Over at PJM, Roger Kimball considers the increasingly apparent fact that even "many ostensibly conservative organs are shying away" from covering the Huma Abedin story, and declares himself perplexed. He goes on to  cite the Washington Examiner's decision to spike my recent syndicated column that mentioned Abedin.

Roger writes:

In a disturbing column yesterday, West details the story of the Washington Examiner’s spiking a column she wrote arguing that Bachmann and her colleagues were right to call on the Inspectors General to investigate Huama Abedin and the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood on US government policy.

Why did the Examiner spike the column? Because, David Freddoso, the editor said, “there is no hint of proof that [Abedin] has done anything improper.”

Well isn’t that nice. But when it comes to distributing government security clearances, you don’t have to have done something improper to be denied one.  West quotes Andy McCarthy on this score:  “A person is not required to have done anything wrong to be denied a high-ranking government position, or more immediately, the security clearance allowing access to classified information that is necessary to function in such a job. There simply need be associations, allegiances, or interests that establish a potential conflict of interest.”  And those associations, allegiances, and interests exist in florid profusion in the case of Huma Abedin.

In the column the Examiner doesn’t want you to see, West quotes Rep. Bachmann:  “For us to raise issues about a highly based U.S. government official with known immediate family connections to foreign extremist organizations is not a question of singling out Ms. Abedin. In fact, these questions are raised by the U.S. government of anyone seeking a security clearance.”

I think West is probably correct when she speculates that “the bit about Abedin is the only piece of this complex story most readers have heard of. It has come to dominate and distort the response to a rational and patriotic effort to bring more transparency to government decision-making in order to ensure that it remains Muslim Brotherhood-free.”  Is that too much to ask?

So far, the answer among our elites, our powers-that-be, our Establishments Left and Right, is yes -- much too much to ask, or even think.about asking. Their see-no-Islam outlook has now morphed into a See-no-Muslim-Brotherhood one, too. This, of course, keeps them in compliance with internalized strictures of"PC" (Marxism) which now have a hard new Islamic overlay. Die first, but mustn't offend. Reflexively self-censored, the postmodern conservative and liberal alike can delight in deconstructing Huma as a non-security risk. Woe to anyone who musters facts that prove them wrong.

Then again, as far as this brave new consensus is concerned, what's "right"? What's "wrong"? What's a "national security risk"?