Marketing seeks to create images in our minds by relying on the creativity of a writer. Political marketing often involves the creation of myths, transforming an ordinary man into a heroic figure with selfless ideals who is willing to endure suffering to serve his fellow man.

This transformation of normal ordinary men into heroes of mythical figures has never been more obvious than the stories of our most recent Liberal presidents Clinton and Obama.

We were just subjected to a reelection commercial featuring former President Clinton explaining the potential fallout and risk for President Obama if the SEAL raid in Pakistan had gone horribly wrong.

Suppose the Navy SEALs had gone in there . . . suppose they had been captured or killed. The downside would have been horrible for him [Obama].

This was a unique opportunity for Americans to observe and compare our most notorious Narcissists, and watch one create the typical Narcissistic pool for all of us to admire the other’s reflection.

The myth of Narcissus is from the ancient Greeks. Greek Myths are stories that are a means to teach lessons of morality. If you will give your imagination a little freedom we will imagine the Myth of Narcissus in a contemporary setting.

Echo the Nymph was desperately in love with the handsome young hunter Narcissus, but he was proud and disdained all those who admired him, for he was in love with himself. Nemesis, a tricky god, directed him to a pool where he could observe his own reflection. From that point on, Narcissus spent all his time observing his own handsome features, unable to quit staring at his image and caring for nothing else, he eventually died by the pool. A flower grew where he fell and was to be known as the Narcissus.

If we replace Echo with the American people and the personality of Narcissus with President Obama, the basis for the myth is recreated after two thousand years.

While the American people have been dreaming of being loved and cared for by the object of their imagination, the harsh truth becomes more glaringly obvious with the passage of time, for the Narcissist exists for himself and only loves his own being.

Only Bill Clinton, the accused serial rapist who refused to kill or capture Osama and avoid the catastrophe that was 9/11, understands the strain facing the Narcissist Personality. For when he says:

“Suppose the Navy SEALs had gone in there . . . suppose they had been captured or killed. The downside would have been horrible for him [Obama].”

Zeus Is The Universal Boogeyman, Here Disguised As A Swan He Rapes Leda

Zeus Represents The Powers That Threaten Mere Mortala And From Whom We Need The Protection Of An Omnipotent

Former President Clinton concentrated on portraying Obama as the wily Prometheus who risked stealing fire from Zeus to give it to mortal man. He thus risked the possibility of tragedy through this trial of personal sacrifice. For in the myth, Zeus was enraged with the theft and tied Prometheus to a rock on a mountain and during the passage of each day, an eagle ate his liver and each night his liver grew back, to be eaten again the next day. Oh, how Prometheus suffered for the crime of bringing the fire of Zeus to mankind: fire that was used only for warmth, cooking, and light. Prometheus became a man of constant sorrow for the crime of serving man. This is the fate Obama risked to serve his people. He was so near this position of constant sorrow that he needed to be pulled from the golf course during the commission of this service to mankind, lest the mission fail and he would be tied directly by a Zeus like boogeyman, supine on the mountain and the feathered beast allowed to savage his vital organs.

The personality of this same Prometheus has been a favorite reference for Karl Marx to portray the martyrs of Communism, representing those who suffer unselfishly for the cause of mankind.

True to form, the Narcissist views the world as it relates to him. Thus we have become inoculated to the “I” word and now are conditioned to view world events through the personal pronouns of Obama.

“Tonight, I can report . . . I directed Leon Panetta . . . I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden . . . I met repeatedly with my national security team . . . I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action. . . . Today, at my direction . . . I’ve made clear . . . Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear . . . Tonight, I called President Zardari . . . and my team has also spoken . . .These efforts weigh on me every time I, as commander-in-chief . . . Finally, let me say to the families . . . I know that it has, at times, frayed . . .”

In our personal lives, we tend to tire of people who see the world revolving around them and all to ready to overuse the personal pronouns in every conversation, but with Obama, we have been conditioned to excuse and overlook his boorish behavior.

Being programmed by these harpies of Madison Avenue to believe and accept the allusion of the strong leader who protects us from the evil of the world is a feature of being subjected to media. Most of the recent efforts Of the Obama marketers have been amateurish and obvious, but precious few of us caught the ambiguities of Clinton marketing Obama.

Sometimes, it is the utter audacity of the marketing ploy that creates the lasting impression. The vision of a man’s liver being eaten each day and of a maiden being raped by a God in the form of a swan are not easy to accept, but they have survived for 2500 years, and their story lines are still being used to teach and create allusions.

Unfortunately for Obama, the image of Narcissus is working against him, for Narcissus is his only enemy and it is his self-absorption that ultimately destroys him. The comparisons are all too obvious and transparent, and his adoring public like Echo grows weary of the self-absorbed man who loves himself above all others.

NARCISSUS. A large genus of flowers of the amaryllis family, native to Asia and Europe, is called narcissus. Included are the daffodil, the poet’s narcissus, the jonquil, and others.

Ben Franklin warned government with his clever sayings. I expect several would apply to Obama devastating the military ground forces today. We may be saving a few billion dollars now, but is may cost us 100’s of billions in the near future.

The current administration currently plans to reduce US Army ground forces by as much as 20 Brigade Combat Teams. This is the equivalent of 5-6 Divisions. To put this in perspective, this is more combat power than the US had in Iraq at any one time.

So, what does this mean to non military people? It means we cannot sustain a ground battle like Iraq unless the US keeps the troops in theater until the fighting is complete. There will only be enough troops to replace them with no reserve. In the event there is fighting in Korea and somewhere in the middle east, the US will not have the capability to fight and win in both theaters.

While Obama explains he is planning on increasing air and sea power, history has showed that no war has ever been won without taking and holding the ground. Air and sea power project power but cannot by themselves win.

I remember the Carter military reductions. There was no money to maintain the bases. At FT Benning, there was money for painting buildings, but not repairing buildings. Remember the Clinton “peace dividend”? The Democratic Congress and Clinton made major force reductions to pay for domestic programs. A great number of excellent soldiers were released. After 9/11, their expertise was needed but absent.

If the US must fight a foreign war, will there be adequate assets left to defend the homeland? There are currently more than known 80 Hezbollah cells already in the US. Only God knows how many terrorist cells there really are in the US. Can we fight China’s expanding military and the terrorists at home? If the military is so greatly reduced, will there be the capability for them to “defend the country against all enemies foreign and domestic”? Just like the Carter and Clinton administration, it looks like we again are using a strategy that is penny wise and pound foolish!

We now realize the Liberal media controls or tries to control the election process in the United States; obviously, control is a matter of degree, it can be minimal or it can be complete. Regardless of the degree of control the press has over any political process, the press will use every tool at its’ disposal to acquire all the control it can steal from the public, for that is what this control by the press has become, a theft of our election process and our very freedom to determine our own political future. Democrats or high ranking Republicans will never complain about this usurpation of the political process or the freedom of the public to determine their own future because they want the control of the country to be concentrated in the hands of a select few. The press has exposed its’ duplicitous nature well enough, only the most intellectually compromised among us cannot see the glaring inconsistencies and corruption. The attempted evisceration of Cain by circumspect women with motives that may include career advancement or monetary gain, is in sharp contrast to the protection given to the serial rapist and womanizer Bill Clinton.

That contrast only pertains to the men; there is also a sharp contrast in the treatment of the women. Clinton’s accusers were defamed and relegated to the status of cheap whores and today the dubious reputations of these women of questionable merit are considered to be above the scrutiny of the press. Have the social values of the press and the public changed in the last decade?

No, not really, it is a rhetorical question, Clinton is a Democrat; he is to be provided with the full protection of the MSM: Cain is a Conservative, he is to be excoriated with the full wrath of a duplicitous press. America is now using their best skills at detecting lies and half truths learned while watching the latest crime and justice shows and the press has accomplished its’ goal of instilling doubt where there was none. In the case of the Clinton rape scandals, it was the mission of the press to cast doubt on the integrity of the accusers; the press has been extremely successful in their efforts.

Without a doubt, the MSM will be able to find another “victim” of sexual harassment by Herman Cain every week until the election is held or until the press forces him out of the race and virtually insures an Obama reelection. These questions deserve to be asked: are we willing to let a corrupt press have this much control over our election process? Are we willing to let our country be manipulated by a cheap soap opera script and the witless writers and fans of such lame vapidity.

We are at a critical crossroads in our nation’s future. We have an economic illiterate in the White House who is determined to impose a Socialist system of Wealth Redistribution and to bring down the most powerful economic entity in the history of the world, so that other nations can direct this once free and noble country through corrupt organizations like the United Nations.

It is a disgrace to think that we are willing to forget about the desecration of our country and throw away our future because of the pleading of a few bimbos who appear to be little more than political operatives for the Democrat Party. There may never bring another chance to fight back this Socialist conversion that the Obama Socialists and Obama Republicans are so desperate to impose, but the nation is worried over a few neurotic bimbos with stories they are hoping will lead to fame and fortune.

We must remember, a Democrat excuses rape by a Democrat with claims that she wanted or deserved the attention, but innuendo or a smile can be interpreted as sexual harassment if you are a Conservative. These are the standards that Conservatives are expected to maintain. Now, that we know the rules that the Liberal press plays by and how easy it is for them to destroy lives and reputations without a thought for integrity or honor, it should be understood that any business executive or politician who allows himself to be alone with a woman, particularly a Liberal woman without is asking for their lives and reputations to be ruined. I am suggesting open door meetings with witnesses and recording all meetings with women and making a big deal of the necessity to protect yourself from the duplicity so common to Liberal women and the Liberal press.

In the final analysis, it is imperative that we prevent the Liberal press from playing us like bimbos posing in front of the porta-potties.

I have a friend that has a Masters in Psychology. We usually confine our discussions to beer, softball, women, and beer. The man is a master of manipulation. I have seen him deflect arguments with such skill that the other person walks away in a cloud of befuddlement. Sometimes we discuss politics. I brought up the growing divide in our country and told him I have little hope that we will ever bridge it. He explained to me the nature of this divide and why we may never come together again as a nation. These are the five logical fallacies that prevent us from agreeing.

Argumentative Theory of Reasoning: states that humans didn’t learn to ask questions and offer answers in order to find universal truths. We did it as a way to gain authority over others.

Neglect of Probability: states our brains are great for doing a lot of things. Calculating probability is not one of them.

The Trust Gap: states we just do not trust other people to do the right thing.

Fundamental Attribution Error: states when other people screw up, it’s because they’re stupid or evil. But when we screw up, it’s totally circumstantial.

Confirmation Bias: states our brains weigh information on a position we hold, not based on the logic, but on the emotional and social consequences of that position being wrong.

I bring this up because what I am about to write will not change the mind of a single liberal in the country. If you have not yet read the article, Paul Sperry for the Investor’s Business Daily has the single most damning information yet that the housing bubble, and thus the financial crises rests on the shoulders of the Clinton Administration.

At President Clinton’s direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.

I will not go into a detailed analysis; it is just not my specialty. Mata has done some incredible writing on the crises and explained it much better than I could ever begin. I just ask that you read the article, the policy statement, and Mr. Sperry’s analysis. I will leave some highlights for those too busy to read the full article.

Confronted with the combined force of 10 federal regulators, lenders naturally toed the line, and were soon aggressively marketing subprime mortgages in urban areas. The marching orders threw such a scare into the industry that the American Bankers Association issued a “fair-lending tool kit” to every member. The Mortgage Bankers Association of America signed a “fair-lending” contract with HUD. So did Countrywide.

…It warned lenders who rejected minority applicants with high debt ratios and low credit scores to “be prepared” to prove to federal regulators and prosecutors they weren’t racist. “The Department of Justice is authorized to use the full range of its enforcement authority.”

For my friends on the left, once you have read the article, look back at the five logical fallacies, especially Confirmation Bias. I am not denying there was no greed on the part of the banks or Wall Street. Paul Sperry acknowledges that in his conclusion:

The fair-lending task force’s original policy paper undercuts the notion the financial crisis was all about banker “greed,” though it certainly played a role after the fact. Rather, it offers compelling evidence that the crisis evolved chiefly from government mandates and threats to increase lending to applicants who could not afford them.

But ask yourself one question. What facilitated this greed?

Well isn’t this wonderful:

Washington ready to negotiate with Mullah Omar

Right on the heels of this terrible news:

A Taliban suicide bomber rammed a van into an armored NATO bus Saturday in Kabul, killing 13 American troops and four Afghans, U.S. and Afghan officials said, in the deadliest attack on coalition forces in more than two months.

The explosion, which occurred as the convoy was passing the American University, sparked a fireball and littered the street with shrapnel. Heavy black smoke poured from burning wreckage at the site.

The armored personnel carrier, known as a Rhino was sandwiched between of a convoy of mine-resistant military vehicles traveling on a four-lane highway frequently used by NATO forces in a southwestern section of the city.

NATO said 13 service members were killed, but a U.S. official confirmed they were all Americans. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

We have been at war with the Taliban since 2001 after they, specifically Mullah Omar, were involved in 9/11. Either indirectly prior to the attack or in the help he gave al-Qaeda after the attack.

And now Obama wants to negotiate with him?

Wow

Washington is ready to negotiate with Taliban leader Mullah Omar and now regards his involvement as crucial to the prospects for peace in Afghanistan, Hillary Clinton has said.

Her comments been taken as a significant shift in American policy from moves to divide the Taliban-led insurgency and isolate Mullah Omar, the man who sheltered Osama bin Laden as he plotted the September 11 attacks, to an acknowledgement of his leadership.

It follows the disclosure earlier this month that American officials had met leaders of the Haqqani Network, the powerful Taliban faction blamed for some of the most devastating attacks on American and Nato forces in Afghanistan, including last month’s attack on the US embassy in Kabul in which seven were killed and 19 wounded.

Earlier this week the faction’s commander Sirajuddin Haqqani warned Washington that only the Quetta Shura, led by Mullah Omar, could negotiate a peace deal and that his fighters would not be divided from its leadership.

In an appearance before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Mrs Clinton said the United States would continue to “fight, talk and build” in Afghanistan and Pakistan to “test whether these organisations have any willingness to negotiate in good faith”.

Sickening.

It’s obvious we are not in this to win anymore, now it’s how we can get the hell out of there the fastest and if it means we negotiate with the enemy then so be it I suppose.

Things Are Not Always What They Seem

Most Americans have never heard of Saul Alinsky, but it will be a long time before we overcome his influence on America. His confrontational tactics and politics of the 60′s are the inspiration for our president’s symbolic, undiplomatic, and predictable cliches

“get mad”, “get in their faces”, “punish your enemies”, “they bring a knife, we bring a gun”.

His quotes will forever be enshrined next to those of his hero, Abraham Lincoln whom he desperately wants to emulate.

In a recent speech, Obama compared the Civil War President’s criticism and opposition, to his own rejection by a once adoring public,

“Lincoln, they used to talk about him almost as bad as they talk about me.”

Lincoln lacked the theatrical skills to vary his speech patterns while reading speeches. Obama can vary from being a Harvard drama student with a peculiar idiolect delivery utilizing an Irish lilt with dramatic pauses or employing the nonsensical syntax above, language more appropriate for an Acorn or a union meeting. None the less, when we compare the personal thoughts of Obama to those of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, we begin to appreciate the superficial nature of the similarities that Obama is desperately trying to promote.

The Gettysburg Address

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

We have compared Obama to Lincoln. Two great orators who both read their most significant speeches: Lincoln wrote his and we can be fairly certain Obama at least wrote those quotes on his own. Lincoln wrote his speech by using great wit and an empathy for the struggle Americans were suffering through. Obama’s quotes are straight from the Alinsky school of tactics and have become the norm for the dysfunctional government of the Chicago Machine and the Socialist revolution in America.

Alinsky died when Obama was a boy, but his school of thought lives on through the generations of community organizers and union thugs. Obama received his Alinsky training through the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation of Chicago and by working for an affiliate of Gamliel Foundation whose goal was “a more just and democratic society,” a precept of the Alinsky method.

In the Alinsky method, “organization” is a code word or euphemism for “revolution;” a revolution, whose purpose and ultimate objective is the acquisition of power by supposed oppressed demographics and the simultaneous radical transformation of the country.

Lincoln was desperately trying to preserve the country at a time when there were battles being fought that would claim more American lives in a few days than the entire Vietnam War. A fact that trivializes Obama’s efforts to compare his political struggles to that of Lincoln. Essentially, the comparison is the antithetical comparison of the pampered Alinskyite revolutionary to that of a self-taught backwoodsman who held this country together during its most critical moments.

The Alinsky revolutionary of the Hillary Clinton type is not the typical long haired, bearded, drugged out revolutionary of the 60′s. No Alinsky scolded those revolutionaries for their anti-social appearances; he maintained true revolutionaries don’t flaunt their radicalism, they infiltrate the system from within, they are clean cut and well dressed. Alinsky substituted the word revolution with the more benign sounding “organizing”.

Organizing is a systemic acquisition of power through traditional means and working towards a radical transformation of economic and social structure. An organizer promotes discontent, confusion, questions regarding traditional morality, and chaos to bring about the social upheaval prescribed by Marx and Lenin.

After a collapse of the governmental and social systems, that according to Alinsky are not worthy of salvage, a new system can be established that will be more in line with the writings of Marx and Engels. It is the charismatic organizers like Obama and Clinton who facilitate these societal changes, they understand the necessary direction and methods required to bring about societal changes.

Alinsky wanted his revolutionaries or organizers to wear suits, to infiltrate or penetrate existing institutions in a patient and persistent manner. His original organizers (Hillary) and their disciples (Obama) were to gain influence and power within churches, unions, and political parties and to introduce changes from their particular positions towards a common goal.

Alinsky was a genius at consolidating power and influence. He was close friends with Chicago crime boss Frank Nitti, Capone’s second in command; he had close alliances with Catholic clerics like Bishop Bernard Shell; thus Alinsky courted influence well in the corrupt quagmire of the Chicago Machine and also among the wealthy like Marshal Field III, Sears Roebuck heiress Adele Rosenwald Levy and Gardiner Howland Shaw, an assistant secretary of state for FDR.

Although Alinsky started his organizing in the 30′s and continued until his death in 1972, his greatest singular recruitment was a high school student Hillary Rodham Clinton. They met through a radical church group. Clinton later wrote an analysis of the Alinsky method for her senior thesis at Wellesley College, a college that maintained a Marxist faculty.

Alinsky tried to hire Clinton as a community organizer after her graduation, but she elected to go to Yale Law School. They remained friends until Alinsky’s death.

Many Leftists complain of Hillary’s self-description as a moderate; yet, she is merely following an Alinsky directive to do or say what ever is required to hold and increase power. Obama offered a perfect example during his recent non-campaigning campaign in Cannon Falls, Minnesota; he appeals to a sense of surreal patriotism, that is almost bizarre in context with previous remarks,

“There is no shortage of ideas to put people to work right now. What is needed is action on the part of Congress, a willingness to put the partisan games aside and say we’re going to do what’s right for the country, not what we think is going to score some political points for the next election; there is nothing that we’re facing that we can’t solve with some spirit of ‘America first’.”

Obama neglects to mention that the partisan games can now be put aside, mainly because he no longer controls both the congressional houses and that the image of doing what is right for the country means going along with his failed agenda; especially, since his poicies have only failed because of bad luck and happenstance; thus they need to be repeated with vigor, before it is too late to prevent the next recession.

Logic can exist on the flimsiest of foundations if the public is naive and gullible enough to accept the premise.

Hillary began her political career with a prestigious and dubious appointment to the House Judiciary Committee’s Watergate investigation team just out of law school in 1974, on the recommendations of Peter and Marian Wright Edelman, benefactors of Clinton since 1969. Ms Edelman is an Alinsky devotee; she served on the board of Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation.

Obama was trained by Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation and spent four years teaching the Alinsky method in workshops. Obama served four years as a community organizer for the Developing Communities Project, another Alinsky group. He later worked with ACORN and its affiliate Project Vote, both from the Alinsky school.

While trying to gain influence among the Black churches of Chicago, Obama was criticized for not attending church; he immediately joined the Black Liberation Church.

Both Obama and Clinton predicate their political policies as revolutionary followers of Alinsky; turmoil, social upheaval, economic chaos are all techniques of the Alinsky method. They are advancing toward Socialist Revolution as fast as the system will allow; however, their pace has caused the public to lose faith in their abilities to lead the country, before the revolution could reach a point of no return. Sadly, the public was under the mistaken belief that their efforts were directed toward building a traditional America: nothing could be further than the truth.

The public is demanding repeal of all things Obama. The Alinsky plan has nearly run its course. The public is more aware of the nefarious nature of the Alinskyites and their techniques; they will find it far more difficult to mount another campaign of this magnitude in the future.

Click here to view the embedded video.

“These actions were directed against the Iraqi government, which was responsible for the assassination plot. Saddam Hussein has demonstrated repeatedly that he will resort to terrorism or aggression if left unchecked. Our intent was to target Iraq’s capacity to support violence against the United States and other nations, and to deter Saddam Hussein from supporting such outlaw behavior in the future. Therefore, we directed our action against the facility associated with Iraq’s support of terrorism, while making every effort to minimize the loss of innocent life.”

President Bill Clinton
June 26, 1993

Hillary views Huma "As A Daughter" Yea Right!

Is Weiner’s ignoble retirement a Conservative victory? No, not really, it is a victory for traditional American values. Weiner is a borderline pervert, who will either straighten up his life or fall deeper into more dangerous perversions, for his sake, I hope he gets ahold of himself before it is too late.

We as Americans have a share in the shame of his lying and false criminal accusations, because we have been lenient in dealing with lies and corruption from our leaders in Washington. Even now, Weiner will have an attractive retirement plan when he turns 62 of $48,000 a year. Presumably, the looming inflation he has helped promote will wipe that out and make it a trivial amount, but we will be supporting his perversions for the rest of his life, once he is officially retired. This is a stain on America that will be with us for a while.

Weiner has only been a symptom of a much larger problem; hopefully, he will ride into the sunset and disappear forever. Unfortunately, there is the question of whether his wife, Huma, is an agent for the Muslim Brotherhood, the connections are there with her mother being a member of the “sisterhood”. It is a fact that her family is Fundamentalist islam and deep within the Muslim Brotherhood. Unless Huma is a Fifth Columnist, Fundamentalist Isamists kill their women for speaking to a non-Muslim. The information will undoubtably be coming out in the near future, but the fact that hillary Clinton has an Islamic Fundamentalist as a confidant within her State Department will dwarf the Weinergate story. In the tradition of FDR and the Soviet spies he kept for confidantes, while steadfastly refusing to believe the FBI reports that they were spies, history is repeating itself.

Was Huma Abedin — wife of Anthony Weiner and deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton — unaware that her mother was reported as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood? Did Western media miss what has been revealed in several Arab newspapers and left secret in American government circles?

Al-Liwa Al-Arabi (translated here) claims to have leaked an extensive list, partially published by Al-Jazeera and several other major Arab newspapers, that includes Huma’s mother, Saleha Abedin, in the Brotherhood’s secret women’s division — known as the Muslim Sisterhood or International Women’s Organization (IWO).

Information about the IWO can readily be found at the Muslim Brotherhood’s official website. An excerpt from its goal, translated from the Arabic, states:

“The Women Organization’s goal, in accordance with the Muslim Brotherhood rules, is to gain and acquire a unified global perception in every nation in the world regarding the position of women, and the necessity of advocacy work at all levels in accordance with the message of the Brotherhood, as written in Women in Muslim Society, and the rearing of women throughout the different stages of life”.

The Egyptian paper Al-Dostor revealed that the Sisterhood includes 63 international members across 16 different countries — a claim confirmed by the Arab Center for Studies, headed by researcher Abdul Rahim Ali.

Neither Huma nor any major Western media outlets even mention this bit of common knowledge in the Arab world.

But there is more. Also confirmed by Arab sources is that Huma Abedin has a brother who works at Oxford University named Hassan Abedin. Oxford, which has long been infiltrated by Islamists who founded the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (OCIS), has Huma’s brother listed as a fellow and partner with a number of Muslim Brotherhood members on the Board — including al-Qaeda associate Omar Naseef and the notorious Muslim Brotherhood leader Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi. Both have been listed as OCIS trustees. Naseef continues to serve as Board chairman.

In 2009, Qaradawi’s role within Oxford and the Muslim Brotherhood was championed by the notorious Sheikh Rached Ghannouchi of Al-Nahda – a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate now active in Tunisia. OCIS has even presented an award for great scholarly achievement to Brotherhood member Shaykh Abd Al-Fattah Abu Gudda, whose personal history goes back to the Brotherhood’s founder, Hasan al-Banna.

Even the Sunday Times acknowledges that the cradle of Islamic jihad — Al-Azhar University — actively attempts to establish links with OCIS, where Huma’s brother serves.

Was Huma unaware of all this as she accompanied Hillary Clinton to the Dar El-Hekma women’s college in Saudi Arabia? Huma’s mother is co-founder and vice dean at the college and an active missionary on issues regarding Muslim women.

Another member listed as belonging to the Sisterhood mentioned by Al-Jazeera is Suheir Qureshi. Alongside Huma’s mother, Saleha Abedin, as well as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was brought in due to her connection with Huma, Qureshi spoke on issues of women in Muslim society. An Arabic news report of what happened during Hillary’s visit stated that:

Suheir Qureshi spoke of how elated she was of Hillary’s historic visit…. Saleha Abedin spoke after Suheir Qureshi and beamed in the presence of Secretary Clinton. Saleha’s speech preceded the former first lady’s. Then Hillary stood. She donned a broad smile as she approached the podium….Clinton started with a strong word and she spent a long time complimenting Dr. Saleha Abedin regarding her daughter. Hillary explained that Huma holds an important and sensitive position in her office. She ended her speech by speaking of Saleha Abedin’s daughter (Huma), that a person must be happy if mentioned in a positive light but there is no happiness that equals the compliment given to children in front of a parent.

It is sacrilege in Islam for Huma’s mother to accept the reality that her daughter is married to a Jew. Yet neither Saleha nor Huma’s brother Hassan denounces her marriage to Weiner, especially when it was considered null and void by some of the highest authorities on Islamic Sharia rulings.

Hillary Clinton signed a document less than one month prior to her trip to Saudi Arabia with Huma that lifted the ban on Tariq Ramadan, allowing him entry into the United States. (Ramadan is the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hasan al-Banna, and has ties to Islamic terrorist groups.) The Clinton family played a key role in promoting Fethullah Gülen, the extremely powerful Turkish imam and notorious Islamist conspirator, as he fled Turkey for the United States after attempting to overthrow Turkey’s secular government. (He was indicted on this charge in 2000.) In 2008, the former president heaped praise on Gülen, giving him a clean slate. Gülen has been given refuge and has even had sermons aired on Turkish television during which he explained to his followers how to best seize power from the Turkish government:

You must move in the arteries of the system without anyone noticing your existence until you reach all the power centers… until the conditions are ripe….Until that time, any step taken would be too early — like breaking an egg without waiting the full forty days for it to hatch. It would be like killing the chick inside.

Americans have so little faith in the politicians of Washington and Weiner has lowered that level of trust even more, but it has become a group effort. Our president is intent on being able to use missiles and rockets against nations indefinitely, after consulting with the UN, NATO, and the Arab League, while ignoring our congress and its authority. The president being called the most powerful man in the world has taken on a new meaning. Pelosi’s wealth increasing by 62% during the last two years only adds to the mistrust Americans have for our government. In the mean time, Obama has pledged $2 Billion to Palestine, $2 Billion to Egypt, $20 Billion to Arab Spring, offered $1 Billion ‘loan guarantee’ to Egypt to back their faulty credit standing. President Obama seems willing to give the shirt off his back to those in need; except, for one minor detail, it’s not his money: it is the money and future of the US taxpayer being given to the Muslim Brotherhood and to those we have been at war with and will likely be at war with for decades to come. He can justify the “Loans” by borrowing from China, thus helping their economy and giving the money to the Muslim Brotherhood and when Hyper Inflation kicks in, the money wont be worth anything and will be much easier for our children and grandchildren to pay off his profligate generosity among his Arab friends.

Hopefully, Weiner will be able to live off his wife’s double income, (assuming she has a handsome salary as a Fifth Columnist for the Muslim Brotherhood, a group now being subsidized by the US taxpayer courtesy of President Obama) until he can find a job and drift into obscurity. Another Progressive Socialist will be elected from his district and the wheels will keep turning; hopefully, the new Progressive wheel from Queens will be quieter and have more integrity. But we would be considered to be naive to think that the corruption and dishonesty is over with Weiner’s resignation.

Like most American’s, I believe Weiner is only a symptom of a large problem afflicting politicians who view themselves above the law and immune to the laws of governance that most of us respect. Congressmen like Rangel and Waters stand out as corruption that is excused and swept under the carpet. We can no longer tolerate these abuses. We must clean up Washinton and make it function according to the Rule of Law and the Constitution. Insisting that Clinton as Secretary of State purge her department of potential spies is a first step toward establishing trust: if her relationship is too close to Huma to fire her, Hillary should resign her position.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, AKA The Great Seducer

The secret is not so well kept, there are women who are attracted to men in power. The drive is probably biological, so we need not be too hard on these pathetic weaklings who feed the egos of hedonists by compromising their bodies and their self-respect. At least, there is a measure of consent at some point. In the end, a woman feels empowered and a man feels the hubris of Caesar as he spread his seed over ancient Europe. Eventually, there is the realization that they have betrayed the trust of those who believed in them, but more importantly, they have betrayed themselves to trade integrity and dignity for a few moments of lust.

If you know a man who has served in Washington, well enough for him to trust you, he will tell you about the young women who are political groupies and throw themselves at men of power, who would otherwise be all alone in a two dollar brothel with a twenty dollar bill in their hand. Their indiscretions cause pain and misery that is self-inflicted among both groupies and politicians without bias and we do well to pity them rather than scorn them.

Unfortunately, as sexual fantasies and egos among men of power are allowed to grow and be enriched with the fawning of young females, the male psyche, particularly that of the Socialist Elite, becomes malignant with feelings of power and entitlement.

A few months ago, we endured the self-assured image of Al Gore assaulting a massage therapist for sexual gratification. The story of the international humanitarian, who is overly concerned with the welfare of people and of the earth, but is unconcerned with the health of one woman when he feels the need to have his ashes hauled is not considered newsworthy by the Socialist Media. Still the picture of the entitled leader who has dominance over women is one that Socialists have a hard time explaining; after all, the woman toiled among those for whom the Elites dedicate their lives and they should be willing to recognize the needs of Elites and be willing to sacrifice for the good of the cause.

The stories of Hillary’s husband are too numerous to mention, but his sense of entitlement includes the feminine charms on display around him and they are obviously there to be enjoyed. He is an Elite who is more than willing to share his noble seed with women, whether they are willing or not, such is his sense of dedication and generosity to those less fortunate who are or will be beneath him.

Now, we are once again exposed to the selfless generosity of the Socialist head of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who was thoughtful enough to give the maid, at a $3,000 night hotel, the chance to partake in his glory and to know the seed of modern day royalty. Unfortunately, the maid was unaware of the Socialist Entitlement benefits that extended to her and she considered his bequeathing nothing more than rape, sodomy, and sexual assault. Now, he is in jail, without bond, over a simple misunderstanding. He was totally unaware of wrong doing, since he was on the runway in first class section of a jet headed to France, when he was arrested. Apparently, similar indiscretions in the past, where women were confused as to his generosity, have been excused by the IMF.

Strauss-Kahn is scheduled to run for President of France under the Socialist banner and the French Press is already excusing his behavior and making the assertion that his abilities far outweigh the hysterical pleadings of a common maid. From Claude Askolovitch, editor of Le Journal du Dimanche:

The affair may well be ridiculous compared with the destiny of the world, but it touches the heart of the culture of the American government and the IMF, It is less about sexual puritanism . . . than a deep horror of lies and conflict of interest.

Now there are even more extenuating circumstances that contribute to the hypocrisy. The IMF has been lecturing Greece and other states dedicated to profligacy, about the need to cut back and live according to their means. Some Europeans might find it a little odd that members of the IMF stay in $3,000 night hotels and fly first class on trans Atlantic flights are lecturing the lower classes on how to live within their means; the egalitarian mask of central planning is becoming transparent and the ugliness beneath is rooted in corruption and entitlement. Self-indulgent Greeks who were considering austerity, will now be considering default as a logical option; especially, when they consider the hypocritical behavior of those who lecture restraint.

From a high ranking French government official:

Strauss-Kahn is viewed as accomplished, smart and very capable. Because of that, the prevailing view seems to be, ‘Let’s hope this turns out to be nothing, because the IMF and the world really needs this guy to come through.

This sickness among leaders of the left is shared by the media and those who want to ignore the corruption; much like the family, who hides and protects the pedophile who preys on his own relatives. At this point, it becomes an all encompassing sickness of the Left.

Certainly there has been no love fest between SOS Hillary Clinton and Obama. But now, even civility may be rapidly disappearing as a frustrated and snubbed Sec’y of State declares she has no intention of a second term in the State Department in the event Obama wins a second term. There wasn’t the slightest bit of hesitation in her responses in her interview with Wolf Blitzer yesterday.

The rapid fire responses, combined with an uncharacteristic air of frustration, is unusual for what is normally a cool customer. A mutiny may have begun it’s escalation during the Egytian uprisings, when Obama was publicly demanding Mubarack’s resignation, while both Sec’y Clinton and Obama’s Cairo envoy, Frank Wisner, were emphasizing that Mubarack’s presence was required for a smooth transition.

Seething about coverage that made it look as if the administration were protecting a dictator and ignoring the pleas of the youths of Cairo, the president “made it clear that this was not the message we should be delivering,” said one official who was present. He told Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to take a hard line with his Egyptian counterpart, and he pushed Senator John Kerry to counter the message from Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Wisner when he appeared on a Sunday talk show the next day.

What may also be more than coincidental timing, yesterday’s Blitzer interview comes on the heels of Clinton advisor and confidant, Anne-Marie Slaughter’s tongue lashing of Obama the day before. A few days earlier, former POTUS, Bill Clinton, was echoing his wife’s support for a no-fly zone over Libya.

“They are not asking for ground troops, they don’t want us to get in the fight,” Clinton said of the insurgents at a conference in New York yesterday on the status of women. “Nobody wants to see an arms race in Libya, but it’s not a fair fight.”

Clinton, who is married to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, said he was “sympathetic” to the Obama administration’s desire not to enforce a no-fly zone alone. Clinton noted that similar efforts had worked in the past, both in Bosnia and Iraq during his own presidency.

The U.S. is spending $110 billion a year to fight wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Clinton said, and should be able to contribute to enforcing an air blockade over Libya.

“If the leaders are on television pleading for it, I think that we should do it,” Clinton said of the Libyan insurgents. He said the U.S. should say to the Libyan people, “If you want any assistance we will give it to you, and if you want us to stay home we will.”

Kind of amazing that now Democrats are calling for unleashing potential dogs of war. I do wonder how they reconcile this with their adamancy to slash the defense budget.

But the slights and snubs don’t stop there. Per Foreign Policy Magazine, Sec’y Clinton was put in an embarrassing position with French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, who was urging the Sec’y to press Obama more urgently for Libyan intervention. Clinton’s cryptic reply was, “There are difficulties.” This presented a quizzical moment for another French diplomat, who told FP:

“Frankly we are just completely puzzled. We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States.”

Obama, himself, seemed to mock Hillary at the traditional Gridiron Club Dinner speech last week.

“I’ve dispatched Hillary to the Middle East to talk about how these countries can transition to new leaders — though, I’ve got to be honest, she’s gotten a little passionate about the subject,” Obama said to laughter from the audience.

“These past few weeks it’s been tough falling asleep with Hillary out there on Pennsylvania Avenue shouting, throwing rocks at the window.”

Hillary ends her interview with CNN’s Blitzer by saying she just wanted to do her best in the remaining two years of her State Department duties. Of course, after what can be construed as a mild, but very public mutiny, Ms. Clinton may find a pink slip in the mail if Obama decides to find a more adoring replacement.

According to the Hillary insider, it may be that Ms. Clinton finally has politics out of her system and just pines simply to be a grandmother. Or perhaps, after mixed messages, public snubs and appearing powerless with other world leaders, politics has become too dirty and unrewarding… even for the Clintons.