DOD Comes to defense of Fort Hood Jihadist receiving fair trial over giving Purple Hearts to victims

This new development further demonstrates at least two realities. First, when the United States was hit on 9/11/01, declaring war on "terror" instead of on the actual enemy, was a grave mistake. Second, that mistake is being grossly exploited with legalese and political correctness, this time coming from the Department of Defense (DOD).

The primary objective of the Federal government - and the DOD by extension - is to defend the United States "against all enemies, foreign and domestic". It's exceedingly ironic that the DOD would stake out a position that does the opposite by overtly denying a self-evident truth while slapping the Fort Hood survivors in the collective face.

If we had declared war on the actual enemy after 9/11 (any and all Muslim Brotherhood groups or governments / entities that fund / support those groups), perhaps the DOD would have long ago admitted that Nidal Malik Hasan committed an act of war on the U.S.

Before murdering innocent people, Hasan shouted 'Allahu Akbar', just like the 9/11 terrorists did from inside cockpits. Belonging to the religion of Islam is another common trait Hasan shares with those hijackers. It was further learned that while al-Awlaki had ties to Hasan, he also had extensive ties to the 9/11 hijackers.

In hindsight the DOD's treatment of al-Awlaki several months after 9/11, in the form of a plush luncheon served as a foreshadowing of how it has handled Hasan, who was inspired by al-Awlaki.

Via Fox News:

Legislation that would award the injured from the 2009 Fort Hood shooting the Purple Heart would adversely affect the trial of Maj. Nidal Hasan by labeling the attack terrorism, according to a Defense Department document obtained by Fox News. 

The document comes following calls from survivors and their families for the military honor, because they say Fort Hood was turned into a battlefield when Hasan opened fire during the November 2009 attack. Fox News is told that the DOD “position paper” is being circulated specifically in response to the proposed legislation.

Click Here to read the Position Paper referenced above.

Here are some excerpts:

The DoD position is the Purple Heart is awarded to Service members who are killed, or wounded and require treatment by a medical officer, in action against the enemy of the United States; as the result of an act of any hostile foreign force; or as the result of an international terrorist attack against the United States. Adhering to the criterion for award of the Purple Heart is essential to preserve the integrity of the award. To do otherwise could irrevocably alter the fundamental character of this time-honored decoration.

Again, had an actual enemy been identified after 9/11, Hasan would have easily been identified as one of its agents. After all, his own business card confirmed it. It's also beyond egregious to suggest that awarding Purple Hearts to soldiers who were attacked by an enemy of the United States damages the integrity of the award is another slap in the face to Hasan's victims.

Soon thereafter...

The proposed bill alters the long established Purple Heart award criterion contained in Executive Order 11016.

This is perhaps the clearest example of why it was wrong for the George W. Bush administration to identify "terror" as the enemy. A consequence of that decision is that our own soldiers, who are wounded or killed by a member of the enemy don't qualify for Purple Hearts.

As for the criteria for being awarded the Purple Heart...

The criteria have since been modified to include those wounded or killed as the result of being held as a prisoner of war or from an international terrorist attack as determined by the Secretary of the department concerned. This “international” distinction is important because US military personnel are organized, trained and equipped to combat foreign – not domestic – forces or threats.

Uh, what if the unidentified foreign enemy makes it onto U.S. soil and infiltrates our largest Army post? Oh, yeah, that's right. The enemy is unidentified so there's no need to train or equip military personnel for such threats. Besides, there's no Purple Heart for doing so anyway.

Besides, was that an admission by the DOD that our military is not trained or equipped to defend the homeland against attack from within?

Now, how about the reason why the DOD doesn't want Hasan's victims to be awarded Purple Hearts?

The Army objects to section 552 because it would undermine the prosecution of Major Nidal Hasan by materially and directly compromising Major Hasan’s ability to receive a fair trial. This provision will be viewed as setting the stage for a formal declaration that Major Hasan is a terrorist, on what is now the eve of trial.

The murder of 14 and injuring of 32 happened almost three and a half years ago and we're still on "the eve of the trial"?

What more evidence is needed to demonstrate that our response to 9/11 was bungled? The (unidentified) enemy of the U.S. (Hasan) must have a fair trial and in order for that to happen, our soldiers (his victims) must be denied the honor of a Purple Heart?!

The DOD torpedoes its own credibility at the end of the document:

The Government has vigilantly tended to the needs of the victims and their families since the tragic events of November 5, 2009. The Government – as much if not more than other interested parties – very much desires emotional closure for victims and families. Purple Heart legislation, in advance of a finding of guilt or an acquittal, is not the answer to address these most sensitive concerns.

That excerpt directly contradicts the sentiment of one of Hasan's victims.

Via ABC News:

In a report that aired on "World News with Diane Sawyer" and "Nightline," former police sergeant Kimberly Munley, who helped stop the Ft. Hood shooting, said that President Obama broke the promise he made to her that the victims would be well taken care of. 

"Betrayed is a good word," said Munley, who sat next to First Lady Michelle Obama at the 2010 State of the Union address. "Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of … In fact, they've been neglected."

There was no comment from the White House about Munley's allegations.
So who's telling the truth, DOD or Munley?

I'll take Munley, hands down.

Video: Senator Ted Cruz Rips Defense Secretary Nominee Chuck Hagel

This is a must-see. Cruz lays in to Barack Obama's nominee for Secretary of Defense pretty darned good - and even throws a few clips from interviews Hagel did with Al Jazeera.

Two observations.

1.) It would have been nice to see Senators this tough with Hillary Clinton last week.
2.) It'd be nice to see Democrats this critical of their own (Hagel is a Republican)

Tyrone Woods and David Petraeus: A tale of two future legacies

Former CIA Director David Petraeus has volunteered to testify to House and Senate Intelligence Committees in closed session on Friday, November 16th. The families of four dead Americans still have not been told the full truth about what happened in Benghazi. Now, the scandal-rocked Petraeus, who has had his legacy forever tarnished by an extra-marital affair, has an opportunity to reclaim much of his honor at great personal risk or place it in a circular basin and pull down on the lever.

When it comes to former Navy SEAL, Tyrone Woods, there are two aspects to his super-heroic story. One is that he gave his life to save fellow Americans. The other is that he allegedly disobeyed an immoral order to do it. If the latter is indeed true, it is the least that Petraeus could do to tell that truth to Congress, regardless of who gave it.

Fox News reported that Woods was ordered to "stand down" at least twice before he decided to put his career and his life in danger; he lost both. In that same report by Jennifer Griffin, the CIA chain of command was identified as having denied Woods the military back-up he requested:

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

That "CIA chain of command" is something that then CIA Director David Petraeus was ultimately responsible for but on the exact same day that Griffin's report was published, ABC's Jake Tapper tweeted an excerpt from a CIA statement:

"No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate."

So, Petraeus essentially put himself on record as saying his agency did not tell Woods to stand down. If that's true, it meant that either someone else did or no one else did. If Woods was told to stand down and that truth is not told, it will be a slap in the face to his honor because it will have meant that he put so much on the line to do what was right, and future generations will never know it.

If the CIA statement is correct, the spotlight logically shifts to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who basically accused anyone who questioned his judgment as being engaged in Monday morning Quarterbacking.

Via CBS DC:

“(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.”

Aside from the fact that Tyrone Woods didn't know what was going on either, except that Americans were in harm's way and needed help. He risked and lost his life doing just that, despite not having all the facts about what was happening. Applying Panetta's standard, the Defense Secretary wasn't even willing to risk his own reputation to protect American lives. That quote from Panetta also comes across as a tacit admission that Woods would not have received back-up if he asked for it, which lends credence to the claims that he disobeyed orders to stand down.

Petraeus can clear that all up if he chooses honor over self-preservation. We all know what Woods chose when faced with the same decision.

In a November 2nd UPI report, the CIA was the entity identified as being responsible for the Benghazi Consulate:

The CIA was the real commanding agency at the attacked U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, not the State Department, senior U.S. intelligence officials said.

