Hillary Clinton didn’t just invoke the language of Islamists while giving a speech to a national black sorority last night. She used a word that her former deputy chief of staff, who is Muslim, is likely quite familiar with. Huma Abedin’s mother is a prominent leader with the Muslim Sisterhood. Clinton, who like Obama, is herself a Saul Alinsky acolyte, used this language in a speech obviously designed to continue rubbing raw the sores of discontent over the George Zimmerman verdict.
She said she knew this week has “brought heartache, deep painful heartache” to families in the wake of the not guilty verdict in George Zimmerman’s trial last Saturday.
Clinton also referenced U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcement Monday that the Justice Department will review the case.
“Yesterday I know you heard from the Attorney General about the next steps from the Justice Department and the need for a national dialogue,” she said. “As we move forward as we must I hope this sisterhood will continue to be a force for justice and understanding.”
As for that part about “national dialogue”, former Ground Zero mosque imam – and stealth jihadist – Feisal Abdul Rauf, practically used the call for ‘interfaith dialogue’ as his battle cry to get that mosque built.
In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood’s political arm is called the “Freedom and Justice” party. As we learned with the ouster of Mohammed Mursi, whose wife is a co-leader of the Muslim Sisterhood with Saleha, the words ‘freedom’ and ‘justice’ were actually antithetical to what the party actually stands for. Similarly, when Hillary calls for ‘justice’, you can bet your bottom dollar that she’s espousing injustice in the furtherance of an agenda, which is exactly what Alinsky taught.
In the case of Trayvon Martin’s death, there was a trial. Evidence was heard, witnesses were called, testimony was given, Exhibits were introduced, and a jury delivered a verdict. Yet, just three days after that verdict, Hillary is out demanding ‘justice’ for Trayvon and calling on a ‘sisterhood’ to achieve it through ‘dialogue’.
Conversely, when it comes to the deaths of Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty, the four Americans murdered in Benghazi (all white, by the way), no one was found accountable by the Hillary-commissioned Accountability Review Board (ARB). The families still don’t have answers; there has been no trial (impeachment / Senate trial); evidence is extremely hard to come by; getting witnesses to testify is like pulling teeth; and not only has there been no jury but there’s been no grand jury convened (impeachment proceedings).
So while the Martin family may not like the results of the Zimmerman trial, at least there was a trial. In the case of the families of four dead Americans, there have been no ‘results’ – except a whitewashed report that found no one culpable.
Ahhh, what difference at this point does it make?