media chuckled about? We know by now that Bubba Bill was nothing but a dumb ass hillbilly sociopath who preyed on a generation of women and Hillary covered for him in exchange for political power. What freaking logic did democrats use when they agreed to appoint her as secretary of state? Didn't WW2, Korea and VietNam convince democrats that our enemies understand our weaknesses better than the left wing media acknowledges?

To whitehall: I totally agree; especially about the media. Li’l Abner & Daisy Mae have been media darlings since they crawled out from under their rocks. Because of the media’s ongoing whitewash Bubba is a bigger star than ever in Democrat circles.

Incidentally, J. William Fulbright (1905 - 1995) was Bubba’s mentor. Of all of the traitors who served in the Senate none was worse than Fulbright. There is no doubt that he influenced Hillary, too. My point: The trail of betrayal and treason is clearly marked:

Nevertheless, since Boehner purports to be all about cracking down on wasteful government spending, at least when he’s not signing off on deals to extend President Obama’s credit card by another trillion or three, I thought I might ask whether the State Department’s Fulbright Scholar Program aroused his curiosity ever so slightly.

Fulbright, by its own account, is “the government’s flagship program in international educational exchange,” promoting “mutual understanding” between the U.S. and other countries. In the 2010–2011 academic year — the year of the Union for Good’s “Freedom Flotilla,” if you need a time marker — one Fulbright scholarship was awarded to a lucky chemistry student from Qatar. Her name is Siham al-Qaradawi, and she just happens to be the daughter of Sheikh Qaradawi.

And this:

Oh, one last thing. Obviously, Huma Abedin does not make Obama-administration or State Department policy. Policy is made by President Obama and Secretary Clinton, and they hardly needed Ms. Abedin in order to have pro-Islamist leanings.

Nevertheless, since Secretary Clinton’s tenure began, with Huma Abedin serving as a top adviser, the United States has aligned itself with the Muslim Brotherhood in myriad ways. To name just a few (the list is by no means exhaustive): Our government reversed the policy against formal contacts with the Brotherhood; funded Hamas; continued funding Egypt even after the Brotherhood won the elections; dropped an investigation of Brotherhood organizations in the U.S. that were previously identified as co-conspirators in the case of the Holy Land Foundation financing Hamas; hosted Brotherhood delegations in the United States; issued a visa to a member of the Islamic Group (a designated terrorist organization) and hosted him in Washington because he is part of the Brotherhood’s parliamentary coalition in Egypt; announced that Israel should go back to its indefensible 1967 borders; excluded Israel, the world’s leading target of terrorism, from a counterterrorism forum in which the State Department sought to “partner” with Islamist governments that do not regard attacks on Israel as terrorism; and pressured Egypt’s pro-American military government to surrender power to the anti-American Muslim Brotherhood parliament and president just elected by Egypt’s predominantly anti-American population.

So I was hoping maybe the speaker could explain to us: Hypothetically, if Huma Abedin did have a bias in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, and if she were actually acting on that bias to try to tilt American policy in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, what exactly would the State Department be doing differently?

July 25, 2012 4:00 A.M.
Huma Abedin’s Muslim-Brotherhood Ties
Michele Bachmann has every right to ask questions.
By Andrew C. McCarthy

Huma Abedin

 

[Flanders]

The Clinton/Abedin story has dropped off the MSM radar screen. Still, I think it is one of the most important stories about national security ever. The fact that leading Republicans attacked Michele Bachmann shows the mindset in Congress —— never question a Democrat’s loyalty; never embarrass Muslims, and always protect the worst of us.

Anyway, here’s a great followup piece for those who want to stay with the story:

In light of Rabbi David Saperstein's recent condemnation of Michele Bachmann's concerns about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, it is important to offer proof that Bachmann's concerns both are appropriate and are not emblematic of a witch hunt.

August 8, 2012
To Vet or Not to Vet Huma Abedin
By Eileen F. Toplansky

Articles: To Vet or Not to Vet Huma Abedin

 

[Flanders]

Nothing makes a point better than a well-turned phase:

“Today, there is no worse sin than to be called a bigot, even when the charge is utterly empty,” McCarthy said. “Duty is calling us now, and duty has to be done, even if the grievance industry grieves in overdrive.”

Former U.S. attorney: Michele Bachmann is right to question Clinton aide’s background
By: Hope Hodge
8/9/2012 05:08 PM

Former U.S. attorney: Michele Bachmann is right to question Clinton aide