Video: Senate candidate from Massachusetts (and former Navy SEAL) calls Democrat Opponent 'Pond Scum'

Gabriel Gomez is a former Navy SEAL who is running for Senate in 2014. His opponent is Rep. Ed Markey, a smarmy Democrat. In an ad, Markey's group juxtaposed an image of Gomez with an image of Osama bin Laden in an attempt to depict Gomez as going after Obama for killing bin Laden. Obviously, Gomez's problem was with the fanfare that came with bin Laden's killing. When a reporter asked Gomez about his problem with Markey's ad, the response included a reference to Markey being 'pond scum'.

For the record, in addition to being 'pond scum', Markey is also a registered socialist.

Via WFB:



Here is the ad that prompted Gomez to refer to Markey as 'pond scum'.



When it comes to Republicans in the Senate, we could use a lot more of these guys and a lot fewer McCains.

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: Authors of 'Benghazi: The Definitive Report'

Former Green Beret Jack Murphy and Former Navy SEAL Brandon Webb have co-authored a book that makes some explosive charges about Barack Obama's nominee for CIA Director, John Brennan. Perhaps the most explosive is that Brennan was ordering weapons raids in Libya after the fall of Gadhafi and that he did so without the knowledge of then CIA Director David Petraeus or Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

According to the Daily Mail, Webb was the best friend of Glen Doherty, one of the two Navy SEALs who was murdered at the CIA Annex on September 11th.

Webb and Murphy appeared on Fox and Friends to discuss their charges and connect some very important dots.

Via Breitbart:



For more analysis of what these charges could mean, go here, here, here, and here.

Good News: Rand Paul rankling his father's Supporters

This is really a sight to behold - on so many levels. For starters, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is rightfully opposing the nomination of Chuck Hagel as Barack Obama's next Secretary of Defense. The more time that goes by, the more obvious it becomes that Hagel is anti-Israel at best and anti-Semitic at worst. Something else that is becoming more apparent is that the more we learn about Hagel, the more we seem to confirm about the Ron Paul crowd.

When you even hint that the Pauliens oppose Israel, they do what so many on the left do - they twist themselves into knots by making some obscure argument that we should allow Israel to protect itself because that is in Israel's best interest. The thinking apparently goes that isolationism is good for everyone, including a small tract of land at the center of multiple countries who have an unfathomable hate for everyone on that tract of land.

Consider the 2011 statement by Eric Dondero, a former senior aid for Ron Paul. He made it quite clear during the last presidential campaign that Rand's father was anti-Israel.

Via Right Side News:

Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite? Absolutely No. As a Jew, (half on my mother’s side), I can categorically say that I never heard anything out of his mouth, in hundreds of speeches I listened too over the years, or in my personal presence that could be called, “Anti-Semite.” No slurs. No derogatory remarks.

He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.

The Pauliens know that agreeing with this outwardly is a loser, so they dismiss Dondero's claims while denouncing Rand's opposition to Hagel, despite the latter apparently lining up almost exactly with the Ron Paul that Dondero describes.

That leads to the Pauliens' problem with Rand, via the Daily Caller:

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s vote to temporarily block Chuck Hagel’s nomination for secretary of defense elicited blowback from an unlikely source: antiwar conservatives and libertarians, many of them supporters of his father’s GOP presidential campaign.

Paul, the son of former Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul, joined all but four Republican senators Thursday in voting against a motion to end debate over Hagel’s nomination. GOP leaders are saying that they will not filibuster Hagel indefinitely, but instead want to delay a vote until they have more information about his speeches and finances.

“That is also why I voted to not end debate on the Hagel nomination,” Paul said in a statement. “I do not believe Sen. Hagel has adequately explained his activities and their financing since he left the Senate, and I believe this criteria is especially important when dealing with the revolving door between government and the private sector.”

That explanation wasn’t good enough for Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com and a strong supporter of Ron Paul. “It’s time for libertarians to treat Rand Paul like the turncoat he is: boycott,” Raimondo tweeted. “No $$, no support, and start calling him Paul the Lesser.”

It appears the longer Hagel is scrutinized, the more the Pauliens show their true, anti-Israel colors as well.

Leftists just Refuse to Learn: Founder of Group that helped overthrow Mubarak face to face with reality

Ahmed Maher is an Egyptian who co-founded the April 6th Movement, a leftist group formed circa 2008 to fight for social justice and other left-wing causes in Egypt and elsewhere. Ultimately, Maher's movement was instrumental in the overthrow of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak in early 2011.

Now, two years later, an Irish news source is reporting that Maher has come to a realization. According to RTE News, Mather tweeted the following after brutal crackdowns on protesters by the Muslim Brotherhood president Mohamed Morsi. Here is Maher's tweet:

"Mursi has been stripped bare and has lost his legitimacy. Done," tweeted Ahmed Maher, founder of the April 6 youth movement that helped launch the anti-Mubarak protests.

In the fall of 2011, several months after Mubarak's fall, the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement went on an offensive. Van Jones, fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP) and former Obama administration Green Jobs czar, promoted OWS publicly on MSNBC. On 9/29/11, he called for "an American fall" (a not-so-subtle reference to 'Arab Spring'). About six weeks later - on CNN - Jones called for ratcheting up the protests.

Let's get back to Maher for a moment.

Jones' CAP caught up with Maher, who had traveled to the U.S. and was at Occupy Washington, D.C. a few weeks after Jones called for that 'American fall' on MSNBC. Here is the video of that interview:



If you had difficulty understanding Maher, TP has the transcript.

This should be an extremely teachable moment not just for Maher but for all of the leftists in the U.S. Perhaps no one has enunciated this dynamic as well as Andrew McCarthy, who wrote in his book - The Grand Jihad:

Revolutionaries of Islam and the Left make fast friends when there is a common enemy to besiege. Leftists, however are essentially nihilists whose hazy vision prioritizes power over what is to be done with power. They are biddable. Islamists, who have very settled convictions about what is to be done with power, are much less so. Even their compromises keep their long-term goals in their sights. Thus do Leftists consistently overrate their ability to control Islamists. Factoring the common denominator, power, out of the equation, something always beats nothing.

While the left in America - to include the Obama administration - spends practically every waking moment plotting to defeat Christians, conservatives, and Republicans, groups like the Muslim Brotherhood egg them on while Obama's ventriloquist dummies run interference for Brotherhood groups in America through the media.

Unfortunately, it's not just the left in America that is furthering the cause of Islamists. It's also the John McCain wing of the Republican Party.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a bill that would stop shipment of Abrams tanks to the Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed Morsi in Egypt. More Republicans voted to continue sending those tanks than those who sided with Paul.

What happened to Maher is another in a long line of examples that western leaders continue to refuse to learn from.

Perhaps those leaders should start reading their Bibles.

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)

What will Obama's Civilian National Security Force be armed with?

If the Obama administration wants to take assault weapons away from civilians, what will the Civilian National Security Force be armed with?

Crowbars?

Remember this from July of 2008?

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.

What do David Petraeus and Gen. John Allen have in common besides being tied to Sex Scandal?

In addition to both David Petraeus and Gen. John Allen now apparently being involved to varying degrees in a sexual scandal, both men expressed questionable outrage over the treatment of Islamic Qur'ans in the past.

Here is Petraeus in April of 2011 condemning Florida Pastor Terry Jones for burning a Qur'an:



Here is General John Allen earlier this year, apologizing for the alleged mistreatment of Islamic materials, which included Qur'ans:

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.

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'.

Aren't our Generals supposed to DEFEND the Constitution?

I realize that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey is to follow the orders of his Commander-in-Chief but whether he picked up the phone and called Florida pastor Terry Jones to chill first amendment rights on his own or at the behest of the President makes little difference. Not only isn't it Dempsey's place to do so but his first priority is to defend the rights of all Americans NOT to have their rights chilled at all.

That apparently didn't stop him from picking up the phone and calling Jones.

Via Al Arabiya News:

The U.S. military’s top officer has urged a controversial Christian pastor to disavow a film that has ignited violent protests over its portrayal of the Islamic faith, a spokesman said Wednesday.

A day after a deadly assault on the U.S. consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi possibly sparked by the movie, General Martin Dempsey made a direct appeal to Pastor Terry Jones to reject the film to defuse tensions.

“In the brief call, Gen. Dempsey expressed his concerns over the nature of the film, the tensions it will inflame and the violence it will cause,” his spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan said in an email.

“He asked Mr Jones to consider withdrawing his support for the film,” he said.

What kind of message does this send to the Arab world? Note the news source that ran this story.

Moreover, apparently taking a cue from the actions of Dempsey is USA Today writer, Anthea Butler, who is actually siding with Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi by calling for the arrest of the man responsible for making the film that has allegedly so enflamed the Arab world. While doing so, Butler cites Dempsey.

Via USA Today:

My initial tweet about Bacile, the person said to be responsible for the film mocking the prophet Mohammed, was not because I am against the First Amendment. My tweets reflected my exasperation that as a religion professor, it is difficult to teach the facts when movies such as Bacile's Innocence of Muslims are taken as both truth and propaganda, and used against innocent Americans.

If there is anyone who values free speech, it is a tenured professor!

So why did I tweet that Bacile should be in jail? The "free speech" in Bacile's film is not about expressing a personal opinion about Islam. It denigrates the religion by depicting the faith's founder in several ludicrous and historically inaccurate scenes to incite and inflame viewers. Even the film's actors say they were duped.

Butler then argues that the difference between Bacile's film and The Last Temptation of Christ, which was insulting to Christianity is that Muslims reacted differently than Christians did. Therefore, Bacile should be responsible.

IT'S DELUSIONAL THINKING!

Here is where we get to the realm of unintended consequences on Dempsey's part; Butler uses his actions to attempt to make her case:

Bacile's movie does not excuse the rioting in Libya and Egypt, or the murder of Americans. That is deplorable. Unfortunately, people like Bacile and Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who provoked international controversy by burning copies of the Quran, have a tremendous impact on religious tolerance and U.S. foreign policy.

Case in point: Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Jones on Wednesday to ask him to stop promoting Bacile's film. Clearly, the military considers the film a serious threat to national security. If the military takes it seriously, there should be consequences for putting American lives at risk.

Essentially, Butler is saying Islam's problem with our freedom of speech should become our problem.

That's like saying players who lose a championship game should be held to account for the angry fans rioting in the streets.

Fort Hood Jihadist Attorneys: Military preventing Muslims from being on Jury

If you find yourself wondering why the trial of Nidal Malik Hasan still hasn't so much as completed jury selection after nearly three years since he murdered 14 people, perhaps the latest bit of insane news will help to explain it. Apparently, the defense team thinks the Military is discriminating against potential Muslim jurors.

Via Temple Daily Telegram:

The jury panel selection process for the court-martial of Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal M. Hasan has been described by the defense team as a “highly unusual process” that it wants to know more about.

When pre-trial hearings in the case resume on Friday, look for Judge Col. Gregory Gross to address several points raised by Hasan’s attorneys last week that suggest the military might have screened out Islamic officers in advance.

Army prosecutors in the case say the allegation is simply not true but the defense team wants proof.

They are asking the judge to release paperwork associated with the panel selection so they can better understand the process. In addition, the defense wants to interview Lt. Gen. Donald Campbell, Fort Hood's commanding  general and Staff Judge Advocate Col. Stuart Risch, Campbell's senior legal advisor, to determine if thee was command influence exerted from beyond the gates at Fort Hood.

I fail to see what's so difficult about this. Wives of police officers are not permitted to serve on juries in criminal cases because of an obvious and inherent bias. Muslims should not be allowed to serve on the jury in the Fort Hood Shooter case for the same reason. According to Islam, Hasan was justified.

Instead of taking the position that they're NOT screening out potential Muslim jurors, perhaps the Military / prosecutors should say they did while citing the Qur'an and the Hadith as justification.

Another piece to the Obama Selective Service puzzle?

Of all the questions surrounding Barack Obama's identification documents, I always found the ones about his Selective Service registration the most compelling. Debbie Schlussel broke this story back in 2008 and very legitimate questions remain unanswered. Now we learn - via Breitbart - that in 1983, Obama penned an article that called on people to ignore the law that required them to register with the Selective Service.

In late 2008—long after the election—the media revealed a long-forgotten article written by Barack Obama while at Columbia. Obama wrote the March 1983 article, “Breaking the War Mentality,” about two campus groups, Arms Race Alternatives (ARA) and Student Against Militarism (SAM). Ben Smith of Politico (now at Buzzfeed) told readers that Obama’s views reflected the “very conventional campus liberalism of the time.”

Wrong. Smith and the media failed to investigate what the activists at SAM were actually doing: encouraging students to break the law by not registering for the Selective Service and harassing military recruiters.

A little later, we learn a little bit about the current chairman of the FCC, Julius Genachowski, who seemed to excuse the illegal act:

SAM’s most serious form of political activism, however, was encouraging students not to register for the Selective Service. Refusing to register for the Selective Service could mean arrest, imprisonment, and—most importantly—denial of federal student aid. SAM counseled Columbia’s estimated 400 non-registrants and tried to form them into a political force on campus. The non-registrant’s “refusal to register seems to reflect more of an abstract repulsion to war and violence than any political opposition to the American political system,” wrote Julius Genachowski for the Spectator on November 29, 1982 (later Obama’s classmate at Harvard Law School, and his appointee to lead the Federal Communications Commission). “But they are nevertheless acutely aware that a peaceful world would require a restructuring of that system—and that such a change could only be furthered by the public declaration of their opposition to draft registration.”

SAM hosted an event encouraging students to do just that. It even formed a support group for law-breakers.

So, if Obama registered with the Selective Service, he would have been the quintessential hypocrite by endorsing a group that others to break the law while he himself did not. If he didn't register with the Selective Service, he broke the law by not doing so. Moreover, it will have meant that he committed a felony because the Selective Service registration card dissected by Schlussel is, in fact, fraudulent.

For some reason, this clip came to mind as I was writing this post:

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 

Are the Navy SEALs Swiftboating Obama?

