Who paid for Anthony Weiner's wedding?

You've got to hand it to Anthony Weiner and Human Abedin; they seem to have a real knack for getting other people to pay for their lavish lifestyle. Not only do they live in a $3.3 million Manhattan apartment owned by a Hillary supporter, they appear to have had their lavish wedding (estimated cost: a quarter million bucks!) paid for somebody else. And because Weiner failed to disclose this gift, he may face criminal sanctions. Charles C. Johnson of the Daily Caller reports:

Anthony Weiner may have violated federal law when he failed to disclose his lavish six-figure wedding in his financial disclosure forms, says a government accountability group.
Ethics watchdog group National Legal and Policy Center examined the federal Financial Disclosure Reports for both Weiner and long-suffering wife Huma Abedin for 2010, the year of their wedding.
The cost for the ceremony was at least $100,000 but probably ran closer to $250,000 including all accommodations, clothing and extras. Neither Weiner nor Abedin had the resources to pay for the ultra-expensive wedding, yet neither recorded gifts on their Financial Disclosure Reports for that year.

Keep in mind that at the time, Weiner served in Congress, and Huma was a top aide to the Secretary of State - both positions involving sensitive information and potential influence. Undisclosed gifts to people in such positions raise the specter of potential bribery in any circumstances.

There is potential trouble ahead:

Even though there is an exemption for gifts from personal friends, the Ethics in Government Act requires written permission from the House Ethics Committee for any Congressman getting gifts worth more than $250. Weiner had no such written permission.

I cannot find any public records.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/10/nyregion/10weiner.html

Matt McKenna, a Clinton spokesman, told The Associated Press that Mr. Clinton would conduct the ceremony and was authorized to do so, but did not elaborate.

Then there is this:

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/jamie-glazov/abedinweiner-a-marriage-made-by-hillary-clinton-and-the-muslim-brotherhood/

Abedin/Weiner: A Marriage Made by Hillary Clinton and the Muslim Brotherhood?

Frontpage: Robert Spencer, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

I would like to talk to you today about Anthony Weiner’s marriage to his Muslim Brotherhood wife, Huma Abedin.

How is it exactly that a Muslim woman connected to the Muslim Brotherhood is married to a Jewish man? Something is not fitting here, right?

Spencer: Jamie, Islamic law prohibits a Muslim woman from marrying a non-Muslim man. A Muslim man may marry a non-Muslim woman, but not the other way around. This is yet another manifestation of Islamic supremacism: the idea is that a wife will become a member of her husband’s household, and the children will follow the religion of the father. Thus, Muslim men marrying non-Muslim women ultimately enriches the Islamic community, while the non-Muslim community must forever be made to diminish.

Consequently, when a non-Muslim man begins a relationship with an observant Muslim woman, he is usually pressured to convert to Islam, and such conversion is made a condition of the marriage. Of course, laws are often honored in the breach, and this is not always true. So while we know that Huma Abedin’s parents were devout and observant Muslims — indeed, her father was an imam — we don’t know what exactly is going on with her marriage to Anthony Weiner.

Certainly the most likely scenario is that Weiner did convert to Islam, as Abedin’s mother, a professor in Saudi Arabia, would almost certainly have insisted that he do so. Weiner has made no public statement of this conversion, but since it would almost certainly have cost him politically if he had announced it, this silence is not any indication that he didn’t actually convert.

However, it is also possible, given the recent scandal involving Weiner’s apparently frequent and sexually charged contact with other women, that the rumors that the Abedin/Weiner union is a political marriage of convenience are true. After all, in 2008, Hillary Clinton was running for president. There were widespread insinuations that she was involved in a romantic and/or sexual relationship with Abedin, her ever-present personal assistant. Those whisperings persisted into Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. Abedin’s 2010 marriage to Weiner, at which Bill Clinton presided, put those rumors to rest.

In Islamic law, a Muslim must officiate a marriage ceremony; hence if Bill Clinton was the only one officiating, the marriage was not valid according to Islamic law. Huma Abedin would undoubtedly have known that. Thus, if no Muslim was officiating along with Clinton, Weiner would not have had to convert to Islam, as the whole thing was a charade from the outset, apparently entered into with the full awareness of all parties concerned.

(snip)

“I cannot find any public records.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/10/nyregion/10weiner.html

Matt McKenna, a Clinton spokesman, told The Associated Press that Mr. Clinton would conduct the ceremony and was authorized to do so, but did not elaborate.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks Maggief. Marriages are a matter of public record and civil/state law, are they not? If you can’t find it, nobody can.

Bill Clinton spokesman said Bill was “authorized.” Daily Caller, point blank, says he was not!

“The event was officiated by Bill Clinton, even though according to state law Clinton could not legally perform the marriage.”

How odd that the Daily Caller just drops this in their column, with no other comment or substantiation. Even odder (well...maybe not) that no journalist ever fact checked at the time of the wedding.

Muslim, not Muslim, are they legally married? We know they did file with the IRS as legally married. Hmmm.. What goes?

