OBAMA'S ISLAM ENVOY ADMITS TO MAKING COMMENTS

Very curious that this one comes out late Friday night but Politico is now reporting that Barack Obama's envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), Rashad Hussain has changed his story and has now admitted to making sympathetic comments about convicted terrorist fundraiser, Sami al-Arian.

Politico reports:

President Barack Obama’s new Islamic envoy, Rashad Hussain, changed course Friday – admitting he made sharply critical statements about a U.S. terror prosecution against a Muslim professor after initially saying he had no recollection of making such comments.

“I made statements on that panel that I now recognize were ill-conceived or not well-formulated,” Hussain said, referring to a 2004 conference where he discussed the case.

Hussain’s reversal came after POLITICO obtained a recording of his presentation to a Muslim students’ conference in Chicago, where he can be heard portraying the government’s cases towards professor Sami Al-Arian, as well as other Muslim terrorism suspects, as “politically motivated persecutions.” Al-Arian later pled guilty to aiding terrorists.

Isn't it interesting that it took an actual recording of Hussain uttering the words to actually get him to come clean? With that now out of the way, when will Hussain be fired? If he's not, will the media hold the Obama administration accountable? Politico also reported that the White House refused to comment on Obama's confidence in Hussain now that he's proven to be liar.

The White House declined to say Friday whether the statements or the controversy affected Obama’s confidence in Hussain.

That then leaves the matter of the publication that removed Hussain's quotes. That publication is the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs (WRMEA). All along, the person who attributed the quotes to Hussain has maintained that she accurately did so. Now we learn that it was Hussain himself who approached WRMEA about the comments being taken out of context. Note the tactic here:

It was Hussain himself, he said Friday, who contacted the publication to complain about the story.

“When I saw the article that attributed comments to me without context, leaving a misimpression, I contacted the publication to raise concerns about it. Eventually, of their own accord, they modified the article,” Hussain said of the article in the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs.

Out of context? Please. Doesn't that make you wonder how the editor of WRMEA must feel? Earlier this week, before this stunning admission by Hussain, the Fox News Website reported:

The Web version of the 2004 article in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs was later edited to delete all of Hussain's comments. Editor Delinda Hanley told Fox News she believes the change was made in February 2009, though she does not recall who requested the edit.

Hanley remembered telling the group's webmaster: "Let's just take out the quotes since they have been attributed to the wrong speaker."

So now we learn that thanks to a recording of the event, Hussain was busted and had to admit to being the one that went to WRMEA. However, what WRMEA said was that they took out the quotes because they were incorrectly attributed to Hussain and were actually said by Sami al-Arian's daughter, Laila. Again from Fox's website:

Hanley suggested to another media outlet that the comments attributed to Hussain were actually made by Sami al-Arian's daughter, Laila, who also attended the event. But the author of the piece, Shereen Kandil, told Fox News that she would never confuse the two people.

"If I quoted someone, it's because they said it," she said, adding that she no longer works for the magazine and was surprised to learn of the changes.

The White House also attributes the quotes to Laila al-Arian.

Who lied? It would appear that WRMEA is being thrown under the bus in true Obama fashion. If Hussain is now telling the truth - yeah, right - then that means Hanley should be fired. If Hussain is lying, then Hanley should call him on it. What about Kandil? Now that she is vindicated after being accused of one of the greatest sins in journalism, will she come out publicly and demand an apology?

What is getting lost in all of this is where Rashad Hussain said those things, taken out of context or not. He was at an event sponsored by the Muslim Students Association or MSA. Discover the Networks has plenty of dirt on the MSA. It has connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, and quite a few other unsavory groups and characters.

Click Here for more on the MSA.

This story is eerily reminiscent of another "recording" that was made involving Barack Obama at a dinner with Rashid Khalidi. Anyone remember that one? The Los Angeles Times had in its possession, a tape that was allegedly incredibly damaging to then candidate Barack Obama but they refused to release it.

Gee, I wonder what would have happened if they had.

This is huge beyond words.

Click here for my earlier post on this.

h/t to GMBRD

VIDEO: STEHPEN BALDWIN CALLS OBAMA HOMEY

I find this noteworthy only because the Al Sharptons of the world will likely be feigning false righteous indignation over it. Alec Baldwin's little brother Stephen - seemingly the only one in that family who is grounded - told an ABC reporter that "Homey" (Obama) is responsible for this mess.

However, prior to that, he admitted to praying for Obama every day.



h/t to Hot Air Pundit

INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY ON DISPLAY AT WASHINGTON POST....AGAIN

This really is despicable on the part of Jonathan Capehart (pictured) at the Washington Post. In writing about Joseph Stack, the man who slammed an airplane into a building that houses multiple IRS offices, he takes intellectual dishonesty to an entirely new low. As has been so indicative of the left, the second there is some sort of extremist attack, its ideologues shift into guilt by group association mode. Unless, of course, the perpetrator happens to be a major in the military who murders 14 people while shouting, "Allahu-akbar". In that case, the individual just snaps and Islam is completely blameless.

I'll get to the parts about the Manifesto that Stack left behind which Capehart conveniently omitted in a moment but check out the last sentence in Capehart's first paragraph:

...after reading his 34-paragraph screed, I am struck by how his alienation is similar to that we're hearing from the extreme elements of the Tea Party movement.

Can you imagine Capehart writing a similar paragraph about Nidal Malik Hasan, a man discovered to be connected to an Imam named Anwar al-Awlaqi and Mutallab, the underwear bomber?

Ace of Spades finds an extremely overt and convenient omission in Capehart's piece. The majority of Capehart's piece consists of excerpts pulled from Stack's manifesto. Considering how many indications there are that he hated capitalism along with George W. Bush, Capehart is not only jumping the gun but appears to be exploiting this attack for political advantage. It's really not even open for debate.

The most blatant example is the excerpt Capehart takes from the end of Stack's manifesto. Here is what Capehart posts:

I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.
Joe Stack (1956-2010)
02/18/2010

Here is what Stack wrote after "...sleep well." and before signing his name.

The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

As you can see, Capehart not only cherry picked quotes from within the body of Stack's manifesto, which is understandable since it is six pages long, but the most egregious part in this example is the fact that he omitted parts within the quotes he posted. He also doesn't let the fact that Stack seemed to reject capitalism and revere communism - something that is not at all indicative of the Tea Party movement - get in the way of manipulating the event to suit his own agenda. It's obvious that he intentionally omits it.

Another interesting omission by Capehart worth noting. Stack assailed George W. Bush in his manifesto as well:

As government agencies go, the FAA is often justifiably referred to as a tombstone agency, though they are hardly alone. The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government. Nothing changes unless there is a body count (unless it is in the interest of the wealthy sows at the government trough). In a government full of hypocrites from top to bottom, life is as cheap as their lies and their self-serving laws.

Capehart the ideologue was in a real pickle with this one. George W. Bush was a Republican so that didn't fit his paradigm but what about the fact that the Tea Party movement has outwardly expressed its disapproval with Bush's spending as well? That's true but that would have meant that Capehart would have had to take the position of defending George W. Bush. The thought of that probably made him physically ill.

h/t to Gateway Pundit