It takes quite a bit of gall to agitate the Navy SEALs but Barack Obama appears to have a sufficient amount. First up, here's an ad from a group known as Veterans for a Strong America, headed by decorated Iraqi war veteran, Joel Arends. The message is quite simple; Obama's narcissism is over-the-top  when it comes to his level of involvement in killing bin Laden. Also noteworthy is the fact that it isn't just veteran SEALs who are not pleased with Obama; the growing list also includes current ones.

Via Town Hall:



Buzzfeed has more on the growing disgust among the SEALS:

In the wake of a warm conservative reception for a web video trashing the president for “spiking the football” on the anniversary of Osama Bin Laden’s death, the conservative group Veterans for a Strong America plans to gather Navy SEALs and Special Forces operators to criticize the White House during the 2012 campaign.

“We’re looking to [put together] a coalition, to field SEALs and operators that want to come out publicly,” executive director of Veterans for a Strong America, Joel Arends, tells BuzzFeed. “I’ve had a lot of discussions with former SEALs and current SEALs. I’ve been talking to operators in the community. There is palatable discontent.”

Arends, a 35-year old Iraq war veteran who has spent the last six years in conservative activist circles, started the group last fall during the Republican primaries.

Arends sat down with Fox's Megyn Kelly to discuss the campaign. If for no other reason, watch it for the steady stream of football metaphors.


h/t Hot Air

Video: Obama in Afghanistan; asks for troops to applaud him

Well, at least Barack Obama is putting his transparent side on full display. First, he spikes the football on the one year anniversary of Osama Bin Laden's death; the Navy Seals - both retired and active - vehemently object. Despite objections from Arianna Huffington and other left wing bloggers over the politicizing of bin Laden's death in an election year, Obama doubles down by actually flying to Kabul on what amounts to being a campaign stop so he can pile on by doing an Ochocinco-esque end zone dance.

As if that weren't enough, while speaking to the troops, he asks them to cheer his arrival.

No, I'm not kidding.

Has there ever been a more emotionally immature president in the history of the United States?

Via Hapblog:

Video: Katy Perry now officially Rocks

Back in August of 2011, pop singer Katy Perry found herself in some hot water when she posted a tweet that advocated praying for Israel. The venomous backlash she received was predictable but, nonetheless unwarranted. Unfortunately, Perry walked it back a bit, saying that a kid asked her to pray for him specifically.

Well, it appears that Ms. Perry may have made a very conscious decision to anger the left in the form of a pro-Military video.

This is very refreshing to see from a celebrity. Will she withstand the backlash? If she keeps this up, she's going to have a slew of conservative  fans.

***UPDATE*** Far left whack job, Naomi Wolf is calling for a boycott of Katy Perry and seems to think this video is "Propaganda for the Marines" and "glorification of violence." Uh, really?

Translation: Wolf hates the idea of people feeling good about the U.S. Military and the degree to which she fears this might do that should actually help you enjoy it a bit more.

U.S. Troops wearing "Infidel" Apparel

Whether it's Rules of Engagement, how not to treat a Qur'an, or a myriad of other things, the U.S. troops are the unfortunate - and undeserving - beneficiaries of political cowardice masquerading as political correctness (which sounds better but essentially means the same thing). As difficult as it may be for them to find ways to identify the enemy, several of them have discovered an ingenious way to have the same effect by identifying themselves as how the enemy sees them.

Via Business Insider:

With tensions at an all time high in Afghanistan following the Koran burnings, the urination video, and the killing of 16 civilians, attention is now falling on a long line of "Infidel" apparel and gear.

Exhausted from how they feel they're being perceived, troops have taken to wearing patches and carrying items that label themselves infidels, and offer translation in local dialect.

In the Muslim world an infidel means literally "one without faith" who rejects the central teachings of Islam. 

Military.com tracked down Clayton Montgomery at Mil-Spec Monkey, a large online seller of infidel gear, who says his most popular item by far is the "Pork Eating Crusader Patch."

The patch includes an image of a knight in a Crusade's tunic, eating what appears to be a large ham hock, and lest there be any confusion — a translation in Arabic.

You watch, these items will be banned if the Muslims yell loud enough about it. At that point, though, they will actually be getting mad because an infidel should not be permitted to identify himself as such. Oh, the insanity.

h/t The Blaze 

Video: Marine calls Obama "Domestic Enemy"

In a bold move, an active Marine - Sgt. Gary Stein - has referred to the president as a "domestic enemy" on his facebook page.

Here's the CNN news report via Western Journalism:



Here is the link to Stein's facebook page, known as Armed Forces Tea Party:

http://www.facebook.com/ArmedForcesTeaParty

Stein is not the first one to put the two words "domestic" and "enemy" together when speaking publicly about the president. The question was posed to then Minority Whip, Rep. Eric Cantor nearly two years ago when the congressman spoke at the Heritage Foundation: