This woman is Hillary's top aide and had White House security clearance. Unbelievable.
http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/huma-abedin-worked-at-a-radical-muslim-journal-for-10-years/
Ooooooh, that damn first amendment thing sure sucks, don't it?
Ooooooh, that damn first amendment thing sure sucks, don't it?
That's why they replaced it with the second amendment.
It's getting really confusing when actions of the past are relevant or not.
Interesting article. Even though the author tries to spin it to paint a scary picture, what becomes clear is that Huma Abedin has been a longtime loyal aide to Clinton. The fact that a Muslim woman with traditional Islamic views is a top aide to a US official shows that the US is not anti-Muslim, as well as sets a good example for women in Islamic countries. Also means that Hilary Clinton is trying to build bridges with Islamic countries and isn't so likely to start World War Three over there.
It's good diplomacy, and Huma Abedin has obviously done a great job. Her religious views are her own business and are protected as free speech. It is to Clinton's credit that she can coexist with an aide whose views are opposed to her own, however in the long run Huma Abedin's example will serve to empower Muslim women, which I'm certain Clinton knows.
Believe what you want.
Ooooooh, that damn first amendment thing sure sucks, don't it?
It's not that she doesn't have a right to express her political beliefs it's what her beliefs are that matters.
Yes Clinton is secretly part of a plot to impose sharia in the US.
For Pete's sake where do people come up with such stupidity and believe it and post it on an old rock band website. Oh yeah, from Michelle Bachman who there might not be a dumber person on the planet than her.
I mean you have to be brain dead to believe anything this frickin stupid.
" But it also raises questions as to whether Huma Abedin and Mrs. Clinton were in fact serving as unregistered agents for foreign powers who sought to impose their anti-freedom agenda on the United States."
Joe McCarthy would be proud.
Oh c'mon now, "At the time, Abedin was assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs working under her mother, who remains editor-in-chief. she worked for a magazine."
It's not like she was working for Dabiq (Isis's magazine) so why are they saying it was a radical magazine?
“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,”. This is not a radical idea in Islam. They do not view marriage the way we in the West do, because their lifestyle is much different. They do not have dating, sex before marriage, and the men view the marriage as a contract, with each person having specific rights in the relationship; but love is not usually the reason they marry initially. The way it was explained to me is that since each one of the parties in the marriage have not physically (sexually) known anyone else prior to the marriage, they grow to know each other and their bond becomes strong and they grow to love the person over the course of their marriage. In the west, physical attraction, lust and fornication often become the reasons people get married. In Islam, they ask their parents permission, because they respect their opinions to select a good partner for them. They take great care to try to continue their religion thru their children and families.
The woman is not regarded as a chattel or piece of property, she is highly esteemed and regarded. Something else, contrary to public opinion most of the people you regard as radicals do not beat their wives. The mujahideen do not beat their wives. The Afghans have said that they are not even allowed to say anything bad about the women, much less strike her. There may be those who do, but the good men do not.
A lot of the ideas people have about how Muslims view and carry out their marriages are not true. Muslims are not going to embrace secular law and western culture. They do not want it, which is one reason they reject democracy because it erodes their societies. Would their culture work here in the US? No. As a culture, the decisions we have made would prevent that.
Osama complained about women being used in advertising to sell products. Would the US allow the ad industry to suffer losses to protect the image of women? No. Would the porno industry close up shop and stop exploiting women? No. Would the workforce agree to pay women a stipend so they could stay home and raise their children if they wanted to? No, they don't even want to pay for family leave after pregnancy, the best we could do is tell them they will still have a job when they come back, but the leave itself is unpaid. That's an example of how WE care for women.
Muslims are not going to embrace secular law and western culture. They do not want it, which is one reason they reject democracy because it erodes their societies. Would their culture work here in the US? No. As a culture, the decisions we have made would prevent that.
If that were the case, then why do so many Muslims want to come to the US and the west?
I am neither pro-Muslim or anti-Muslim. I am for everyone being treated equally regardless of religion, whatever that religion may be. But, it seems like the Muslims I know accept America's laws and ideals as their own. Maybe those are not "hard core" Muslims, but you seem to be painting an entire religion with a very wide brush. Many Christians hold different political views. Are you saying that ALL Muslims won't accept secular law, because I have a very hard time believing that?
No, I am no saying that all Muslims will not accept secular law. Many do come here for the freedoms that exist here. They do not want the strict adherence to the religion that is enforced in other countries. What I will say is that no one, not a Jew, or a Christian or a Muslim can follow the guidance given in their religion and adhere to secular law. Many will say they are of one faith or another but they are the ones that go to the church or Temple on high holy days and the rest of the time, not so much. They are the ones who are tolerant of things God forbid to people's of all the religions. These people basically become acclimated to secular law and find it easier to live their lives with that, because nobody bothers them, they do what they want, when they want to.
[Edited on 8/23/2016 by gina]
No, I am no saying that all Muslims will not accept secular law. Many do come here for the freedoms that exist here. They do not want the strict adherence to the religion that is enforced in other countries. What I will say is that no one, not a Jew, or a Christian or a Muslim can follow the guidance given in their religion and adhere to secular law. Many will say they are of one faith or another but they are the ones that go to the church or Temple on high holy days and the rest of the time, not so much. They are the ones who are tolerant of things God forbid to people's of all the religions. These people basically become acclimated to secular law and find it easier to live their lives with that, because nobody bothers them, they do what they want, when they want to.
[Edited on 8/23/2016 by gina]
All religions pick and choose what they want out of the Bible. Very few religions think people should be stoned to death for working on the sabbath or that a rapist should be forced to marry the woman he raped even though the Bible demands these things. Anyone who demands laws be changed because of their religion is both (a) picking and choosing based on their own belief while ignoring hundreds of other Bible verses that contradict their beliefs, and (b) are denying other people with different beliefs equal protection to practice their own religion. America is founded on religious freedom, meaning people can practice their own beliefs without interfering with those who hold different beliefs. Simply put, whatever your religion feel free to practice it but don't force me to practice it. If you can't do this, then you should really be living somewhere else other than the USA.
Conspiracy? The NY post had a story on it too. The Clinton campaign acknowledges she was an associate editor. If she didn't believe what the journal was promoting why would she put her name on the letter head? If true it brings into question the judgement of what type of people Hillary surrounds her self with. Some background on the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs.
http://www.aim.org/guest-column/huma-abedins-muslim-minority-affairs-not-just-a-journal/
She certainly had input into decisions that created the situation in which ISIS flourished.
She certainly had input into decisions that created the situation in which ISIS flourished.
You mean like invading Iraq and allowing the defeated and deposed Iraqi generals to form ISIS in 1999?
If true it brings into question the judgement of what type of people Hillary surrounds her self with.
Are you applying that same standard to Donald Trump?
She certainly had input into decisions that created the situation in which ISIS flourished.
How is that? Please explain.
To clarify:
Huma Abedin's old job is a critical danger to the future of our country.
Anything that Donald Trump has done in his life doesn't have any effect on anything at all.
To clarify:
Huma Abedin's old job is a critical danger to the future of our country.
What about her present job? Carrying classified documents around in the front seat of her car is
not exactly on the up and up, nor very intelligent. What is it with these people?
[Edited on 8/25/2016 by alloak41]
To clarify:
Huma Abedin's old job is a critical danger to the future of our country.
What about her present job? Carrying classified documents around in the front seat of her car is
not exactly on the up and up, nor very intelligent. What is it with these people?
Anything anyone does has no effect on anything at the moment it's in the past. Following your lead.
To clarify:
Huma Abedin's old job is a critical danger to the future of our country.
What about her present job? Carrying classified documents around in the front seat of her car is
not exactly on the up and up, nor very intelligent. What is it with these people?Anything anyone does has no effect on anything at the moment it's in the past. Following your lead.
What's Trump ever done along these lines? He's never even worked in politics. So he operated a
golf course and a casino that lost money and what not. Did that put our security in potential jeopardy,
or potentially effect your life one way or the other in any way?
To clarify:
Huma Abedin's old job is a critical danger to the future of our country.
What about her present job? Carrying classified documents around in the front seat of her car is
not exactly on the up and up, nor very intelligent. What is it with these people?Anything anyone does has no effect on anything at the moment it's in the past. Following your lead.
What's Trump ever done along these lines? He's never even worked in politics. So he operated a
golf course and a casino that lost money and what not. Did that put our security in potential jeopardy,
or potentially effect your life one way or the other in any way?
No more so than Huma Abedin ever did.
LOL..."and what not"
To clarify:
Huma Abedin's old job is a critical danger to the future of our country.
What about her present job? Carrying classified documents around in the front seat of her car is
not exactly on the up and up, nor very intelligent. What is it with these people?Anything anyone does has no effect on anything at the moment it's in the past. Following your lead.
What's Trump ever done along these lines? He's never even worked in politics. So he operated a
golf course and a casino that lost money and what not. Did that put our security in potential jeopardy,
or potentially effect your life one way or the other in any way?No more so than Huma Abedin ever did.
LOL..."and what not"
So you think it's ok for the Chief of Staff of the Secretary of State to carry around classified documents
in the front seat of her car? Nothing could go wrong there. Where is your head today?
[Edited on 8/25/2016 by alloak41]
I guess telling NATO we won't have your back was good for national security - but that was probably just 'Trump being Trump'....... LOL
She certainly had input into decisions that created the situation in which ISIS flourished.
You mean like invading Iraq and allowing the defeated and deposed Iraqi generals to form ISIS in 1999?
She voted for the Iraq war. The invasion under George Bush was in 2003. They were insignificant until the overthrow of Saddam. I guess she didn't have any input in middle east policy during her tenure as Secretary of State. If so, then what did she do besides use her office for Clinton Foundation donors.
If true it brings into question the judgement of what type of people Hillary surrounds her self with.
Are you applying that same standard to Donald Trump?
Absolutely.
She certainly had input into decisions that created the situation in which ISIS flourished.
How is that? Please explain.
see my response above
[Edited on 8/25/2016 by mainebigdog]
[Edited on 8/25/2016 by mainebigdog]
I guess telling NATO we won't have your back was good for national security - but that was probably just 'Trump being Trump'....... LOL
He said NATO needs to meet their obligations in this outdated alliance.
To clarify:
Huma Abedin's old job is a critical danger to the future of our country.
What about her present job? Carrying classified documents around in the front seat of her car is
not exactly on the up and up, nor very intelligent. What is it with these people?Anything anyone does has no effect on anything at the moment it's in the past. Following your lead.
What's Trump ever done along these lines? He's never even worked in politics. So he operated a
golf course and a casino that lost money and what not. Did that put our security in potential jeopardy,
or potentially effect your life one way or the other in any way?No more so than Huma Abedin ever did.
LOL..."and what not"
So you think it's ok for the Chief of Staff of the Secretary of State to carry around classified documents
in the front seat of her car? Nothing could go wrong there. Where is your head today?
Sure, it does seem like a careless move. What were the documents? "Burn stuff" was the phrase used. How sensitive were they? Do you know what the documents contained?
I guess telling NATO we won't have your back was good for national security - but that was probably just 'Trump being Trump'....... LOL
He said NATO needs to meet their obligations in this outdated alliance.
Is your last name LePage?