In addition, two of the four men who died in the Sept. 11 attack -- former Navy SEAL commandos Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty -- were actually CIA contractors killed defending the mission, not State Department contract security officers, as originally publicly identified, the officials told several news organizations on condition of anonymity.

Of course, this doesn't square with the multiple requests for additional security made to the State Department by Consulate personnel. In an October 31st report from Fox's Catherine Herridge, she revealed that an August 16th cable was sent from Ambassador Christopher Stevens directly to the office of Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, for additional security. That request was very detailed and very specific.

Via Fox News:

While the administration’s public statements have suggested that the attack came without warning, the Aug. 16 cable seems to undercut those claims. It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.

A little later in the report...

Fox News asked the State Department to respond to a series of questions about the Aug. 16 cable, including who was specifically charged with reviewing it and whether action was taken by Washington or Tripoli. Fox News also asked, given the specific warnings and the detailed intelligence laid out in the cable, whether the State Department considered extra measures for the consulate in light of the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks – and if no action was taken, who made that call.

The State Department press office declined to answer specific questions, citing the classified nature of the cable.

Of course, this example is one of many that the Consulate reached out to the State Department - not the CIA - on issues of increased security. In testimony before the House Oversight Committee, State Department officials admitted both to being aware of additional requests for security as well as to watching the attack on the Consulate as it happened, in real time. Yet, the UPI report seems to attempt to absolve the State Department of culpability.

That poses a small problem. Hillary Clinton personally accepted responsibility for the security of her State Department officials, which necessarily includes Stevens.

There are at least four people who know far, far more than what we're being told. They include Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, and David Petraeus.

Again, the former CIA Director can clear that all up if he chooses honor over self-preservation. We all know what Woods chose when faced with the same decision.

True leadership means putting your men above yourself. As CIA Director, one of Petraeus' subordinates was Tyrone Woods, who is a national hero the likes of which we rarely see. If Petraeus is capable of putting his men above himself, he will tell the truth on November 16th, no matter what it is.

If he does not, he will only further tarnish his own legacy in the name of self-preservation while doing a gross disservice to a true American hero.

Video: Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer says Obama watched Benghazi attack from situation room

This is EXTREMELY significant. Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer - perhaps best known for his work on Able Danger and his subsequent battle with the Defense Intelligence Agency - told Fox News that his sources told him Barack Obama was in the situation room and watched the events in Benghazi unfold in real time.

Pay close attention beginning at the 1:00 mark. Shaffer underscores an important point, saying that not only did the incoming video from Benghazi capture everyone's attention but that it was taking place at the height of the work day in Washington (between 4-5pm) when a lot of people would have been around.

Also, take note that both Shaffer and the other guest (Col. David Hunt) say that the decision to act would have come (or not) from the President and through the Secretary of Defense (Leon Panetta). If Shaffer is right, Obama is quite culpable.

This is big, folks. The herd of possible culprits is thinning and Barack Obama appears to be front and center.

Via Breitbart:



Incidentally, Shaffer's personal story is amazing as well. While serving in Afghanistan, he too did more than was required and put himself in harm's way when he didn't have to. It was this trait that largely contributed to his being awarded the Bronze Star.

When he came forward about his work on Able Danger, a program he and his teammates say identified lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta one year before the attacks, he was railroaded by his own government. He fought to the end but ended up sacrificing his military career by doing so.

Shaffer's story is the subject of an entire chapter of Unsung Davids.

Wow! Obama-appointed Judge blocks the NDAA

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), signed into law by Barack Obama on New Year's Eve has been the source of quite a bit of alarm as it allows the military to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely, without charge. It's one area where the Ron Pauliens are rightfully concerned.

Quite amazingly, an Obama-appointed judge in Manhattan has blocked the law until Congress clears up the gray areas. Also worthy of note is that one of the plaintiffs who sued Obama in this case is a very left wing writer, Christopher Hedges.

Via Bloomberg:

Opponents of a U.S. law they claim may subject them to indefinite military detention for activities including news reporting and political activism persuaded a federal judge to temporarily block the measure.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan yesterday ruled in favor of a group of writers and activists who sued President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the Defense Department, claiming a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law Dec. 31, puts them in fear that they could be arrested and held by U.S. armed forces.

The complaint was filed Jan. 13 by a group including former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges. The plaintiffs contend a section of the law allows for detention of citizens and permanent residents taken into custody in the U.S. on “suspicion of providing substantial support” to people engaged in hostilities against the U.S., such as al-Qaeda.

“The statute at issue places the public at undue risk of having their speech chilled for the purported protection from al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ‘associated forces’ - i.e., ‘foreign terrorist organizations,’” Forrest said in an opinion yesterday. “The vagueness of Section 1021 does not allow the average citizen, or even the government itself, to understand with the type of definiteness to which our citizens are entitled, or what conduct comes within its scope.”

Another interesting aspect was that the government didn't put up any type of defense:

The plaintiffs claim Section 1021 is vague and can be read to authorize their detention based on speech and associations that are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Hedges and two other plaintiffs testified in a hearing before Forrest in March, the judge said. A fourth plaintiff submitted a sworn declaration. The government put on no evidence, Forrest said.

The government doesn't appear to be either willing or able to adequately explain how the provision prevents average American citizens from being detained:

In her opinion, Forrest said the government declined to say that the activities of Hedges and the other defendants don’t fall under the provision. Forrest held a hearing in March at which government lawyers didn’t call any witnesses or present evidence, according to the judge. The government did cross- examine the plaintiffs who testified and submitted legal arguments.

Regardless of your ideology, the NDAA, as it is currently written, allows for the detention of political prisoners, which should never happen in the U.S. One way to help solve this problem would be to adequately identify the real enemies of America, which still has not been done.

h/t Drudge 

Disgrace: Panetta Swears at Israel

In Iran, Ahmadinejad has been threatening to wipe Israel 'off the map' for years; we have done next to nothing to prevent it. In Egypt, the Obama administration's policy was to remove Hosni Mubarak. The Muslim Brotherhood has filled the vacuum and the populace is threatening to march on Israel; we have done next to nothing to prevent it. In Libya, the Obama administration facilitated the fall of Gadhafi. The Muslim Brotherhood is filling the vacuum while flying al-Qaeda flags from the courthouses; we have done next to nothing to prevent it. Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas is now claiming to have forged a new partnership with Hamas, which wants to destroy Israel.

In response to all of this, Obama's new Defense Secretary has allegedly told Israel to 'get to the damn table.'

Via VOA:

The top U.S. defense official is warning Israel it cannot afford to further isolate itself from Arab neighbors in the Middle East. 

During a forum in Washington late Friday, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Israel needs to start by getting back “to the damn table” and negotiating peace with the Palestinians. He also called on Israel to mend its fraying relationships with traditional partners like Turkey, Egypt and Jordan. 

Some Israeli leaders have viewed the Arab Spring, and uprisings like the one that toppled long-time Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, as a threat to regional stability as well as to Israel's security. But Panetta urged Israeli officials to reject that way of thinking. 

Panetta said Israel has no choice but to take some risks to ensure a safer future, starting with resuming peace talks with the Palestinians, a process that Panetta said has “effectively been put on hold.” 

The U.S. defense secretary said the U.S. continues to be committed to safeguarding Israel's security but that “Israel too, has a responsibility” to build regional support through “strong diplomacy.”

Not sure about you but this kinda reminds me of Genesis 12:3

3 I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

For those who haven't noticed, the country Panetta represents is going through a bit of a rough patch these days.

h/t GWP

Shoebat Outs Another Stealth Jihadist

Do not forget the name Taha Jaber al-Alwani. Consider him officially exposed as a stealth Jihadist who helps produce dirtbags like Nidal Malik Hasan at Fort Hood. Thanks, once again, to former Muslim and PLO member / Muslim Brotherhood activist Walid Shoebat, al-Alwani is the latest Islamist whose writings in Arabic doom him after being translated into English by Shoebat. First up, consider that al-Alwani's job is to vet Muslim chaplains for the U.S. military. That is the premise that should set the proverbial stage of your outrage.

Via WND:

A man portrayed as a prominent Islamic scholar who has run a program to vet Muslim chaplains for the U.S. military has written an anti-Semitic column that condemns Jews for trying to make the rest of the world "subvervient" and explaining that he is able to see this "trickery" because of his understanding of the Quran, according to a translation.

The work is by Taha Jaber al-Alwani, who graduated from al-Azhar University in Cairo and later taught at Imam Muhammad ibn Saud University in Saudi Arabia.

He moved to the United States in 1983 and has served as chairman of the Fiqh Council of North America and as part of the Islamic Cordova University and its Graduate School of Islamic and Society Sciences program, through which Muslims who want to be chaplains in the U.S. military are accredited.

Like every stealth Jihadist, al-Alwani is like Jekyl and Hyde. In English, he speaks of peace while extolling the virtues of the west but in Arabic, he sows the seeds of hatred against America.

"Al-Alwani has compared America to the golden age of al-Andalus in Spain and has told Muslims in the mosques he visited that America is the best country in the world to live," said Shoebat. "He was even a signatory of the Muslim Statement Against Terror and even issued a fatwa (after consulting with Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi of course) urging Muslims to fight in the U.S. military in Afghanistan against terrorism. Qaradawi later reneged on his fatwa.

"But besides these glowing positions and seemingly acts of heroism, Alwani turns out to be an ardent anti-Semite. How could the U.S. military still employ this influential figurehead should not remain a mystery, especially after one runs into his writings – in Arabic, of course, which Alwani should not mind us translating and publishing it in full since he shouldn't mind us 'spreading the word!" Shoebat said.

The name of al-Alwani's article is 'The Great Haughtiness' and according to Shoebat, he quotes from Quranic verses to justify it. Though the full article Shoebat translated is not posted at WND, here it is in its entirety via Shoebat:

The Great Haughtiness
Taha Jabe Al-Alwani

“Allah, Mighty and Exalted is He who is all knowing when it comes to his creation and their willingness to do good or evil; told us that, “the children of Israel will do corruption in the land twice”. That is, two grand events since they have done mischief twice already in the past and many more after that. It is for this reason Allah said “But if you return [to sin], We [Allah] will return [for punishment]” (Isra:8)

So what is this “Great Haughtiness” that they were predicted to do? This “Great Haughtiness” is an intellectual, psychological and mental ability, which they can employ with great efficiency to take advantage of real and objective situations whatever these situation may be in accordance to their specific visions and goals in a meticulous fashion. We can express from the Glorious Quran and say that this is an ability to employ legal practices, social and cosmic laws and even individual trends as well to make others subservient in their hands in order to fulfill their goals. There is hardly any doubt that the Arabs own several folds in material resources then others, but they do not own this sense that we just mentioned.

The ancient Hebraic education, or what may be termed “the jurisprudence of the cow” (termed for the cow [in Sinai]) that is; the thought and jurisprudence of the “ox that bellows” really suits it’s ability to find exit holes as it is accustomed to trickery. Also suits it is its ability to “endlessly pant and persist”. These things and many other things, which we find in the Torah, the Talmud and the Mishna and other religious sources from their religion which many modern thinkers, see as an “extinct national dream”.

But I, through the light of the Quran see it resurrected in front of me; it still represents the central pillars for their education. Those who were led astray by a golden calf that is empty inside which only has its exterior golden brilliance with it bellowing in the wind at empty bodies.

So the Zionist leaders made this calf a model for today’s world so they can be able to control it. Today’s world with its secularism and its phony democracy and alongside its free and controlled trade and national legitimacy and all these other subjects that bellows and never dialogues; all this is not far fetched to be an image of a calf that moos with an outward appearance that is beautiful, breathtaking and shiny that almost takes your breath away.

So the giant media takes on the part of mooing and bellowing that never ends which has an ability to transform humans into animals that the media consumes it’s energy. It [the media] empties him and fills him with whatever it wants. The nations were transformed under the shade of this calf-like image into herds composed of individuals that are unable to build relationships or identities.

They [the Jews] were able to convert a negative incident [the Holocaust], which ended them up in a collective apostasy; to a model, which enabled them to make strategies, institutions and plans to ensure that the world—the whole world—remain beneath them.

