In 2012, one year after we published proof of Huma Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, it was thrust onto the national stage courtesy of Rep. Michele Bachmann. All it will take for the same to happen with Malik Obama is for a similar batch of Senators or Congressmen to do the same thing. To this point, that has not happened but we believe critical mass is not far from being achieved.
At some point, ignoring these facts will not be an option.
So far, there is only one politician (that we know of) who has publicly chimed in on the claims against Malik Obama. Since calling the claims “spot-on”, he’s clammed up.
When critical mass is reached, there will be defenders of Malik who will smear anyone who asks questions similar to those asked by Bachmann about Abedin. That’s ok. That’s always ‘phase two’. Unfortunately, most Republicans are too afraid of phase two to fight through it. When Bachmann took the Abedin scandal national, more Republicans sided with Abedin than with Bachmann.
When the Malik Obama scandal follows suit, that cannot happen. Therefore, when the details of the connections the President’s brother has to terror organizations catches fire, please watch the following Republicans and know that based on their reactions to Bachmann in 2012, which included a defense of Abedin, they should not be considered credible if they defend Malik Obama.
Senator John McCain: Need we say more? He’s been on the wrong side of every issue involving Islamic fundamentalism and has been involved in a long train of abuses.
Senator Marco Rubio: This one-time Tea Party darling wasn’t just wrong on immigration. He condemned Bachmann for asking legitimate questions about Abedin. He’s likely to do the same with Malik.
Speaker John Boehner: Instead of siding with Bachmann, Boehner referred to her questions as ‘pretty dangerous’. With all due respect sir, your defense of Stealth Jihad is what’s dangerous. Now that’s something to cry about.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner: This congressman from Wisconsin is credited with authoring the Patriot Act, which also ignores the tactics and motivations of America’s Islamic enemies.
Rep. Mike Simpson: This congressman from Idaho actually had the gall to refer to Bachmann’s questions about Abedin as ‘outrageous’. He also took it upon himself to speak for the entire Republican caucus, saying that Bachmann’s questions don’t ‘reflect the House Republican caucus’. What’s amazing is Simpson’s lack of intellectual curiosity about a matter of national security.
Rep. Richard Hanna: This guy obviously prefers the Rodney King strategy of ‘can’t we all just get along’ and doesn’t like it when politicians “take severe sides”. This mentality goes a long way in explaining why stealth (and polite) jihadists are so effective.
Rep. Mike Rogers: Despite being the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rogers inexplicably defended Abedin against Bachmann’s legitimate questions by insisting Abedin is “an American patriot”. It is for this reason that we believe his motives for looking into the Malik Obama case in Egypt may not involve an honest attempt to get to the truth, but rather an attempt to suppress it.
Senator Ron Johnson: While this Senator from Wisconsin did not defend Abedin, nor did he defend Bachmann. When the information was presented to him on a radio interview with WOGO in Cheppewa Falls, WI, he refused to discuss it and wanted to draw attention to the economy. That strategy was part of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign effort and failed miserably.
Rep. Mike Kelly: This is one Republican who is going to have a difficult time defending Malik Obama when the dam breaks. He is already on record saying the claims are “spot on”. It will be interesting to see how he reacts.