Muslim Congressman targets Michele Bachmann for raising questions about Huma and Hillary

Keith Ellison (D-MN) may be engaged in a bit of 'thou doth protest too much' relative to concerns about Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin. He's got a problem with a letter sent to the Office of the Inspector General of the State Department penned by five congressmen - led by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) - who want more information about these revelations.

From the SC Times, via Think Progress:

Rep. Keith Ellison, DFL-Minneapolis, said in a statement that he’s puzzled by Bachmann’s comments. Ellison, the first Muslim-American elected to the U.S. Congress, said he doesn’t understand why Bachmann would make such accusations through the press if she has information that’s as sensitive as she claims.

“If she has sources for this type of information, she owes it to the country to reveal them to the proper authorities, but definitely not this way,” Ellison said. “If she doesn't have this type of information, she should not be whipping up fear and hysteria about a very important matter.”

Here is the relevant excerpt from the letter to the OIG at State:

...the Department's Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin, has three family members - her late father, her mother and her brother - connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations. Her position affords her routine access to the Secretary and to policy-making.

Back to Think Progress. Check out the Bio of Huma Abedin that they posted in their attack on Bachmann:

Abedin was born in the United States, attended college at George Washington University in Washington D.C. and the popular Clinton aide is also married to former Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner (NY).

Conspicuously absent from that Bio is where Abedin resided between the time she was born in the U.S. and when she returned to attend GWU. Here is a slightly more detailed bio via Fox News Insider:

(Huma) was born to two professors in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

She moved with her Indian father and Pakistani-born mother to Saudi Arabia when she was two.

She returned to the United States to attend George Washington University.

Why would Think Progress omit that part about Saudi Arabia? Could it have something to do with the fact that Huma's mother - Saleha Abedin - was a prominent member of the Muslim Sisterhood's leadership there?

As for Huma's marriage to Anthony Weiner, Muruna very well could explain that.

Consider, if Huma's mother is Muslim Brotherhood and Huma married a Jew, two questions must be asked:

1.) Why hasn't Saleha denounced her daughter for marrying a Jew?
2.) Why hasn't Huma denounced her mother for belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood?

Stay tuned...

No, really, stay tuned...

November 5, 2008 Video: Condi Rice thrilled at election of Obama

The morning after the election of Barack Obama in 2008, Condoleezza Rice said that "As an African American," she was "especially proud" that he was elected. She also referred to Obama as "inspirational" and said she was "certain that he will continue to be". What is striking today was her apparent inability then to see who Barack Obama truly was. So many of us knew it and Condi came across as incapable of seeing it. If she truly understood how destructive Obama would be, it's hard to imagine her coming across as this happy. Again, that goes to judgment.

Some of this should be excused as diplomatic statesmanship but, nonetheless, Condi Rice is on record as being totally wrong about Obama. She also appeared to be a bit too gleeful; it seems to communicate a certain degree of willful blindness because of the historical significance of Obama's election. Toward the end of this clip, Rice actually says that Obama's election was a huge step forward relative to race relations in America.

Uh, not so much.

This clip should immediately remove Rice from consideration as a possible running mate for Romney.

Via Right Newz:

Video: John Sununu vs. Juan Williams on Romney's Secrecy

I hate to keep harping on this but it's not just the Romney campaign that is reticent to beat up Obama over Fast and Furious; it's also his defenders. They don't even have to go far off the path to do it. The argument coming out of the mouths of the Democrats is that Romney is being too 'secretive' and that the reason for his secrecy is that he may have committed a 'felony'.

Both of those words (secretive and felony) are central components in what is shaping up to be the biggest scandal in U.S. Presidential history - Fast and Furious. When the left - in this case, Juan Williams - starts talking about how secretive Mitt Romney is, how hard would it be to retort with how secretive Obama is with the Fast and Furious documents? Executive Privilege was asserted to avoid having to comply with a congressional subpoena; the Attorney General was found in contempt of Congress; there are hundreds of dead Mexicans and at least one dead Federal agent.

Yet, for some reason, these comparisons aren't being made by the sharpest of Romney's defenders. In this exchange, former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu was on Hannity to discuss his smack down of Andrea Mitchell.

Sununu rightfully picked up on the use of the 'felony' word by the Obama campaign but didn't touch on the most obvious comeback, mentioned above. Instead, he focused on Obama coming out of the Chicago political machine, his ties to Tony Rezko (felon), his dealmaking with Rod Blagojevich (felon). All legitimate but they don't deal specifically with Obama's "secrecy" and possible "felony".

The 'felony' in Fast and Furious is likely a mass murder conspiracy to create a political climate that would welcome gun control. That doesn't mean Obama was involved directly but it does mean that he's part of the coverup.

Isn't being "secretive" about murder a "felony"?

Is it me or is team Romney refusing to swing at a slow, high-hanging curveball right in its wheelhouse?

Via MediaIte: