Jon Stewart really scored a hit of scorn on Michele Bachmann -- and cleverly showed how she has a closer connection to Muslim terrorism than does Huma Abedin.
Here's Bachmann's allegations about Abedin's connection:
1. Decades ago, Abedin's now-deceased father, a professor of social sciences in Saudi Arabia, headed the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs at a university in Saudi Arabia.
2. The institute had the support of another academic, who also happened to be the former Secretary General of a second, totally separate organization, the Muslim World League.
3. Someone has said that the Muslim World League has a history of possibly having had some dubious connection to the Muslim Brotherhood.
That's it. From Huma Abedin, to her deceased father, to his professional associate, to another activity of that man, in an organization that may have had an association to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Ergo -- could the logic be clearer? -- Huma Abedin is a prime suspect -- guilt by association -- and must be investigated as a Muslim conspirator infiltrating the highest level of our government. She's a top assistant to our Secretary of State, fer cryin' out loud.
Now here's where Stewart's brilliance comes in.
He has investigated and found that Bachman herself has an even closer link to Muslim terrorists than Huma Abedin.
1. In 2008 Bachmann received a $1000 political contribution from the HSBC bank.
2. The HSBC bank has been caught out laundering money for Al Qaeda.
Man !!! You see. We just can't be too vigilant. That Bachmann woman should be investigated. She might be very dangerous. Those stupid things she says? It's all part of her cover, trying to appear stupid and bigoted so we won't suspect what she's really up to.
Get rid of her !!!!!
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Even the Anti-Defamation League has joined in the chorus of those condemning Bachmann's, et al "guilt by association" charges.
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking:
ReplyDeleteWhy did a British bank make a political contribution to a U. S. Congressional candiate in 2008?
And why did her campaign accept a contribution from a corporation that had already in 2003 been investigated for money laundering for terrorist groups? The bank was not cleared of wrong-doing, and the allegations remained. However, no action was taken by regulators.
Funny you should ask: It turns out Bachmann is a member of the House Financial Services Committee. Wonder if this has anything to do with bank regulations and their enforcement?
Just a thought.