By Ben Barrack
The Washington Post editorial board exposed itself quite blatantly this week. In its coverage of the visit paid to Egyptian president Gen. Abdel Fatah el-Sisi by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the board made clear its support for the Muslim Brotherhood and its rejection of el-Sisi. At one point, it referred to the Muslim Brotherhood as “non-violent” which clearly shows the Brotherhood’s plan is being implemented.
The paper showed exactly how a Muslim Brotherhood plan to destroy America from within is executed – by the hands of Americans.
In 2004, thanks to a traffic stop in Maryland, the residence of a Muslim man with outstanding warrants was raided by the FBI. In that home, the FBI recovered several boxes of documents. One of those documents is dated May 19, 1991. Known as the Explanatory Memorandum for the Muslim Brotherhood’s plan to destroy America, the document clearly explains how it will be done. Here is perhaps the most explosive excerpt:
The key part in the screenshot above is double underlined. The plan is for the Muslim Brotherhood to help Americans destroy America. In this case, the Washington Post Editorial Board represents exactly the kind of Americans the Brotherhood is using.
The pro-Muslim Brotherhood bias of the Board is obvious right out of the gate, as the paper puts Hillary’s name in ALL CAPS:
BOTH HILLARY CLINTON and Donald Trump met at the United Nations this week with Abdel Fatah al-Sissi, the general who led the military coup against Egypt’s elected government in 2013 and has since overseen the harshest repression the country has known in a half-century. The candidates’ face time with him was unmerited and ill-advised, considering that Mr. Sissi, in addition to overseeing the extrajudicial killing or disappearance of thousands of Egyptians and the imprisonment of tens of thousands, has directed a vicious campaign against U.S. influence in his country.
There was, however, a notable difference in the way that Mr. Trump and Ms. Clinton handled the strongman — one that reveals a substantive and important divide on foreign policy. Mr. Trump’s post-meeting statement heaped uncritical praise on Mr. Sissi, thanking him “and the Egyptian people for what they have done in defense of their country” and promising to invite the coup-maker for an official visit to Washington.
In contrast, Ms. Clinton, while paying tribute to U.S.-Egyptian cooperation on counterterrorism, “emphasized the importance of respect for rule of law and human rights to Egypt’s future progress,” according to her statement. She also “raised concerns about prosecution of Egyptian human rights organizations and activists.” In other words, while Mr. Trump handed a pass to this deeply problematic U.S. ally, Ms. Clinton put him on notice that his abuses will not be ignored if she becomes president.
It’s perfectly clear why the Muslim Brotherhood would prefer Hillary over Trump as well. For starters, Hillary’s closest adviser – Huma Abedin – is a Muslim Brotherhood operative. At this point in time, Huma may just be the most powerful Muslim in the United States. If Hillary is elected president, she most certainly will be. Huma is a lock to become Hillary’s Valerie Jarrett or even Secretary of State.
The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank is also carrying out the Muslim Brotherhood’s plan to use Americans to destroy America.
When former U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy held a press conference in August of 2012 to make the case against Huma, the Washington Post’s Milbank was there to defend her. Listen to how Milbank attempts to diminish Huma’s role with Hillary Clinton, implying that she’s little more than someone who picks out her boss’s suits.
In light of Hillary’s email scandal, it’s beyond obvious that Huma was very involved in policy implementation and did far more than pick out clothes and handbags for Hillary.
Speaking of Huma, she likely would have become the first lady of Manhattan if her husband Anthony Weiner hadn’t twice torpedoed his New York City mayoral run by sexting. Such a post for Huma definitely would have carried significant symbolism. As a Muslim Brotherhood agent, Huma would have represented the very city the Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia attacked on September 11, 2001. Huma has very clear ties to both. Her mother is one of 63 leaders in the Muslim Sisterhood and runs a Muslim university in Saudi Arabia, where Huma grew up.
During Weiner’s mayoral run in 2013, the scuttlebutt was that Huma wanted him to have the job more than he did. This would make sense in light of the Muslim Brotherhood takeover plan and the symbolic victory it would mean for Huma.
Even on her twitter page, Huma brashly displays a photo of the Manhattan skyline, which must be far more about conquest than love.
Even the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler is executing the Muslim Brotherhood’s plan. Kessler, the writer who is best known for issuing Pinocchios to claims that are false, issued four Pinocchios (the worst score) to claims that Huma is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. In issuing such a rating, Kessler actually revealed himself as being worthy of four Pinocchios.
The 1991 Explanatory Memorandum was quite possibly inspired by a visit to the U.S. by the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi in 1989. While in the U.S., al-Qaradawi laid out a 30-year plan for the takeover of the U.S. by the Brotherhood. The plan was to begin in 1990 and come to fruition in 2020.
Huma is clearly becoming a major figure in that plan. Should Hillary become president, Huma will have four years to complete the plan. Entities like the Washington Post are actively helping to carry it out.
The Washington Post Editorial Board is led by Fred Hiatt – who actually is worried that Trump will destroy the U.S. Constitution. The Board is comprised primarily of leftists like MSNBC commentator and homosexual Jonathan Capehart. Clearly lost on Capehart is that by supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, he is supporting a group that would have him killed if it had its way. Another board member is Charles Lane, whose moderate persona is clearly belied by his name being associated with supporting the Muslim Brotherhood.