You can’t help but wonder if Hillary Clinton was always blind to the nature of radical Islam or if she’s been influenced by her aide Huma Abedin.
Clinton defended her aide during a speech on religious freedom Monday in Washington, D.C.
Abedin has been in the news lately because the Left is shocked — shocked, they say — that a group of Congress members asked questions about her family ties to the Muslim extremist group the Muslim Brotherhood, which has come to power in Egypt and been the power behind the scenes in some of the “Arab Spring” uprisings.
When Rep. Michele Bachmann and four other Republicans authored a letter to officials in the State Department asking about several issues regarding infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood in our government, Sen. John McCain and Rep. Keith Ellison jumped to attack Bachmann and try to portray the letter as an unwarranted attack on Abedin.
What the Republicans actually did was not attack Abedin, but merely ask questions about whether her family’s ties to the Brotherhood, which no one seems to have denied, had been examined when she was interviewed for her security clearance. It wasn’t even the major issue of the letter, which also asked about federal agents’ terrorism training, the Brotherhood’s political influence and other issues.
Clinton continued to divert attention from the issue of a Brotherhood-connected aide having easy access to the Secretary of State of an administration that seems to have linked its fortunes to the Brotherhood in the Middle East.
No, in Clinton’s and the Left’s minds, it’s all about protecting diversity:
“I don’t see enough of that. I want to see more of it. We did see some of that in our own country. We saw Republicans stepping up and standing up against the kind of assaults that really have no place in our politics. So we have to set an example, there is no doubt about that. And we have to continue doing so.”
Clinton and the rest of the Left thrive in a climate of moral relativism, so it’s no surprise that Clinton’s speech turned into a dismissal of Islam’s record of violence and an attempt to justify it by comparing Muslim terrorism to the Troubles in Northern Ireland, which always had as much or more to do with nationalist and unionist politics than religion.
Here’s the quote:
“Religions against one another, it is even within religions, within Christianity, within Judaism within, oh, Islam, within Hinduism there are people who believe their version of that religion is the only right way to believe. And so in some of the countries that we are concerned about that are majority Muslim countries it’s the intimidation and violence against Muslims who are in minority sects that we most worry about. We watched for many years the conflict in Northern Ireland against Catholics on the one side, Protestants on the other, so I think you’re right that there always are issues about terrorism, about separatism, but those should be dealt with under the law without infringing on the rights of people whose religious beliefs are different from the majority.”
She is right that Muslims love to fight each other. The Shiites and Sunnis have been at it for centuries.
But in regards to countries involved in the Arab Spring, it’s interesting that Clinton expresses worry about Muslim groups but says nothing about the Christian groups that are seeing churches burned, homes destroyed, and families tortured and killed.
Since last week, Muslim villagers in Dahshour, Egypt, have been hurling fire bombs at each other and burning Christians out of their homes after a Christian laundry operator accidentally burned a Muslim customer’s shirt. At least one person has been killed.
In Syria, Christians have been targeted by both government forces and rebels, who are reportedly led by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that President Obama has helped fund the Syrian rebels. At least two prominent members of the Christian community have been killed in recent days, according to OneNewsNow.com, although names have not been released.
In just one incident in October 2011, the new Egyptian government’s security forces killed 25 demonstrators and injured 300 more, most of them Coptic Christians. The Egyptian government has also been turning a blind eye toward murders of Christians and destruction of churches, according to the federal government’s updated International Religious Freedom Report.
In a March letter, Bachmann and Sen. Rand Paul urged Clinton to suspend $1.3 billion in military aid to Egypt because of the atrocities being committed against Christians. The aid was supposed to be contingent upon the State Department certifying that the new Egyptian government was protecting freedom of speech and religion.
“A decision to waive the conditions on military aid would send the wrong message to the Egyptian government that U.S. taxpayers will subsidize the Egyptian military while it continues to oversee the crackdown on civil society and to commit human rights abuses,” the letter read.
Later that same month, Clinton waived the certification requirements and resumed aid to Egypt.
Presenting the report Monday to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Clinton even acknowledged that incidents of human rights abuses seem to have increased since Egypt’s transition to “democracy.”
What she hasn’t done is answer the question of whether her aide was properly vetted and whether she or the president may have been influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Americans deserve answers to those questions.