Friday, April 12, 2013
New York Times Helping Rehabilitate Anthony Weiner? Unanswered Questions
Hat tip World Net Daily
Diana West, writing in World Net Daily, takes the New York Times to task for seemingly trying to help rehabilitate Anthony Weiner as he tries to make a political comeback. Currently, Weiner is contemplating running for mayor of New York City. West brings back the NYT's lack of mention of Huma Abedin's family connections to the Muslim Brotherhood since she was an aide-a close aide-to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/weiners-media-rehab-ignores-larger-scandal/print/
In addition to Abedin's connections to the Brotherhood, West herself fails to delve into another very curious issue. How is it that Abedin, a Muslim, from a Saudi family, in fact, is married to a Jew? Not that I have any objections. I think it is great to see Muslim women marry outside their faith. It is a freedom of choice that we cherish in America. The problem is that it is forbidden under Islam. In fact, the penalty is death. And no nationality follows a stricter form of Islam than Saudis. A marriage to a Jew would be considered especially egregious.
Is something out of whack here, and is it wrong to question what the deal is-especially when we are talking about political and diplomatic leaders?
It could very well be that Weiner converted to Islam in order to pursue his relationship and marriage to Huma. If so, that is his right. However, if that is the case than the people who would vote for him either as a congressman or mayor have a right to know given what is going on in the world today and weigh it accordingly. Perhaps, Huma has quietly converted to Judaism, and her family has gone along with it as long as she keeps quiet about it. Many Muslims insist that apostates can take this route though I still have my doubts.
Weiner and his wife are in a difficult situation (several actually), and it may be hard or even dangerous for them to discuss this issue publicly. Hopefully, Weiner will realize that there are just too many questions surrounding him and he would be better off finding another vocation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The larger issue here may be the possibility, slight or otherwise, that ol' Anthony could actually be elected as mayor of NYC.
Siarlys would probably vote for him if he could.
"Of course Gary, nobody should be allowed to run for office without making a public confession of their religious beliefs and the intimate details of their marriage."
Of course, except given what is going on the world today, unfortunately this would matter to a voter. We already know that the guy is a liar.
Well, if he is a liar, who would believe ANYTHING he said? It would probably just be a ploy to win votes anyway, right?
The notion that this would matter to a voter is the real threat to our republic. Of course there are many voters it has mattered to in many places and decades, but that doesn't mean we have to cater to bigotry as a prerequisite for office.
No elwood, I probably wouldn't vote for him, but it might come down to who he is running against. He's far too full of himself to trust in office, no matter what his religion or who he is married to.
Post a Comment