So, the end result is that everyone worships a calf; which was built by them modeled by a Samaritan using the imagination of the world through the media. But they [the Jews] chose to worship an image of a golden calf that moos. The Samaritan used whatever the Egyptians entrusted him of their gold to make this famed calf.

So what can we do, and especially those of us who sit in positions of control over our great battle as we live alongside this calf? How can we first study deeply there psyche and minds? And how to know there inherited education with its influence as they manage the conflict with the rest of the nations on the earth?

When will the Muslims get out of being a useless reeling multitude to gain the position of imposing ourselves to be respected by the whole world and to employ their [the Muslim] great abilities for benefiting this struggle with others? Only then will we be able to have dialogue on an equal footing and not through all the bellowing”. End of Article.

Why is our Department of Defense allowing these Jihadists into our military when doing so is criminal?

More at WND

al-Awlaki's Pentagon Lunch Included Invitation to CAIR's Awad

Perhaps the most wanted Islamic terrorist today - Anwar al-Awlaki - was invited to a Pentagon luncheon just a few short months after 9/11. Now we're learning that in addition to al-Awlaki, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad was also invited as a plan of Muslim outreach. According to Catherine Herridge at Fox News, had expressed interest in attending as well. Apparently, this was not the only time al-Awlaki and Awad had teamed up together.

Via Fox News:

According to the email, there was at least one civilian on the guest list. The email invitation reads: "Mr. Nihad Awad, President of the Counsel on American-Islamic Relations has also expressed interest in attending."

Fox News sent questions to Awad though a spokesman at CAIR, including whether he had provided positive recommendations for Awlaki to either the FBI or the Defense Department immediately after 9/11.

Fox News also asked whether Awad attended a fundraiser at UC Irvine on Sept. 9, 2001, for the defense of Jamil al-Amin who was later conficted of killing a sheriff's deputy in Atlanta Georgia. Documents show Awad provided a video message for the fundraising event and al-Awlaki went to the fundraiser. On Sept. 10 of that year, al-Awlaki, who has documented ties to three of the five Sept. 11 hijackers, flew back to Washington, landing on the morning of Sept. 11.

Fox News contacted CAIR multiple times over a 10 day period and there was no response after the initial contact when a spokesman asked for questions to be submitted.

The DOD allowed al-Awlaki to appear at the luncheon despite the FBI having interviewed him multiple times regarding the September 11th attacks.

CAIR Director Awad has quite the history of being associated with bad guys. He also is on record in 1994 as saying he supports Hamas.

HERE is a link to the email referenced in Fox article.

h/t Weasel Zippers

Anwar al-Awlaki's Visit to the Pentagon for Lunch in 2002

Anwar al-Awlaki is the Islamic cleric who inspired Nidal Malik Hasan to kill 14 people at Fort Hood. He was born in New Mexico and now operates out of Yemen. In the days after 9/11, he was questioned because of his connection to three of the hijackers. Less than five months later, he was invited and attended a luncheon at the Pentagon. There was a warrant out for his arrest before he fled the country but it was withdrawn by Colorado's U.S. Attorney. al-Awlaki was briefly detained at JFK airport but was allowed to go free after it was discovered the warrant had been withdrawn.

Catherine Herridge at Fox News has been investing this story for many months and it appears there were several government officials who signed off on the Pentagon luncheon.

Fox News obtained new documents through a Freedom of Information Act request as part of a year-long investigation called "Fox News Reporting: Secrets of 9/11." An internal Department of Defense email that announced the event with Awlaki also laid out other details, like a proposed menu including pork, which is prohibited for Muslims. The email states "the chef will create something special for vegetarians."

The documents show that more than 70 people were copied on the invitation, which originated in the Defense Department’s Office of the General Counsel. It is home to the Pentagon's top lawyer.

"I have reserved one of the executive dining rooms for February 5th, which is the date he (Awlaki) preferred," a defense department lawyer wrote in the e-mail announcing the event.

"He (Awlaki) will be leaving for an extensive period of time on February 11th."

The e-mail states that New Mexico born al-Awlaki was the featured guest speaker on “Islam and Middle Eastern Politics and Culture."

The Defense Department lawyer who vetted the imam wrote that she "had the privilege of hearing one of Mr. Awlaki's presentations in November and was impressed by both the extent of his knowledge and by how he communicated that information and handled a hostile element in the audience."

Nefarious Islamic operatives and duped sympathizers have infiltrated the highest levels of our federal government. There really is no doubt about that at this point.

al-Awlaki was also once a president of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at Colorado State University. Yet further evidence that the MSA and al-Qaeda both roll up under the Muslim Brotherhood - as if you needed further evidence.

Here's a short promo from a Fox News expose' about this scandal:

State and Defense Departments Arming Mexican Cartels

In the wake of the Project Gunrunner scandal, in which gun store owners were told by the ATF to allow weapons to be purchased and then walked into Mexico illegally, this story takes on added significance. The Department of Defense in conjunction with the State Department, have been selling powerful weapons to Latin American governments as well as to the Mexican government. Once they arrive in the hands of the Mexico government, they seem to disappear and end up in the hands of cartels. In Latin America, they appear to be sold to the cartels of the north.

Yet, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama attempted to push the narrative in 2009 that 90% of the gun crimes in Mexico were the result of weapons being trafficked from the United States. The implication was that tighter gun control was necessary.

Via Fox News:

You can't buy this stuff at a U.S. gun store. So where do the cartels get it? According to leaked diplomatic cables, there are three sources.

1. U.S. Defense Department shipments to Latin America, known and tracked by the U.S. State Department as "foreign military sales."

2. Weapons ordered by the Mexican government, tracked by the State Department as "direct commercial sales."

3. Aging, but plentiful arsenals of military weapon stores in Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua.

Even though these facts were well-known by the Obama administration, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder, it blamed much of the violence in Mexico on U.S. gun stores.

"More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our border," President Obama said in February 2009.

That was contested, but few listened to gun store owners and former vets like Lynn Kartchner, owner of Allsafe Security, a gun shop in Douglas, Ariz.

"We in the gun industry knew from day one the allegations that the preponderance of sales came from gun stores like this one was totally not true," Kartchner said.

You can debate whether it's bad policy to sell weapons to Mexico and Latin American counties. What is absolutely unacceptable is for a government agency - the ATF - to order gun store owners to sell guns illegally to people who 'walk' those guns into Mexico and then blame those gun store owners for being irresponsible.

This really is an outrage.

Read it all.

Video Outrage: Rumseld says the Phrase 'War on Terror' a Mistake

Gotta give CNN's Piers Morgan credit for this line of questioning with Donald Rumsfeld. After stating that he comes from a large military family, Morgan sides with the premise that 'terror' is not an enemy; it's a tactic. He then asks Rumsfeld if the former Secretary of Defense thinks the phrase 'War on Terror' was a mistake. Rumsfeld answers in the affirmative and then says he voiced his opposition at the time but that George W. Bush made the decision anyway.

Rumsfeld seemed to take mild umbrage at the follow-up question about who overruled him but it's clear that Bush did after watching this. This is outrageous because there were plenty of voices at the time who knew 'terror' is a tactic, not an enemy. Frankly, most conservatives who understood the Islamist threat knew that. Yes, it's much more difficult for a president to make the right call on such a thing compared to the citizenry but isn't that why it's called 'leadership?' Besides, those who thought an actual enemy should have been identified - like the Muslim Brotherhood - were right. That should count for something.

Via CNN:



Here is video of George W. Bush in a Mosque less than one week after 9/11/01 and it speaks volumes nearly 10 years later about how wrong the phrase 'War on Terror' was.



h/t Hapblog

VIDEO: THE NAVY'S GAME CHANGER - RAILGUN

This provides some much needed reassurance in light of the increased insanity going on in the world these days. The navy has released video of its new weapon - the Railgun - and it is very impressive. It uses electro-magnetic energy to fire projectiles that don't even need to explode on impact because they're moving so fast. It's the speed of the projectiles that does all the damage. Additionally, the damage is done much faster. Some reach Mach 7.

Via Fox News:

A theoretical dream for decades, the railgun is unlike any other weapon used in warfare. And it's quite real too, as the U.S. Navy has proven in a record-setting test today in Dahlgren, VA.

Rather than relying on a explosion to fire a projectile, the technology uses an electomagnetic current to accelerate a non-explosive bullet at several times the speed of sound. The conductive projectile zips along a set of electrically charged parallel rails and out of the barrel at speeds up to Mach 7.

The result: a weapon that can hit a target 100 miles or more away within minutes.

"It's an over-used term, but it really changes several games," Rear Admiral Nevin P. Carr, Jr., the chief of Naval Research, told FoxNews.com prior to the test.

I particularly like the part about akin to a car hitting a wall at 100 mph and then multiply that by 33.

EVIDENCE OF 9/11 COVER-UP?

For the Truthers out there, allow me to reiterate that I have not come over to your side; not even close. That said, the story of what is known as 'Able Danger' is getting new life courtesy of witnesses and a new document. Lead hijacker on 9/11, Mohammed Atta, according to five witnesses, had been identified as a threat at least one year prior to 9/11.

Via Fox News:

Lt. Col Tony Shaffer, an operative involved with Able Danger, said he was interviewed three times by Defense investigators. He claims it was an effort to wear down the witnesses and intimidate them. Two other witnesses, one a military contractor and the other a retired military officer, said they had the same experience. The two witnesses spoke to Fox News on the condition of anonymity because they said they feared retaliation. A fifth witness told Fox that statements to investigators were ignored.

"My last interview was very, very hostile," Shaffer told Fox News last month before he was ordered by the department not to discuss portions of his book, "Operation Dark Heart," which included a chapter on the Able Danger data mining project.

Here's a video from the "Operation Dark Heart" website on the book burning:



For the record, those who believe the U.S. government orchestrated the attacks on 9/11 are still nuts. The assertion that the Feds were tracking Mohammad Atta well before those attacks and didn't act, is far more believable. This would mean a CYA on the part of the Feds. If true, it would share many similarities to claims made about the Oklahoma City bombing.

h/t to Free Republic

VIDEO: WIKILEAKS FOUNDER IMPLICATES WHITE HOUSE

The founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange made an explosive charge during an interview with Fox's Andrew Napolitano, saying that he presented the documents relative to the war in Afghanistan, to the White House prior to releasing them but got no response. In predictable fashion, the White House denied it - as they do virtually everything else. When clarity was sought from Assange, he indicated that the New York Times served as an intermediary between the two.

If true, it would mean that the Obama administration was aware that these documents might get released but did nothing pre-emptively to stop it. In light of the revelations this week that the White House also looked the other way when it came to the release of the Lockerbie bomber, Obama should explain himself.

Was this a crisis that was to be exploited by the White House, as a reason to justify the internet kill switch legislation Joe Lieberman is sponsoring?

If Assange is telling the truth, this is a big deal.

Via Impeach Obama Campaign:

MISSILE DEFENSE LOGO CHANGED TO.......

I first saw this yesterday and decided to post after further thought. The U.S. Missile Defense Agency, which is part of the Department of Defense has changed its logo. On its face, logo changes are not all that uncommon I guess but the new logo raises quite a few interesting questions relative to both the Obama 2008 campaign logo as well as the Islamic Crescent.

Here is the original logo:























Here is the new logo:

























I noticed this story first on Hot Air Pundit which posted via Weazlezippers. Now the Washington Times has picked it up.

While the Times doesn't compare the new logo to the Islamic Crescent, it does call out the D.O.D. on the logo's likeness to the 2008 Obama campaign logo:
























Now, how about that Islamic Crescent? There are many variations but to dismiss similarities out of hand would seem a bit premature. Note that the Islamic symbol, like the Missile Defense logo, has a star at two o'clock. The only difference between the two is that the crescent moon is inverted. I have a difficult time believing there isn't something to this.



















For some reason, this all reminded me of the controversy surrounding the United 93 Memorial, which is set to open on 9/11/11. Many wrote about it, including Michelle Malkin back in 2005.