The Huma Abedin sieve may be breaking…

Based on the fact that Walid unearthed the Saudi Manifesto that clearly identifies the force behind the work of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), the entity for which Hillary Clinton’s closest advisor – Huma Abedin – worked for twelve years as a subordinate to Abdullah Omar Naseef, it’s no surprise that a Saudi Arabian propaganda arm would publish a pro-Huma Abedin / anti-Michele Bachmann op-ed.

Mohammed Azhar Ali Khan writes, via the Saudi Gazette:

Bachmann targeted, in particular, State Department official Huma Abedin, who was born in Michigan. Bachmann said Abedin’s family had Muslim Brotherhood links. Even if this were true, would that make Abedin a threat to the US? Her parents got their doctorates from Michigan and were — her father died decades ago — respected scholars, as is her brother.

First of all, Huma being born in Michigan does not preclude her from having Muslim Brotherhood allegiances; the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) – a Muslim Brotherhood group – was founded in this country years prior to her birth. Second, while Huma’s mother is a leader within the Muslim Sisterhood, it’s critically important to understand that Huma’s ties to the Saudi Royal family are more relevant than her Brotherhood ties.

More important, Khan completely misses the point of Form 86; it is Huma’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood that should specifically disqualify her from the job she now holds!

This is a concession that shouldn’t be overlooked. Khan’s argument is that even if Huma has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, those ties shouldn’t prevent her from having a security clearance.

That’s what we call checkmate, Mr. Khan.

Ali Khan alludes to the fact that Huma’s parents “got their doctorates from Michigan”… as if that’s relevant. He then used the John McCain tactic of pointing to the non-sequiter that Huma’s father has been deceased since 1993.

As for Huma’s brother… He can be called many things but “respected scholar” should not be one of them; he served on a board with Nasseef as well as Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader.

Ali Khan then wades into even more ludicrous waters…

Dr. Jack Shaheen, professor emeritus at the Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, has studied the US media’s treatment of Muslims and Arabs. He states that out of a thousand Hollywood films since 1896, only 12 portray Muslims positively while 900 depict them as “brute murderers, sleazy rapists, religious fanatics, oil-rich dimwits and abusers of women, billionaires, bombers and belly dancers and bundles in black (women in niqabs).”

Uh, Mr. Khan, how many Arabic films portray Jews or Christians positively? Yet, you seem to find western culture an amenable place to live.

Why? Could it be that you subscribe to the goals set forth by Huma’s IMMA?

Khan’s reference to “Islam bashing” is devoid of any reference to “Jew bashing”, which makes him an unequivocal hypocrite.

Moreover, Khan has ties to CAIR Canada, where he was once listed as a community leader. He was also a signatory on a 2010 document along with representatives from both the ISNA and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

It is long past time for Americans to start seeing through Huma Abedin’s defenders.