Another mystery. Some states grant temporary one-day licenses to perform weddings. I don't see that New York is one of them.

So either Clinton has a minister's license, or the actual marriage was performed by another official and the Clinton ceremony was just for show, or they aren't legally married.

Presumably it's the second -- somebody else actually performed the legal marrying on paper and Clinton was just there for show -- but why didn't the Clinton spokesmen just say so and why didn't the reporter look for an answer?

There's less in the Muslim angle. I can't see either of them converting. If either felt they needed to, they probably wouldn't have gotten married. Spencer is using the No True Scotsman fallacy, though in this case, "No True Muslim" is more like it.

"Interesting observation from Spaulding here on the allowability of a Muslim consorting with a Jew to further Islamic objectives."

Let's hope many more begin to pay attention to the Quran Madame Dufarge. Most of Obama’s foreign policy decisions make perfect sense when viewed in the context of Obama’s indebtedness to the Saudi Family, including the mentorship described by the paragon of honesty (and I'm not being facetious), Percy Sutton, who innocently described Alwaleed bin-Talal’s patronage of the young Obama via converted Black Panther founder, Khalid al-Mansour nee. Don Warden.

My comment about “consortium” with non-Muslims came from one of the many books I've been reading to learn more about Islam. I try to be careful to avoid the traps set by Obama supporters by providing citations.

I noticed today that Robert Spencer provided an analogous explanation today at http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/07/29/why-it-may-be-easy-for-huma-abedin-to-stand-by-her-man/?singlepage=true The article “Why It May be Easy for Huma Abedin To Stand By Her Man”, examines legal marriage from the other perspective, and one more Westerners should understand. Nonbeliever women have the status of whores. This is a lesson female reporters learned in Egypt recently. They were raped by believers and that behavior is condoned by Islamic law.

It sounds crazy to us, but it is time for the West to learn that there is a belief system almost entirely in conflict with our Constitution and our morality. In Norway ALL rapes reported over the last ten years were committed by “Asians”, an aphorism for Muslims. These rapists are seldom if ever drug addled or sexual perverts. They have the permission of Allah to rape “whores.” Huma is reportedly and observant Muslim, and thus accepts her husband's dalliances with whores as perfectly normal.

We may wonder how such and attractive and strong woman would accept a man we regard as a weak sexual deviant, with apparently little concern for the feelings of his wife? Muslims do not have a Dr. Phil or a feminist movement to support Huma. Our media wouldn't dare criticize Islam. They wouldn't dare acknowledge what Prime Minister Erdogan intones frequently, “There is no such thing as “radical Islam.” “There is one Islam.” Huma, and John Brennan, and the Zawahiri family, and Grover Norquist, also married to a Muslim, and Norquist’s buddy, Suhail Khan, near the pinnacle of CPAC and the Republican leadership, are proponents, probably members, of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is in conflict with our society, and, in great detail, with our Constitution. Time for people to learn.

Is Obama a Muslim? Gadhafi said he is. Gadhafi, Mubarak, Assad, and sever other leaders of North African nations, didn't accept direct oversight by the Muslim Brotherhood, and Barack, with Brennan, and Hillary/Huma, managed their removal and deaths. We don't need, and will almost certainly never get a direct answer, as Barack retires to a lifetime of golf and the accoutrements of a Saudi Prince.

Bin-Talal’s candor explaining the risk to Saudi Arabia of “fracking” is typical. Remember, it was Bin-Talal whose legal counsel al-Mansour donated twenty million dollars to Harvard just before Obama was “admitted”. It was Vernon Jarrett who wrote a Chicago Tribune article about the twenty million dollar “education” fund being managed by Khalid al-Masnour to provide educations for US black youngsters. The article was written the year al-Mansour mentions having met Barack at Occidental, and the year Barack entered Occidental, 1979.

Our government is being directed by advocates of, or their useful idiots, Sunni Islam promoting imposition of Sharia law. I strongly encourage anyone interested enough to learn more about the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia to take the time to listen to twenty year CIA operations officer, now retired, in part because the CIA could not permit her
candor, Clare Lopez, here on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU13D4ZPtQM

Thank you for that link to the Robert Spencer piece; evil stalks the earth and its name is Islam.

You're an astute observer and obviously have a knack for pulling apart the threads of their awful tapestry.

I haven't time to view the Clare Lopez link tonight, but certainly will tomorrow. Thank you for that, also.

I agree that Obama's actions are consistent with indebtedness to the Saudis, and also remember Percy Sutton's revealing bin-Talal's patronage of the boy king. The lefties were tripping all over themselves to marginalize him as senile and the issue disappeared down the memory hole.

We're engaged in a terrible struggle to preserve western culture and I'm not sure whether after years of leftist indoctrination that the will or the courage for us to triumph still exists. We've pretty much turned the corner from being a freedom-loving people to being born slaves.

I see this disengagement in my family and friends and wonder how much more horrible it must get before the scales fall from their eyes, if ever.

It's entirely possible that we face a thousand years of darkness.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.