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.

John Boehner fighting conservatives more than Obama, and the counter-intuitive Grover Norquist dilemma

This mess between the Republican establishment and conservatives may just be incredibly simple to understand on one hand and incredibly complicated on the other. First, the simple part. House Republican leadership (John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Kevin McCarthy) has clearly decided that it is best to do battle with their own party than to fight the agenda of the most radical president in the history of the Republic. One day after the election, Boehner all but rolled over with an admission that increased 'revenues' (taxes) would be on the table before he ever engaged in any negotiations.

Obama exploited that extremely poor decision by leaving Boehner twisting in the wind before he would do anything.

Three weeks later, Boehner was stripped down to his political skivvies when Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner presented an insane proposal that included a request for the House to cede its power of the purse by raising the debt ceiling to infinity. Time for Boehner to play hardball, right? Time to marshal both the conservative and establishment wings of his party against the Democrats, right? After all, talk about a slap in the face right?

Not so much. After Boehner admitted to being 'flabbergasted' by Geithner's proposal, he proceeded to drive a bigger wedge between the Republican establishment and the conservative wings of the party by booting legitimate fiscal conservatives off the budget committee.

Via Breitbart:

Effective next Congress, leadership pulled Kansas Republican Rep. Tim Huelskamp, Michigan Republican Rep. Justin Amash and Arizona Republican Rep. David Schweikert off committees from which they could exert conservative pressure on fiscal matters. Amash and Huelskamp were pulled from the Budget Committee and Schweikert from the Financial Services Committee.

Time for a metaphor. I have two dogs and there is definitely an alpha and a beta. If I remotely bother that alpha while it is eating, it will not snap at me; it will snap at the beta, who has done nothing wrong. Boehner is the dog that is eating and instead of going after the source of his problems, he is choosing to use the psychological defense mechanism known as displacement. Since he feels inferior to Obama and either can't or won't fight, he lashes out at those who are weaker in stature than he is. Let's face it. Obama has been playing Boehner like a fiddle since winning the election.

Now, since Boehner's appearance on Fox News Sunday to say he was 'flabbergasted' at Geithner's proposal, he has again played right into Obama's hands, agreeing to tax increases that will total the same amount of the 2009 stimulus package that began the Tea Party movement, albeit over ten years.

Via Red State:

On the same day John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Kevin McCarthy punished fiscal conservatives for standing up for their convictions, they sold out their own convictions by agreeing to raise taxes by $800 billion. They intend to seem reasonable to the press in negotiations with the White House. They’re going through an elaborate kabuki dance, but they’ll get blamed nonetheless.

There are three significant differences between the $800 billion stimulus package of 2009 and $800 billion in increased taxes in 2012. The first difference is that in 2009, it was put on Americans' credit tab and in 2012, it's coming straight out of their wallets. Second, in 2009, it was a lump sum taken from the future at once. In 2012, it's coming right out of Americans' pockets in annual installments over ten years. Third, in 2009, Republicans overwhelmingly opposed bilking taxpayers for $800 billion at once. In 2012, when Boehner has the power of the purse, he supports it soaking them for the same amount, incrementally over ten years.

That leads me to a recent article by Jeffrey Lord at the American Spectator, in which he singled out two Republican establishment consultants (Steve Schmidt and Mike Murphy) as being quite similar to Boehner when it comes to catering to big government:

Schmidt and Murphy are the political Quislings of conservatism.

Say what? Say who?

Vidkun Quisling was a Norwegian politician. In April of 1940, when the Nazis were invading Norway, instead of leading a resistance movement Quisling launched a Nazi-backed coup against his own people. As the Nazis settled in to occupy Norway Quisling settled in to live the life of luxury as Norway's "Minister President" -- and avidly assisted as a participant in what is known to history as "the Final Solution."

His betrayal of his own people was so stark that within days of Quisling's assumption of power the Times of London wrote an editorial saying of those who cooperated in betraying their own country that there were "Quislings everywhere."

John Boehner is coming precariously close to a legacy on par with that of a Quisling.

Ok, that's the simple part I mentioned at the beginning of this post. The more complex aspect to all of this is one that is rarely talked about and involves a man at the center of this debate; his name is Grover Norquist. On the surface, it would seem that he is an ally of the conservative wing in this debate. In reality, his ties to Muslim Brotherhood affiliated individuals should caused him to be jettisoned from the debate entirely. Conservatives should distance themselves from Norquist and his group, Americans for Tax Reform, as quickly as possible and this is not a matter of compartmentalizing Norquist's alleged good qualities while rejecting suspect ones.

In fact, one of the three conservatives whom Boehner booted from the Budget committee has expressed his continued solidarity with Norquist's anti-tax pledge, via Breitbart:

Earlier on Monday in an interview with Breitbart News, Huelskamp again reaffirmed his support for the Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) anti-tax pledge. He’s encouraging his colleagues in the House to come out publicly against potential tax increases and asking citizens across the country to help.

As Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer points out, people like Huelskamp are supporting the wrong person for the right reasons. Spencer says the following in his piece entitled Grover Must Go:

...for fear of crossing Norquist and losing his favor, Republicans for years have been turning a blind eye to all his ties to shady Muslim individuals and groups. If they signed his tax pledge, they were effectively pledging also not to make trouble about the access and influence he was facilitating for people linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. Thus was removed the only possible effective counterweight to the Democrats’ active collaboration with Islamic supremacists.

And...

I offer, as an alternative to Norquist’s toxic cocktail of No Taxes Plus Collaboration with Islamic Supremacists, a genuinely pro-freedom tax pledge. Call it the Robert Spencer Tax Pledge. Here it is: “I solemnly pledge to oppose new tax increases, to work to cut existing tax rates, and to oppose Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in our government and the concomitant dismantling of our resistance to the jihad and Islamic supremacism.”

Norquist's ties to Islamists and Islamist causes are well documented and quite extensive. He is also at the center of an epic and internecine battle between two factions of the Republican Party - Establishment and conservative.

Uber-stealth jihad?

Fort Hood Anniversary: Gross Injustices three years later

On the third anniversary of the Fort Hood jihadist massacre, Nidal Malik Hassan is making a mockery of the judicial process; his victims still are not eligible for purple hearts because they were not officially killed or wounded in combat; a local memorial to commemorate the attacks still lacks funding; the unborn baby of one of the victims is not considered to be among the dead; and the survivors of the attack are being disrespected.

One of those victims has started the 32 Still Standing Foundation.

Via Temple Daily Telegram:

Christopher Royal doesn’t want the memory of the Nov. 5, 2009, Fort Hood shooting to fade into history.

On the first anniversary of the shooting, while those who died were honored, the 32 people who were shot yet survived were not even mentioned, said Royal, a chief warrant officer-3 assigned to III Corps. Royal was inside the Soldier Readiness Processing Center and was shot twice.

He called the lack of attention given to those who were shot a “slap in the face.”

To that end, he started the 32 Still Standing Foundation, a support group for survivors of the shooting and their families. It’s one of two groups — both founded by survivors and victims’ families — to form in the three years following the shooting.

The other is Coalition of Fort Hood Heroes, which made headlines a few weeks ago when the group released a video calling on the Defense Department to classify the shooting as an “act of terror.”

If you haven't seen that video, it is a must-see:



It's really a shame that the Fort Hood massacre hasn't been brought up by the Romney campaign. The third debate would have been an ideal time to ask Obama why none of the victims have Purple Hearts.

Tyrone Woods took the righteous path that so few ever take

It has been learned that Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods actually disobeyed orders to stand down in Benghazi. At great risk to his personal safety as well as to his career, he went into harm's way to rescue his fellow Americans. In an interview with Fox's Megyn Kelly, Tyrone's father Charles talked about his son's decision to ignore an immoral order - if not an illegal one. He then stated that those responsible for not acting are cowards who are guilty of murder.

Via GWP:



At a different point in that interview, Charles Woods said the following:

“I Do Not Appreciate Cowardice, And I Do Not Appreciate Lies.”

It would appear that we have a teachable moment for some of the military's top brass. As the weight of selfless nature with which Tyrone acted really began to take hold, it became blatantly obvious that there are instances - albeit rare - when honor demands not following orders. The Nuremberg trials and the subsequent Nuremberg Defense provide the most extreme and obvious example.

What Tyrone Woods did in Benghazi is unabashedly antithetical to the Nuremberg Defense. Though the order to stand down may not have been illegal, it was at a minimum, quite immoral. Woods understood that and everyone with a sense of right and wrong knows that he exhibited the highest possible level of honor while disobeying an order. He deserves every Military honor that can be bestowed upon him for his bravery. His legacy will endure.

Contrast the actions of Tyrone Woods with those of then Secretary of the Army, General George Casey on November 8, 2009, three days after the Jihad attack on Fort Hood. During an appearance on ABC This Week, Casey said the following about the motivation for the attack:

"I think the speculation could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here. And it's not just about Muslims. We have a very diverse Army; we have a very diverse society and that gives us all strength so again, we need to be very careful with that."

Here is the full interview (relevant portion at the 4:50 mark):



Since then, those words have aged like a very bad wine. They were wrong then and that reality is even more blatantly obvious now. The attack on Fort Hood by Nidal Malik Hasan was an act of jihad and it was an act of war. To this day, the survivors of the attack are under great duress not just because of what they went through but because of what their government refuses to acknowledge. Every soldier killed or wounded that day should be the recipient of a Purple Heart as well as any benefits that come with being killed or wounded in combat. Instead, because Hasan's actions have been identified as 'workplace violence', none are eligible.

With his words on 11/08/09, Gen. Casey helped to contribute to that reality today. Here is a video released earlier this month that features the Fort Hood massacre's survivors:



The question that came to mind as Casey uttered such shameful words was:

Did he believe what he was saying or was he saying what his superior (Barack Obama?) told him to say?

If it was the latter, he was following a directive that ordered him not to be honest with the American people. That is immoral and Casey should have resigned before speaking those words.

One of the questions that needs to be asked about Benghazi is:

Who told U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and White House press secretary Jay Carney to lie to the American people when they pointed to a video as the cause of the attack?

Their doing so would constitute following an order. Following an order to lie is an immoral act. Like Casey, both Rice and Carney should have resigned instead of committing it. Yet, career preservation (or an ideological agenda) was more important.

People like Tyrone Woods don't just subjugate their careers to do what's right; they subjugate their very existence to it. Consequently, their legacies are far more lasting. In this regard, the contrast between him and individuals like Casey, Rice, and Carney could not be more stark.

This video clip illustrates perfectly why so many people don't do the right thing:



Now we're learning that a spokesman for the CIA (David Petraeus) has issued the following statement:

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

One has difficulty believing that this statement is consistent with Obama's wishes, which would mean Petraeus could be ignoring an unlawful / immoral order to either say nothing or accept responsibility for something his agency didn't do so that the president can be protected.

If so, Petraeus is taking the right path.

Time will tell.

Note: If Petraeus has just removed the CIA from the mix of culpability when it comes to orders to stand down, that leaves Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Leon Panetta.

Are Fort Hood survivors 'Swiftboating' Obama?

The survivors of Nidal Malik Hasan's jihadist attack are fed up, as they should be. They're tired of watching their country's leaders tell the world that Hasan's rampage was 'workplace violence'. In essence, a blatantly false motive has been attributed to someone who murdered people who were serving their country. The same dynamic has been at work over the Benghazi attack. As the Obama administration continues to waffle on who / what was behind the attack, it tried to blame a video for motivating those who murdered people who were serving their country.

In 2004, veterans who served with John Kerry called his service and his purple hearts into question. In 2012, the victims of an act of war still don't have purple hearts because Hasan hasn't been identified for what he is - a domestic enemy who infiltrated the U.S. Army.

Via the Washington Times:

Benghazi isn't the first time the Obama administration has struggled with whether to call an attack on a U.S. post a terrorist attack. Nearly three years after the fact, the Defense Department still calls the shootings at Fort Hood, Texas, an act of workplace violence, despite the suspect's ties to al Qaeda.

A coalition of 160 victims and family members of the deadly rampage at Fort Hood in 2009 sees similarities in the Obama administration's reluctance to label the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya as a terrorist act and wants government officials to belatedly deem the assault in Texas as terrorism as they now have done with Benghazi.

"To have it not be called terrorism is a slap in the face," said Shawn Manning, who was facing his third deployment the day authorities say Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan shot him six times.

The assault on the army post in Killeen, Texas, was the most lethal terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, leaving 13 dead, more than 30 wounded by gunshots and dozens more injured. Survivors, many who suffered from multiple bullet wounds, have spent the past three years trying to rehabilitate their bodies and rebuild their lives. Maj. Hasan, 42, is awaiting trial and faces the death penalty if convicted. 

For the service members who died and those who were wounded, the terrorism distinction would mean that the military considered that their injuries took place in a combat zone, making them eligible for Purple Heart medals and access to medical care and benefits similar to what soldiers wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan receive.

Civilian victims, such as Kimberly Munley, the civilian police officer employed by the Army who shot Maj. Hasan four times and is credited with bringing him down and helping prevent a bigger massacre, aren't eligible for Purple Hearts. But Mrs. Munley said the designation would recognize the severity of the attack and provide her and others with much-needed closure. 

"To be honest with you, it would just help everyone, including me, start to be able to have closure and start to heal," she said. "To this day, mentally and emotionally, I don't think any of us have started to heal."

The Times report above refers to "13 dead". Perhaps as a consequence of the culture we have allowed to exist for far too long in this country, the number of dead is rarely reported accurately. Francheska Velez was one of those murdered... and she was pregnant. The correct number is 14.

In this incredibly well-done video, the survivors of the attack speak out against those who refuse to identify Hasan for what he is and his act as what it was - an act of war.

At one point in this video, though Velez's name is not mentioned, one of the survivors describes finding her laying on the floor, crying 'my baby, my baby'.

Video: Fort Hood shooting victims speak out

Must-see video. Survivors of Jihad at Fort Hood speak out against attempt to label it 'workplace violence'.

Courtesy of Fort Hood Heroes:



h/t Jawa

NYPD Jihad? National Guardsman shot and killed

Jihad from the NYPD?

Via New York Post:

An unarmed Army National Guardsman was pulled over on a Queens road and fatally shot by an elite NYPD officer yesterday — and the DA now is probing what the victim’s friend called a case of police “road rage.”

Noel Polanco’s hands were on the steering wheel of his 2012 Honda Fit moments before Detective Hassan Hamdy shot him once in the torso, a woman sitting in the front passenger seat told cops and reporters.

But police spokesman Paul Browne said it’s unknown if Polanco, 22, moved after Hamdy yelled, “Show me your hands!” to the three people in the car, one a sleeping off-duty cop in the back seat, on the Grand Central Parkway near La Guardia Airport at 5:15 a.m.

Look for this story to dominate some headlines.

Read it all.

h/t Keith

Video: Pamela Geller interview cut short when she discussed CAIR

I know this may be a day or so late but we had technical difficulties with the blog yesterday and thought this too important not to post (there is also a new development anyway).

People in the media business know the downsides and pitfalls of recorded interviews. They can be edited to distort or alter context or, in some cases, relevant material omitted altogether, which is what happened with an interview between CNN's Erin Burnett and Pamela Geller.

First of all, evidence of CNN running interference for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is not new. They were caught red-handed in 2011 collaborating with CAIR according to a man who was the target of a CNN smear levied by Anderson Cooper and Drew Griffin, a proven liar.

