In light of the shocking claim by John Guandolo, that he has sources who claim to have witnessed Barack Obama’s nominee for CIA Director – John Brennan – convert to Islam, the issue of Huma Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood should gain more credence. In particular, let’s revisit House Speaker John Boehner’s response to a question about Bachmann, et. al. singling out Abedin.
Here is what Boehner said when asked about Bachmann’s letter to the Deputy Inspector General at State that identified Abedin for her familial ties to the Brotherhood. We’ve posted the excerpt from his response that could be considered more relevant today:
“From everything that I do know of [Abedin], she has a sterling character and I think accusations like this being thrown around are pretty dangerous.”
Dangerous to whom? Dangerous in what way? How is speech dangerous, Mr. Speaker?
Again, if Guandolo’s claim is true, we can logically conclude that the problem of infiltration is much worse than previously thought. Is this why Boehner said such accusations were “pretty dangerous”? Is he concerned about the consequences of it all coming to light?
If he is, it would seem the longer he avoids the reality, the more “dangerous” things will ultimately be.
Something ain’t right here. A recurring theme we continue to see is that when politicians don’t want the public to know something, they’re willing to appear dumber than the public. By using the word, “dangerous”, did Boehner hint at knowing more about Brotherhood infiltration than he’s letting on?
Here is Boehner last July, responding to a question about Bachmann’s letter to the State Department’s Deputy IG: