Are Governmental Officials On Our Side? When We Don’t Do Background Checks of Family Members of the Muslim Brotherhood

Working to uncover the truth, is radical Islam part of the Obama agenda, and how much of a risk we are at in the United States over the radical Islamist agenda that Mr. Obama won’t mention, I offer a speech that examines staff with Muslim backgrounds that have come into question in past years.  

The point being, do high government officials have the right to classified information when their family members have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and related organizations?


President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin

The 2012 article records a speech given by Andrew C. McCarthy to the National Press Club in Washington D.C.  He was invited by the Center for Security Policy.

He said, 

I’ve been writing about this subject: I’ve been writing about the Muslim Brotherhood for a number of years. And for the last couple of weeks, I’ve been writing about the specific topic that we’re here to talk about this morning: the Brotherhood’s influence on our government, and the slings and arrows these five House members have been catching for having the temerity to notice it.

His speech talks about how our government policy seemed to have ” shifted in the direction of avowed enemies of the United States” so that it seemed to be common sense to check the backgrounds of some government officials more thoroughly.

He thought that the five House members making the request to conduct internal inquiries seeking knowledge of potential Islamist influences in governmental agencies, and then reporting back to Congress would be a good idea.

It seemed like common sense then, and it makes better sense today with more Islamist terrorist attacks that have been reported lately, and with more knowledgeable experts openly saying that we should have taken action sooner when we were first hit on 9/11.      

In his speech, McCarthy said at the time, 

I don’t understand why more people in Washington, from both parties, have not rallied to the support of Congresswoman Bachmann and Congressmen Gohmert, Franks, Westmoreland and Rooney.

Top be sure, Mr. McCarthy does give credit to the many good Muslim’s who have actually helped the U.S. fight terrorism on many fronts.  

Pro-American Muslims serve honorably in government, in our military, in our intelligence services, and in our major institutions.

It was then as it is today, that making mention of anyone having done anything wrong and being Muslim or Islam makes you a bigot.  It is the social PC that intimidates and serves to hide the truth, and make a person stop talking.  I suppose that is why McCarthy made a clear distinction between Muslims and Islamists:

When we talk about the influence of Islamists, we are referring to Muslims who are beholden to Islamic supremacism. Islamic supremacism is an ideology, not a religion. 

The concern he raised was being burdened by conflicts of interest if a family member was active having ties with a known terror group.

It is not a question of your patriotism or your trustworthiness. It is about whether you would be burdened by such obvious conflicts of interest that you would be tempted to act on those interests, rather than in the best interests of the United States.

The five house members who wrote letters asking for more background inquiries were smeared  instead of being advised that the findings of Ms. Abedin were of concern.  

In his speech he told his audience that;

the response of the Obama administration, congressional Democrats, and their echo chamber in the Republican establishment has been to attack and smear the messengers.

Why in making a simple request to protect security of the U.S., and in a common sense respectful fashion, would there be raised such a fuss, and such rudeness taken out on the people making the request?

Shouldn’t there be several levels of security inquiries about someone that is to hold high public office and work in high governmental departments that effect policy of the United States and be able to access high security information?  Why wouldn’t we be cautious of spy’s or of persons who could use sensitive information in secret to convey it to the interests of groups that are anti-American and are not our friends?

In the case of Huma Abedin, they found that she has quite a threatening background and connections in her family with a major Muslim Brotherhood member who helps finance al-Qaeda.  Wouldn’t that cause concern in the White House especially?

Their letter to the State Department’s inspector general stated that Ms. Abedin “has three family members — her late father, her mother and her brother — connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations.” It turns out, however, that Huma Abedin herself is directly connected to Abdullah Omar Naseef, a major Muslim Brotherhood figure involved in the financing of al-Qaeda.

There really needs to be some explaining and thorough reporting on the backgrounds of Ms. Abedin as well as members of Congress, their aides, other departments within the United States government to keep our country safe.  

There is no excuse, and this seems to border on criminal offenses, if not poor public policy that would be so lax as to allow such persons with these kinds of backgrounds to operate in our government.

Anyone who disagrees should be seen as a traitor to allow open doors for enemies of the United States to access privileged information.