The Huma-Weiner Scandal Is More Than Just Casual 'Sext'
Oh, what the flies on many walls must know, not to mention those more-electronic flies (i. e. bugs) of multiple intelligence services—Russian, Chinese and Iranian, to name but three!
On top of Hillary Clinton's infamous sieve-like email server we (and they) now have the remnants of the Huma-Hillary-Anthony ménage à trois to chew on: who knew and knows what about whom?
The permutations are endless, but one thing is clear. Anthony wanted out. He probably has for a long time. How else to explain his many self-exposures on Twitter, this last, and supposedly ultimate one, sending a tweet of himself quasi in flagrante with his four-year old son sleeping beside him to a woman he never even met? Testosterone poisoning, sure, but even more a cri de coeur to his wife: lemme outta here aw-reddi!
Wanting to get caught is, of course, the coward's way out, but maybe, in this case, the only way. Life was much more convenient for Huma and Hillary with house-husband Anthony in the picture to do the childcare. It allowed the two powerful women to function without interference, as Huma herself practically admitted in Vogue. Now, things will be different. Nevertheless, it's worth noting that even after so many humiliating front pages on the NY Post, including this allegedly final one, Huma has only announced their "separation," not divorce.
That Hillary and Huma portray themselves as battlers for women's rights is only one, particularly ludicrous, aspect of this situation. But what exactly is the nature of this duopoly? Whether it is physical is almost beside the point because the enmeshment is extraordinary.
The relationship had its beginnings when young Huma came to work at the White House in 1996, not inconsequentially not long after Monica Lewinsky arrived. This was obviously a time of great vulnerability for Hillary. No wonder she and Huma developed a bond.
But who was Huma? In a recent article, Paul Sperry—who has become something of an Abedinologist—describes the maternal background of the young woman who was born in the USA but spent most of her childhood in Saudi Arabia:
As The Post first reported, Huma’s mom edits the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, which has suggested that America had 9/11 coming to it, because of “sanctions” and “injustices” the US allegedly imposed on the Muslim world.
The journal also opposed women’s rights as un-Islamic, arguing that “ ‘empowerment’ of women does more harm than benefit.”
But that’s not all.
In 1999, Saleha translated and edited a book titled “Women in Islam: A Discourse in Rights and Obligations,” published by the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs. Written by her Saudi colleague Fatima Naseef, the book explains that the stoning and lashing of adulterers, the killing of apostates, sexual submissiveness and even female genital mutilation are all permissible practices under Sharia law.
“The wife should satisfy her husband’s desire for sexual intercourse,” the book states on Page 202, even if she is not in the mood. “She has no right to abstain except for a reasonable cause or legal prohibition.”
But getting in the mood may be difficult. The book says female genital mutilation is permissible: “Circumcision for women is allowed.”
Genital mutilation? Cue the Weiner jokes, but the substance here is serious.
Yes, this is the viewpoint of the Muslim Brotherhood, with which both Huma's parents were allied. The young Huma, while in the White House, was writing for the magazine her mother edited.
Coincidentally or not (you decide), this is the same group—the Muslim Brotherhood—whose control of Egypt, under Morsi, was backed by the Obama/Clinton administration under the grounds the MB was ultimately reformist. That turned out be as untrue as it gets. Morsi was plotting for total control in a manner yet more fascist than his Islamist cohort Erdogan, if such a thing were possible. The Obama/Clinton administration, as we know, had already abjured the old secular U.S. ally Mubarak as it would, later, Morsi's also-secular successor al-Sisi.
Is it an accident that the despot that Hillary chose to attack and ultimately urge Obama to destroy was the furthest thing from an Islamist—Muammar Gaddafi? That cleared the way for the Islamists (ISIS, etc.) to move in on Libya. To Obama and Clinton, only Islamist dictators are permissible.
Why is that? Does the presence of Huma have anything to do with it? How could that happen—she married a Jewish guy. Or is the Jewish guy the ultimate beard? I've always thought the Abedin-Weiner union had the air of an arranged marriage, Clinton-style. It was political, not romantic. But even if it was, no one could have guess what happened next.
I'm not suggesting some covert Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy is behind all this, although the MB has profited. I'm suggesting something stranger—a bizarre cocktail of greed and ambition justified by the most tired of leftwing ideology with the decline of the West as the result, the sort of unintended consequence.
Against this background, we watch the dissolution of the pathetic Weiner-Abedin marriage. Where is Tolstoy when we need him?
Roger L. Simon is a prize-winning novelist, Academy Award-nominated screenwriter and co-founder of PJ Media. His most recent book is—I Know Best: How Moral Narcissism Is Destroying Our Republic, If It Hasn't Already. You can read an excerpt here. You can see a brief interview about the book with the Wall Street Journal’s Opinion Journal here. You can hear an interview about the book with Mark Levin here. You can order the book here.