Release Huma Abedin's security file!

Michele Bachmann upset the press again. Strange. The news media love handsome movie stars who daringly expose government corruption; why does the press now circle the wagons to pretend that government corruption cannot really exist?

You see, Rep. Bachmann, R-Minn., along with her House colleagues Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, Trent Franks, R-Ariz., Tom Rooney, R-Fla., and Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., wrote the inspectors general of the departments of State, Defense, Justice and Homeland Security, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, to ask for a national security probe of possible Muslim Brotherhood ties in the administration.

The concerns about possible Muslim Brotherhood influences riled the news mavens, and not only them but Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who proceeded to censure Rep. Bachmann. Yet she and her allies questioned security procedures and levied no charges.

History shows it is entirely reasonable to be on guard against foreign influence in the U.S. government. After all, Harry Hopkins, a Soviet agent, was FDR’s closest White House aide, Soviet agent Lauchlin Currie was another top FDR aide, while Soviet agent Harry Dexter White was a senior Treasury Department official. And not until the release of the Venona papers in 1995 was it certain that the Rosenbergs were indeed Soviet spies. In fact, our U.S. State Department has a track record of security malfeasance, for example, having given high security clearances in the post-World War II era not only to Nazi scientists, but to hundreds of brutal Communists and Nazis known to have massacred millions.

So, why the hate-Bachmann rants? Perhaps her reply to Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., documenting the naive governmental disregard for Islamic inroads holds a clue. There Rep. Bachmann quoted Hillary Clinton confiding to the secretary general of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) that “some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” could restrain Americans who might protest the OIC’s planned “Islamophobia” speech censorship.

Yes, the public deserves real “whistleblower” history.

For example, Otto Otepka, the U.S. State Department’s deputy director of the office of security in the 1950s and 1960s, was pressured and shamed for denying clearances to Communist sympathizers. John Loftus, former U.S. government prosecutor and Army intelligence officer, was pressured and shamed for revealing the State Department’s clearance of key Nazis. And what government agency protected the 9/11 victims in 2001?

Three months before 9/11, FBI Agent Robert Wright Jr predicted that the FBI failure to investigate domestic terrorists would cause more American deaths. Earlier, veteran FBI Agent Gary Aldrich had exposed the Clinton White House staff’s sabotage of his assignment, which was to conduct background checks of those seeking top-level government jobs – and there are many more.

Yet now our managed media obstructs public access to national security issues by singling out Rep. Bachmann for daring to inquire into dangerous lapses in government agencies! The hate speech against Bachmann counts on our forgetting the blood-soaked jihad revelries throughout the Muslim world after the cowardly massacre of almost 3,000 unprotected civilian Americans on 9/11.

The press subverts their craft, by hiding the evidential substance of the five letters sent by Rep. Bachmann and her colleagues. Her 12-page response should be studied by anyone interested in truth and national security.

Bachmann says, “The letters my colleagues and I sent on June 13 to the inspectors general … and the follow-up letter I wrote to Rep. Ellison on July 13 – are unfortunately being distorted.” She identifies “serious national security concerns” regarding “the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical groups’ access to top Obama administration officials.”

The Muslim Brotherhood, incidentally, was founded in Egypt in 1928. Its motto reads, “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Quran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

In their letter, Bachmann and her colleagues questioned the inspectors general about the direct influence within the intelligence community of Muslim Brotherhood operatives. They explained that the U.S. government in federal court has established that the group’s mission in the U.S. is “destroying the Western civilization from within.” The members went on to request that the respective offices of the inspectors general conduct a formal investigation of the extent to which Muslim Brotherhood-tied individuals or entities are involved.

“The national security of our country depends on getting straight answers from the inspectors general to the questions we posed in these letters,” explained Bachmann. “The Muslim Brotherhood is not shy about their call for jihad against the United States. We seek answers through these letters because we will not tolerate this group and its affiliates holding positions of power in our government or influencing our nation’s leaders.”

Said Rep. Gohmert, “Evidence indicates that this administration continues to bow before groups associated with the goal of ‘destroying Western civilization from within.’ … Our enemies have been identified; now we need to know what they have done to our ability to protect ourselves.”

Said Rooney, “The Muslim Brotherhood openly calls for violence against the United States, but we’re learning that this organization may be infiltrating our ranks, even within our military. We need our top security agencies to investigate … what impact that has on our national security.”

Said Westmoreland, “We must always stay vigilant when fighting against those who want to destroy our way of life. … [We] cannot ignore the Muslim Brotherhood and must look into their operations and membership with the seriousness that is necessary in order to root them out of our government.”

These “Free Five” serve on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (Bachmann, Rooney and Westmoreland), the Armed Services Committee (Franks and Rooney) and the Judiciary Committee (Franks and Gohmert). Additionally, Gohmert is the vice chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.

Instead of doing their investigative job, the press and certain GOP peers shame the congresswoman and then play the “damsel in distress” card about Ms. Huma Abedin, a top aide to Secretary of State Clinton. This would deflect attention from the letters’ list of questionable people and agency fiascos. In their joint “Letter to the Deputy Inspector General,” June 13, 2012, the five legislators questioned Ms. Abedin connections to the Muslim Brotherhood because:

“… Huma Abedin, has three family members – her late father, her mother and her brother – connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations.

Why are some Republican peers and the press fixated on one name in one paragraph in one letter? A cynic might think the hysterical defense of Ms. Abedin was to dodge security issues raised by the legislators. Ms. Abedin is a practicing Muslim, wed to an “infidel,” an adulterous Jewish Democrat. As far as I understand Islam, such a union is still criminal, unless it meets some unusual conditions.

So a closer look at Ms. Abedin, who became a White House aide to the then-first lady Hillary Clinton in 1996 and now works for Ms. Clinton at the State Department, is warranted. In 2011 Abedin’s brand new X-rated husband, Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., caught sending pornography to a college lass, along with other treacheries, finally resigned. (In the real world, sinful politicians are sitting ducks for blackmail.) One New York Times comment about the Abedin/Weiner expose wrote their pregnancy announcement would “deflect attention, try for sympathy” for the “expectant mother and fetus.”

Now, headlines! WND reports Ms. Abedin “worked on the editorial board of a Saudi-financed Islamic think tank alongside a Muslim extremist [Abdullah Omar Naseef] accused of financing al-Qaida fronts.” Moreover, says WND, “Naseef is secretary-general of the Muslim World League, an Islamic charity known to have spawned terrorist groups, including one declared by the U.S. government to be an official al-Qaida front.”

Is that the reason Ms. Abedin’s “family connections” are forbidden territory? For my U.S. Department of Justice grant in 1983, my entire family was investigated. Did the press verify if this highly influential official was properly vetted prior to employment in a security position? If yes, clarify the entire debacle by publishing her security file. If not, this is another bait and switch; shielding a “lady” to deflect from administrative collusion – or indifference – to radical Islamic dangers within our government.

In “Questions about Huma Abedin,” Andrew C. McCarthy notes that inquiring about a State Department adviser’s possible ties to the Muslim Brotherhood “is neither contrived or weightless – like when the left wanted to keep Samuel Alito off the Supreme Court because, 40 years ago, he was a member of ‘Concerned Alumni of Princeton.’” So far, however, McCarthy adds, “no one is accusing Huma Abedin of a crime.”

No government official should be off-limits to inspection. It turns out that the Transportation Security Administration’s “Alien Flight Student Program” was training 25 aliens, most illegal. They received flight training at a Boston-area school without “necessarily getting a security background check.” This should remind every American, including the news media and certain senators and congressmen who should know better, that “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”