On the September 20th, the cable propaganda network aired an interview between Burnett and Geller that had been pre-recorded. The subject of the interview was a judge's ruling to allow Geller's anti-Jihad ads to be posted in the New York City subways. The full-length interview was somewhere between 12 - 14 minutes. However, CNN only aired the first nine minutes of the interview. One might be inclined to say it was for the sake of time and that a programming decision was made to allow for the airing of other content.

That might seem legitimate to some but it was indeed interesting that the interview that aired was cut off at precisely the time when Geller referred to CAIR and the group's involvement in the Holy Land Foundation trial - CAIR's biggest soft spot. The other red flag is the degree to which Burnett is willing to take the opposing view. There is a clear line between playing devil's advocate and being in the tank. Burnett crossed it in this interview.

Geller posted a YouTube on 9/21 that included the entire interview. After the point when CNN cut off what aired live, you only hear the audio, which was recorded by a separate source.

Via Atlas Shrugs:



Later on the 21st, as Geller points out, CNN did post the entire interview.

The Tale of the three John Espositos who Defend Huma Abedin at the Washington Post

The Washington Post has published an op-ed by an individual named John L. Esposito, who vehemently defends Hillary Clinton Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin against what he calls 'xenophobic' attacks against her character by the likes of Michele Bachmann.

What neither Esposito nor the Washington Post offers the readers is a full disclosure. There is one organization to which we know that Huma Abedin has belonged (from 1996-2008) that connects her to Al-Qaeda Godfather Abdullah Omar Naseef; that organization is the Islamic Instituted of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA). What Esposito doesn't tell you is that as of today, he is still a member of the IMMA's Advisory Editorial Board. Another thing he doesn't tell you is that his name now appears on IMMA's website as "John I. Esposito" and it used to appear as simply "John Esposito." We will explain why that distinction is significant, shortly.

Here is a screen shot from 7/26/12:



As far back as 2002, the name "John Esposito" appeared as being on the same Board. Also note who else appeared on the board as well - none other than Al-Qaeda Godfather Abdullah Omar Naseef:



Ok, now that we've established that "John Esposito" served on a board with an Al-Qaeda leader, it's important to keep that fact in mind before you read his op-ed in the Washington Post today, where is name is spelled as, "John L. Esposito."

Via Washington Post:

So what can we learn from the Bachmann’s witch hunt and why it backfired this time? The first lesson is that in America today a culture of ignorance and anti-Muslim discrimination and bigotry can target Muslims and non-Muslims alike, whatever their credentials, however visible or invisible they are, from Huma Abedin to President Obama. Fortunately this time the target was an American Muslim, born in a distinguished family and and educated in America, respected in Washington circles due to her long working relationship with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. And who are Huma Abedin’s family members accused by Bachman and others?

Hassan Abedin, Huma’s brother, earned his PhD at the University of London, was a fellow at Oxford University’s Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies for many years and is currently at the Muslim Minorities dept. of the OIC.

The good news is that one of the three Espositos is forced to admit a portion of the truth. The unfortunate news is that he doesn't focus on Hassan's time at OCIS with Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Al-Qaeda Godfather Abdullah Omar Naseef.

Back to Esposito's less-than-objective position...

Both of Huma’s parents earned doctorates at the University of Pennsylvania and both taught in the United States. Huma’s mother, Dr. Saleha Abedin, currently Academic Vice Dean at Al-Hekma College, the first private women’s university established in Saudi Arabia which now has academic affiliations with major American universities and foundations, including Harvard and Columbia University as well as University of California, Berkeley, Wellesley College, Babson College and many others. She was part of the team that designed the college with its American liberal arts curriculum, training young women for career opportunities, financial independence and social mobility. Karen Hughes, under secretary of state for public diplomacy of the Bush administration, and more recently Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have spoken at Dar al-Hekma College.

Huma’s father, Dr. Syed Abedin was the founder of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs and the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, which focuses on the challenges for minority Muslims living in non-Muslim societies and for non-Muslims living in Muslim societies.

Actually, we have already discovered that Syed Abedin did NOT found the IMMA; Abdullah Omar Naseef did. As for Huma's mother - Saleha Abedin - Esposito is correct about her being a Vice Dean at Al-Hekma but what he conveniently leaves out is that she is also a major player in the Muslim Brotherhood and at the International Islamic Committee for the Woman and Child (IICWC), a group that sanctions marital rape and female genital mutilation.

We on the right in no way excuse the actions of Karen Hughes, which is what Esposito wants so that those who do can be labeled as 'hypocrites.' She was wrong and so was the Bush administration in too many ways to count when it came to dealing with the Islamic threat. Nonetheless, Huma Abedin helped to coordinate Hillary's visit to Dar Al-Hekma and that is relevant but you'd never know that by reading Esposito's piece.

In short, whether 'John Esposito,' 'John I. Esposito,' or 'John L. Esposito' wrote this piece it was biased in favor of the IMMA Board on which 'John Esposito' and 'John I. Esposito' has served. Apparently, 'John L. Esposito' is supposed to be objective because he didn't (wink, wink) serve on the IMMA.

Then again, all three Johns failed to address our concern about Huma serving on the board of the IMMA with an al-Qaeda Godfather.

Video: DHS Doubling Down on 'Rightwing Extremism'?

In early 2009, a DHS report focused on alleged 'Rightwing Extremism' and seemed more interested in a threat that either didn't exist or was infinitesimally small, compared to the threat of Islamic extremism / Jihadist attacks. In this video exchange on Fox & Friends, Retired Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer talks about the latest literature from DHS. Also, take note of how Shaffer singles out CAIR and wants to know why there's not more concern about them since they were an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial.

Via MediaIte:

Marine Squadron dons Crusader logo; Leftists freak out

The good news is that whenever leftist groups freak out about something,  you're usually on the right track by continuing the practice. In this case, the Marines have revived the Red Cross of the Knights Templar (Crusaders). The left's argument? It will provoke Jihadists.

h/t WZ, Via MSNBC:

A recent decision by the Marine Corps to reinstate "Crusaders" as the name of its Fighter Attack Squadron 122 — replacing "Werewolves" — and adopting the red cross of the medieval Knights Templar was blasted as unconstitutional and willfully ignorant by a civil rights group Wednesday.

“I don’t know that the Marine Corps could do anything more to fuel the cause of jihad," said Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit organization that advocates church-state separation. "It will directly end up taking lives and maiming members of our military."

VMFA-122 based out of Beaufort, S.C., used the Crusaders symbol from 1958 up to 2008, when Lt. Col. William Lieblein pointed out that imagery invoking the Christian conquest and colonization of Muslims during the Middle Ages was counterproductive to U.S. soldiers based across the Arab and Islamic world.

Of course, don't Muslim groups love it when the left does its bidding? It sounds like someone is afflicted with Stockholm Syndrome.

Lt. Cmdr. Wade Weigel, who currently heads the squadron, said he did not think the historic nickname was problematic, according to a report in the Beaufort Gazette on Monday.

"It's a way for our Marines to draw on the service of the Marines before them, and to make their own history under the same name," Weigel told the paper. "As the squadron prepared to celebrate its (70th anniversary), my intent was to return the squadron to the Crusader name since 50 of the squadron's 70 years were under that name. The name change is a reflection of our heritage."

Through the law firm Jones Day, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation on Wednesday sent a letter calling on top Navy and Marine Corps brass to reverse the decision, arguing that the use of Crusaders and the accompanying symbolism violate the Constitution’s separation of church and state, and threatening legal action if it is not changed.

The Crusades have gotten a bad rap for far too long. In fact, the last of them was vastly outnumbered by the Ottoman Turks at the battle of Malta in 1565 and likely prevented Islam's conquest of Europe.

Via Shoebat: