Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin was assistant editor for a radical Muslim journal which wrote against gay couples and claimed some women are “asking to be raped”

  Two of the major issues Hillary Clinton is campaigning on are women’s rights and LGBT rights, however it turns out the former Secretary of State’s most trusted adviser, Huma Abedin, was the assistant editor for a radical Muslim journal which often expressed a contrary and inflammatory position on these issues, in addition to blaming the United States for the September 11th terrorist attack. (In the interest of clarity I am using the term radical as a qualifying adjective to distinguish between extremist Muslims and moderate Muslims, I am no way suggesting that all Muslims are radicals. I feel this should go without saying however there seems to be a general lack of reading comprehension in the United States, at least on this issue with the left, because every time I use the term I am accused of lumping them all together.)

  Here is more:

Human Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s longest and reportedly most loyal aide, served as assistant editor at a radical Muslim journal for twelve years. The journal defended Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women and, while Abedin edited the publication, an article called the United States’ actions in the Middle East a “time bomb” leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

The article blamed the United States’ “spiral of violence” for “building up intense anger and hostility within the pressure cooker,” which was strengthened by “various kinds of injustices and sanctions.” This created a “time bomb that had to explode and explode it did on September 11, changing in its wake the life and times of the very community and the people it aimed to serve,” the article read, according to the  New York Post.

  Here is more about the journal’s position on how western women are asking to be raped:

“the journal ran an article headlined “Women’s Rights Are Islamic Rights.” The article attacked a broad range of liberal and feminist ideas, from homosexuality to more revealing dress and even women in the workforce.

“Pushing [mothers] out into the open labor market is a clear demonstration of a lack of respect for womanhood and motherhood,” the article declared. It added that less modest clothing ushered in by women’s liberation “directly translates into unwanted results of sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility and indirectly promote violence against women.” The Post‘s Paul Sperry summarized this, writing, “In other words, sexually liberated women are just asking to be raped.”

  Here is what the journal said about single moms and gay couples who adopt:

The article also argued that single moms, working mothers, and gay couples with children should not be recognized as families: “A conjugal family established through a marriage contract between a man and a woman, and extended through procreation is the only definition of family a Muslim can accept.” A Saudi official with the Muslim World League authored the article, and JMMA was founded and funded by the former head of the Muslim World League.

  Christians in America have been under assault for espousing traditional family values and Hillary Clinton has been a leading voice in this attack as well as labeling the right misogynists. Remember the justified outrage when Todd Aiken talked about “legitimate rape” and women being able to will away pregnancy?

 Yet Hillary Clinton’s top aide was assistant editor of a journal which basically claimed some women were responsible for being raped and the former Secretary of State is defending Huma Abedin: 

“My understanding is that her name was simply listed on the masthead in that period,” Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said hours after The Post broke the bombshell story. “She did not play a role in editing at the publication.”

  Even if we grant this point and willingly suspend disbelief and admit Huma Abedin did not actually do anything while being an assistant editor for the radical journal it would seem to me that she was in agreement with what the journal was writing. Why else would she be associated with the journal and allow her name to be used all those years?

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium