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.

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.

Video: George Zimmerman reenacts shooting

On the day after the Trayvon Martin shooting, police took George Zimmerman to the scene to reenact what happened. That video is now posted.

Via ABC:



Here is ABC's Chris Cuomo giving analysis of what the tape of Zimmerman's reenactment means for both the defense and the prosecution.

Video: Zimmerman's Bond Hearing; a must-see

This video starts with George Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, grilling the state investigator - Dale Gilbreath - who signed the probable cause affidavit. At several points, Gilbreath - in addition to looking like a bureaucratic lackey - comes across as being a foolish lemming for putting his name to an affidavit that is reminiscent of that of a kindergartner with finger paints.

Welcome to the media circus spawned by Al Sharpton. Gilbreath may end up being more of a casualty than Zimmerman.

Un-be-leeeev-able.

Is Truth about Trayvon's killing starting to take shape?

Perhaps this is the most detail about what happened the night of Trayvon Martin's death. The narrative pushed by Al Sharpton and the New Black Panthers has been that George Zimmerman hunted the teen down despite being told not to by police. It's beginning to look like that may be demonstrably false. According to a source allegedly knowledgable of Zimmerman's account, it was Zimmerman who was attacked by Martin.

Via Daily Beast:

Since the days immediately after the shooting, news outlets have widely reported the 911 calls Zimmerman made, during which he told a police dispatcher that he would follow Martin, whom he described as suspicious. The police dispatcher said, “We don’t need you to do that.”

As has been reported, Zimmerman told police officials that he lost sight of Martin and went around a townhouse to see where he was. Then he claimed Martin confronted him and punched him, knocking him down.

According to The Daily Beast’s source, Zimmerman told police that when he was on the ground, Martin straddled him, striking him, and then tried to smother him.

Zimmerman claimed that he yelled for help, and that various neighbors who peered out to see the fight from their backyards didn’t get involved. Zimmerman, the source said, told officers he was so paralyzed by fear that he initially forgot he had a gun, but he said that after Martin noticed his 9mm pistol, Zimmerman pulled it out of his belt holder and fired one round, a hollow-point—the round that killed Martin. (The autopsy report on Martin has not yet been released.)

According to the source, Zimmerman told police that Martin’s last words after the shooting were, “Okay, you got it.” He said the phrase twice, then turned and fell face-down on the ground.

Very few people are asserting that Zimmerman used good judgment that night but it's important to learn what happened after police told him to stop following Trayvon. Did he stop or continue? If he stopped and was attacked by Martin, we have a completely different set of facts that race baiters could regret attempting to alter.

Another interesting aspect to all of this involves the multiple attempts by Sanford police to find inconsistencies in Zimmerman's account.

The law-enforcement source said Sanford police investigators interviewed Zimmerman three times about the shooting. The last time followed a walk-through of the shooting site. Afterward, three detectives grilled Zimmerman at police headquarters in their most thorough and hostile questioning, according to the source. They told Zimmerman they didn’t believe him, the source said, and tried to poke holes in his story.

A spokesman for the Sanford Police Department declined to comment on the case.

The precise details of that story are crucial to the case against Zimmerman. Perhaps the key issue will be who instigated the confrontation. The brief affidavit filed by the special prosecutor in support of the murder charge contends that Zimmerman provoked the encounter by following and confronting the teenager.

Note the last part. If special prosecutor Angela Corey charged Zimmerman based on an affidavit that said he provoked the encounter while multiple police investigators determined something else entirely, this could be a battle between Sandford police and the special prosecutor, not just one between Zimmerman and the Martin family. In fact, Corey's decision to indict Martin actually makes the Sandford police look incompetent. If they aren't and got it right, they're likely going to defend themselves. If they have the truth on their side, they'll probably be able to back it up.

Read it all.

Zimmerman may have upper hand in Court for several reasons

The Al Sharptons of the world may have gotten what he wanted when George Zimmerman was arrested and charged with second degree murder but in addition to there being significant issues with the affidavit, Zimmerman may have more than one chance to prove his innocence. First, if you haven't seen it, the first video below is Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz shredding both the State Attorney Angela Corey, who decided to bypass a grand jury and charge Zimmerman with second degree murder. Here is a copy of the affidavit (via TalkLeft) Dershowitz is referring to.

Via MediaIte:



Notice that Dershowitz says that Corey has a lot to answer for by submitting what he calls an irresponsible affidavit. He seems quite adamant that the judge should throw it out, in part, because any second degree murder charge typically comes with a grand jury concluding that there is no reasonable doubt of the crime taking place. Dershowitz says this affidavit doesn't even meet the threshold of probable cause.

That leads us to the judge assigned to this case. Her name is Jessica Recksiedler and she came forward this week to express concern that she may have a conflict based on the fact that her husband works for an attorney who Zimmerman had reached out to prior to settling on the one representing him now.

Via Breitbart:



Well, hey, that's no conflict at all when compared to Justice Elena Kagan's conflict with Obamacare and she hasn't recused herself, but I digress.

Anyway, it's impossible to know what Recksiedler is thinking about how the case will proceed but according to the Tacoma News Tribune, Zimmerman will have the opportunity to ask the judge to rule whether the killing was justified. Due to the Stand Your Ground law, he will be able to do this with nothing but upside.

One area that sets Florida apart is the next step Zimmerman faces: With the police and prosecutor having weighed in, a judge will decide whether to dismiss the second-degree murder charge based on "stand your ground." If Zimmerman wins that stage, prosecutors can appeal. 

But in another aspect peculiar to Florida, if the appeals court sides with Zimmerman, not only will he be forever immune from facing criminal charges for shooting the 17-year-old Martin - even if new evidence or witnesses surface - he could not even be sued for civil damages by Martin's family for wrongfully causing his death.

"You get even more protection than any acquitted murderer," said Tamara Lawson, a former prosecutor who now teaches at St. Thomas School of Law in Miami. "This law seems to give more protection than any other alleged criminal could dream about."

If Zimmerman can't convince the judge of his innocence, he still can use "stand your ground" to convince jurors.

Conversely, there seems to be a degree of downside for Recksidler. If she finds Zimmerman guilty and a jury acquits him, what will that say about her motives and her politics? It's one thing to be overturned by a higher court but it's something else entirely to be overturned by a jury. If she finds Zimmerman not guilty, she could find a bunch of unfriendly feet on the front lawn of her home and a U.S. Attorney General - Eric Holder - who has already sided with Al Sharpton, not likely to help.

The main reason for Zimmerman's advantages as a defendant has to do with the 'Stand Your Ground' law in Florida. This law has been the quintessential straw man for gun control fanatics on the left. New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is already using it for political advantage, as are a slew of other Democrats (Bloomberg is an IINO - Independent in Name Only).

That leads to this interesting little factoid. Did you know that two very prominent Democrats signed similar legislation when they were Governors? DHS Secretary and Obama lackey, Janet Napolitano, signed a 'Stand Your Ground' law when she was Governor of Arizona?

Via Breitbart's AWR Hawkins:

...on April 2nd, I had a post on Big Government that highlighted how former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, used her Current TV show to lambaste Stand Your Ground laws, and to blame Republicans for the existence of such laws in the first place. However, as I showed, the dirty little secret is that Granholm signed Michigan’s Stand Your Ground bill into law in 2006.

Now it’s been discovered that an even more prominent Democrat, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, signed Arizona’s Stand Your Ground bill into law while governor of that state in 2006. And it’s important to note that Napolitano didn’t sign the bill half-halfheartedly, rather, she even countered anti-gunners’ opposition in the signing.

I just can't help posting this video whenever I find it so totally relevant. This is one of those times.

Video: Trayvon's mother says she thinks son's death an 'accident'

George Zimmerman has been charged with second degree murder. As MSNBC's Ann Curry points out in this interview with Trayvon Martin's parents, that charge comes with a presupposition that the perpetrator has reckless disregard for human life. Shortly after saying that, Trayvon's mother - Sybrina Fulton - says she thinks the death of her son was an 'accident' at the 4:00 mark. Take note of the body language of the attorney - seated to Fulton's left - right after she says it.

Via MSNBC:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

h/t Free Republic

Video: Muslim Judge in Pennsylvania on CNN

Consider this guy busted. His name is Mark Martin and he is a Muslim Judge from Pennsylvania. He presided over a case in which an atheist named Ernest Perce was allegedly assaulted by a Muslim bystander during a Halloween parade. Perce was dressed as a "Muhammad Zombie" and his Muslim assailant was so offended and so nervous that he dialed 9-4-4 instead of 9-1-1 in an attempt to report Perce for doing something illegal (dressing up as a Muhammad Zombie is not illegal).

According to an article by Pamela Geller at American Thinker, Martin has denied that he's a Muslim, despite his confession to the contrary, which can be heard on the audio recording of the trial; it was released by Perce on YouTube and can be heard HERE.

Today, Martin - who is clearly on defense now - appeared on CNN and was interviewed by Soledad O'Brien about his ruling, which was for the Muslim assailant. As Martin issued his ruling, it sounded more like a defense of Islam than of the U.S. Constitution. Perce was chastised and called a "doofus" by Martin, who ultimately ruled in favor of the Muslim defendant.

Anyway, here is Martin's appearance on CNN. Pay particularly close attention at the end as Martin actually compares Perce to the KKK while making the argument that just because the Klan had the first amendment right to wear sheets didn't mean that it was right.

Uh, Mr. Muslim Judge, the KKK dressed in white sheets before they went on killing sprees that likely began with assaults. In this case, the guy you compare to the KKK wasn't looking to hurt anyone. In fact, he was the one assaulted.

Lame-O



h/t Shoebat via Hot Air

Audio: American Judge implementing Sharia Law from the Bench

For all the Ron Pauliens who think the Islamic threat to America is overrated, it's time to take note. A Judge in Pennsylvania presided over a trial in which an atheist who dressed up as a "Muhammad zombie" during a Halloween parade was assaulted by an angry Muslim spectator. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania brought assault charges against the assailant, who thought it was against the law for anyone to do such a thing.

Those of us who live under the United States constitution know that is incorrect. Assaulting someone is against the law and freedom of expression is not.

That's not the worst part. The victim in this assault is a man named Ernest Perce. The Judge in the trial is a convert to Islam; his name is Mark Martin. Not only did Martin find for the defendant but he did so based solely on Sharia law. Additionally, Martin is now threatening to jail Perce for recording the audio of the proceedings and putting it on YouTube (below).

Stranger still is the fact that Perce got permission from Martin to make the recording!

Anyway, here is the audio of the proceedings, recorded by Perce. It is long but well worth it, particularly toward the end, when you hear the rationale for Martin's ruling. If you don't have time, Shoebat has a breakdown of some key times in the video where you can fast forward.

Just to give you an idea of what to expect, check out this quote from Martin, via Atlas Shrugs:

American Judge in American court (minute 29:50): "Our forefathers intended that we use the first amendment so that we could speak what's on our mind, not piss off other cultures..... Islam is not just a religion, it's their culture, their culture, the very essence, their very being. They pray five times a day, towards Mecca. To be a good Muslim before you die, you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you cannot because you are too ill, too elderly, whatever, you must make the attempt. Their greetings salum alaikum waliakum as-salm )as answered by voice), uh may god be with you. It is very common, their language, when they are speaking to each other, it is very common for them to say, uh allah willing, this will happen. It's they are so immersed in it. And what you've done is you've completey trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I am a Muslim. I find it very offensive ..... You are way outside your bounds of first amendment rights."

What say you, Ron Pauliens?

Obama's Georgia Eligibility case Transcends Birtherism

Look, I've stayed away from the Birther cases as much as anyone but this story transcends that issue by a country mile. It's not about the location of Obama's birth. It's about his being above the law. First, to re-cap. In a case brought by five plaintiffs, it was argued that Barack Obama should be off the primary ballot in Georgia. Last month, Judge Michael M. Malihi denied a request by Obama's attorney to quash the subpoena that required the president to appear before the court for the January 26th hearing.

Obama responded by thumbing his nose at said judge and did not appear. In a sane world, that translates to a default judgment for the plaintiffs. That did not happen. Instead, in what could have been seen at the time as a show of respect for the office of the President, Malihi ruled that he would reserve judgment and allow both sides to present summaries as to why the court should rule in their favor.

Obama's attorney, Michael Jablonski, then went to the Secretary of State for Georgia, Brian Kemp, who had the authority to review Malihi's decision. Kemp, in essence, told Jablonski that his client (Obama) needs to respect the decision, saying:

“If you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the …proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

Malihi has now ruled in favor of Obama. As I said, this story transcends "birtherism." A defendant has defied a judge's ruling that said defendant appear before the court and said Judge responded by ruling in the defendant's favor.

Via WND:

An administrative law judge in Georgia today ruled that Barack Obama’s name can be on the state’s 2012 presidential election ballot because he was born in Hawaii, is “native born” and thus also is “natural born” as required by the Constitution.

He cited a little-known determination by an Indiana judge.

“The Indiana court determined that a person qualifies as a natural born citizen if he was born in the United States because he became a United States citizen at birth,” wrote Michael Malihi, an administrative law judge in Atlanta.

Those who dismiss this Georgia case risk doing what Democrats did in defense of Bill Clinton during the Impeachment hearings. "It was just sex," they said. No, it was about perjury.

It's important here not to get bogged down in the "tin-foil hat" aspect often attributed to Birthers.

This can't get any simpler. It's not about the validity of Obama's Birth Certificate; it is about a defendant kissing off a judge by not showing up when ordered and then having said judge rule in the defendant's favor.

HERE is an article written by one of the plaintiffs, Laurie Roth.

Report: Iran working with al-Qaeda

When US federal district judge ruled, after eight years, that Iran and Hezbollah were behind 9/11 and worked closely with al-Qaeda to coordinate the attacks, it was shockingly not all that newsworthy. It meant that Iran hit the United States in the same way that Japan did at Pearl Harbor. It was a bombshell met with virtual silence.

Now, we have real time evidence that Iran is currently working with al-Qaeda at a time when the former is threatening terror attacks on American soil.

Via Fox News:

U.S. officials say they believe Iran recently gave new freedoms to as many as five top Al Qaeda operatives who have been under house arrest, including the option to leave the country, and may have provided some material aid to the terrorist group.

The men, who were detained in Iran in 2003, make up Al Qaeda's so-called management council, a group that includes members of the inner circle that advised Usama bin Laden and an explosives expert widely considered a candidate for a top post in the organization.

Of course, there are libertarians out there who don't want to believe any of this.

Skeptics caution that intelligence on Iran's activities is limited and worry that some policy makers might use provocative reports to justify military action against Tehran. Iran has denied any connection with Al Qaeda.

U.S. officials believe there have been recent indications that officials in the Iranian government have provided Al Qaeda operatives in Iran limited assistance, including logistical help, money and cars, according to a person briefed on the developments.

If those "skeptics" ever read about Havlish v. Iran,  et. al, their skepticism would be more than assuaged.

You can read all about Havlish HERE. 

Sorry Folks, this Birther Story in Georgia is Newsworthy

A case has been brought against Barack Obama by Georgia residents who say he his not eligible to appear on that state's presidential primary ballot. That, by itself, is not all that newsworthy. However, Georgia Judge Michael M. Malihi has denied Obama's request not to have to appear in front of the court on January 26th. That is newsworthy.

Via the AP:

ATLANTA (AP) — A judge has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court in Atlanta for a hearing on a complaint that says Obama isn't a natural-born citizen and can't be president.

It's one of many such lawsuits that have been filed across the country, so far without success. A Georgia resident made the complaint, which is intended to keep Obama's name off the state's ballot in the March presidential primary.

What is the argument from the administration as to why Obama shouldn't appear? Well, he's too busy. Here is an excerpt from the Judge's order that denies the administration's motion to quash the subpoena:

In support of his motion, Defendant argues that "if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as President of the United States" to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend. Defendant's motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority.

It ends with the following sentence:

Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to quash is denied.

Read the entire order HERE.

Does this mean that Obama will appear in court on January 26th? Hardly, but it'll be interesting to see what the Judge does after getting the proverbial kiss-off.

h/t Free Republic

Feds Withholding Evidence in Fort Hood Jihadist's Trial

Claims by the defense lawyer for Fort Hood Jihadist, Nidal Malik Hasan, that the government is preventing him from seeing a White House Intelligence report on the shooting. Attorney John Galligan's claims that he has been denied access to important evidence appear to be quite accurate at this point. Ironically, this may be the one thing on which Galligan should be able to garner public support. It looks like he's not getting access to all of the emails between Hasan and Anwar al-Awlaki. This could say quite a bit about what the Feds don't want revealed about them.

Via Fox News:

A new filing in the Fort Hood case shows that a key White House Intelligence report on the Fort Hood Shooting in November 2009 is still being withheld from the defense. The Army also admits it does not have all of the emails exchanged between the accused shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan and the first American on the CIA’s kill or capture list, Anwar al-Awlaki.

The documents, filed on July 14 as part of the Fort Hood prosecution, state:

“Trial counsels (Army lawyers) have produced all electronic communication in their possession between the Accused and Anwar al-Awlaki. On information and belief, trials counsels do not believe they possess all electronic communications between the Accused and the individuals (al-Awlaki.)”

Hasan’s defense lawyer, John Galligan, says he was given nine emails by the military as part of the discovery process. Yet, sources who have reviewed the email exchange between Hasan and Awlaki which began in December 2008 tell Fox News there are at least 18 emails.

Based on the history of our federal government's behavior, there is possibly something in the Intelligence report that is very damaging.

Characterization of the emails exchanged between the accused Fort Hood shooter and the cleric range from benign to clearly concerning in tone. In one email, Hasan reportedly asked if it was okay to kill Americans – though U.S. officials will not comment publicly on the accuracy of those reports or the contents of the emails.

Yet, some former intelligence officials say the mere contact between Hasan and Awlaki – an American citizen who leads the new breed of Digital Jihadists who spread their ideology of hate through the web – should have prompted immediate action. Fox News’ investigative unit, in its special “Secrets of 9/11,” has shown that Awlaki’s contact with three of the 9/11 hijackers was not a series of coincidences but rather evidence of a purposeful relationship.

Cover-up, damage control, and CYA?

Read it all.

Blago Invokes Bin Laden, Finally Throws Public a Bone in Second Trial

The re-trial of ousted Illinois Governor has for the most part, been a rather ponderous exercise. The prosecution didn't play those entertaining recordings of Rod Blagojevich this time around and the media has basically ignored the proceedings. By the time Blago's defense started, the trial had the wrong kind of media inertia going. The longer the trial garnered no interest, the more difficult it would be to to generate. Even taking the stand himself created virtually no interest.

There may be faint signs of life after Blago's fifth day of testimony, during which he said that one of the reasons he considered appointing himself to Obama's Senate seat was so he could get Osama bin Laden:

Via Daily Caller:

Rod Blagojevich tells jurors he discussed the possibility of appointing himself to the U.S. Senate in 2008 so he could hunt down then-al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

If Blago has any chance of getting the media to take notice, he's going to have to start delivering more nuggets like that.

More here.

Blagojevich Takes the Stand, Crickets Chirp

Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich took the stand during his re-trial and it went virtually unnoticed by media outlets. A day earlier, Rahm Emanuel and Jesse Jackson, Jr. testified and that too was practically ignored. Blago's decision to testify was likely rooted in desperation as the prosecution greatly scaled back the circus atmosphere of the first trial. As for his testimony, reports suggest that Blago did his best to play the sympathy card; at this point, it's really all he's got left. Based on the reports, it appears that the gravity of what the former Governor is facing is starting to set in.

Via Chicago Sun-Times:

With all eyes on him, Rod Blagojevich stood up, buttoned his suit-coat, pecked his wife on the cheek, then made the walk across a federal courtroom.

After years of false promises and of making statements only in front of television cameras, the former governor of Illinois on Thursday raised his right hand and took an oath before sitting in the witness chair.

“I’m Rod Blagojevich,” he said to jurors with a hint of nervousness. “I used to be your governor, and I’m here today to tell you the truth.”

And over the next few hours he told them quite a bit.

He admitted his salty language on secret FBI tapes made him “an effin’ jerk,” confessed to having “a man crush” on Alexander Hamilton, then showed a video of himself and Jesse Jackson Jr. hugging it out.

Rod Blagojevich even choked up when talking about meeting his wife.

In the first trial, the prosecution's tactics almost seemed to benefit Blago while embarrassing the Obama administration. The second trial appears to be doing the exact opposite. Again, perhaps the biggest mistake Blago made was deciding not to put up a defense in the first trial. He might have been able to capitalize on the local media frenzy and gotten the trial even more attention. He didn't and the second trial has garnered virtually ZERO interest, even with his testimony.

Read it all.

Blago Trial: Rahm and Jesse Jackson Jr. Take Stand, no Fireworks

The entertaining circus that was the first Rod Blagojevich trial is certainly missing from the second trial, despite both Rahm Emanuel and Jesse Jackson, Jr. both taking the stand. The big difference so far is that in the first trial, the prosecution played a lot of tapes which actually served to ingratiate Blago with the public. They humanized him and were often quite funny, cuss words notwithstanding. The prosecution didn't do any of that this time around and Blago has garnered little to no attention as a result.

In the first trial, Blago's lawyers were effective at playing up the possibility that Emanuel, Jackson, Jarrett, and a host of other high profile people would be called to the stand, including Blago himself. It had an air of, 'if you think the prosecution's arguments were entertaining, you just wait.' What ensued was an anti-climax, the likes of which haven't been seen since Geraldo opened Capone's vault. No one was called. In hindsight, that may have been Blago's biggest mistake. He had an opportunity to capitalize on the inertia of the very dynamic circus atmosphere.

The second trial is proving to have the opposite kind of inertia. The prosecution induced yawn's and virtually no attention. When it became Blagojevich's turn, the decision to call Emanuel and Jackson to the stand didn't even get the ball rolling. Their testimony was a virtual non-event.

Via Westport News:

In their cross-examination of U.S. Rep Jesse Jackson Jr., prosecutors asked him about an unrelated incident, previously reported by the AP. Jackson confirmed Blagojevich had once considered Jackson's wife for a position as head of the Illinois lottery. Jackson said his wife didn't get the promised appointment after Jackson refused to give Blagojevich a $25,000 campaign donation.

Jackson claimed Blagojevich later apologized the appointment didn't pan out but made it clear the donation was part of the reason.

"He snapped both fingers and said, 'You should have given me that $25,000,'" Jackson testified, pantomiming a pose from the governor's idol, Elvis Presley.

Another high-profile witness to take the stand Wednesday was Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

Emanuel testified that, in his former job as chief of staff to President Barack Obama, he knew of no deal in which Blagojevich had asked for a top job in exchange for appointing Obama's preferred candidate to the president-elect's vacant U.S. Senate seat in 2008.

This may all come down to whether Blago decides to throw a Hail Mary pass and testify at his own trial. It may be all he has left. If the testimony of Jackson and Emanuel isn't drawing the much needed attention Blago's team wants, there really aren't any more options.

Read it all.

Blago is Back; Former Illinois Governor Again seeks Obama Interview Notes

It's almost hard to believe that Rod Blagojevich's retrial is less than three weeks away. It looks like Blago's going to make another attempt to get the judge to release the minutes of a lengthy meeting Obama had with the Feds shortly after Blagojevich was arrested on December 9, 2009. For those who followed the first trial, there seemed to be plenty of testimony that indicated Obama's involvement may have been more than what we were told.

Via the AP:

CHICAGO (AP) -- Rod Blagojevich asked a judge Monday to order the government to hand over notes of any FBI interviews with President Barack Obama about the ousted Illinois governor's corruption case, a request that comes less than three weeks before Blagojevich's retrial is set to begin.

The request for the notes related to Obama, who has never been accused of any wrongdoing in the matter, came in a motion filed with the U.S. District Court in Chicago. Presiding Judge James Zagel rejected a similar request before Blagojevich's first trial last year.

Blagojevich, 54, faces 20 charges, including allegations that sought to sell or trade an appointment to Obama's vacated U.S. Senate seat for a top job or campaign cash. Jurors at his first trial deadlocked on all but one count, convicting him on a lone count of lying to the FBI. His retrial is scheduled to start on April 20.

In the motion, the defense says the notes could "go directly to the heart of testimony of several government witnesses," particularly that of Chicago-based union leader and longtime Obama ally Tom Balanoff. He told jurors during the first trial that he talked to Obama about the Senate seat on the eve of the 2008 president election.

In addition to the testimony that raised eyebrows about Obama's level of involvement, Blago's motion to subpoena Obama was heavily redacted during the first trial. A software glitch, however, allowed the entire document to be read on the internet. The redacted portions also seemed to indicate Obama was more aware of what was going on than has been portrayed.

Read it all.

Video: Jesse Jackson Jr. wants to Change U.S. Constitution

Jesse Jackson Jr. wants it to be the law of the land that every kid can have an 'iPod' and a 'laptop.' He also wants to fix unemployment by changing the Constitution. The words that came out of Jesse's head hole known as mouth only come from one of two kinds of minds. Either: an uneducated child or a wicked man who wants to see the consequences of such destructive ideas being implemented. Jackson's logic is that if everyone has access to health care, it will drive demand for doctors up. If everyone has the right to a home, it will drive up demand for contractors.

Small problem, Jesse. Where does the money come from? Also completely lost on this corruptocrat is that the Community Reinvestment Act allowed minorities who couldn't afford homes to get them. The CRA(P), more than anything else, helped to put the U.S. economy in the dire straits its in.

This guy better have to testify in the next Rod Blagojevich trial. The first go round implicated JJJ as potentially being the most corrupt of all those involved in Blago's pay to play scandal.

Via the Blaze:

AUDIO: ATTORNEY FOR LT. COL CALLING FOR OBAMA TO PROVE ELIGIBILITY

Writing about this subject is limited fare for me but there are multiple angles to the content of this interview that transcend Obama's long form Birth Certificate. For starters, the attorney representing Lt. Col Terry Lakin is highly respected and represented the four Navy Seals last year who were acquitted of beating up a terrorist responsible for the for the burning alive of four American contractors in Fallujah who were then hung from a bridge in Fallujah in 2004.

Neal Puckett has represented soldiers on more than one occasion that were wrongfully targeted for how they conducted themselves in combat; he's got plenty of street cred and is on the right side far more often than not.

Another theme that develops here is the conduct of senior officers who don't seem to be willing to - as Col. Allen West says - "go through hell with a gasoline can" for his men.

Lastly, the "Birthers" have two indisputable facts on their side. First, Obama has not presented his long-form Birth Certificate or passport. Second, he's spent millions of dollars preventing it from being released. Those are two very important facts that Lt. Col Lakin does have on his side but it looks like Puckett has conceded Lakin will take the fall; he's just trying to soften it.

It gets good at the end when the interviewer (name unknown), who seems to be somewhat connected to the power structure at the Pentagon calls senior military brass "cowards."

Part 1



Part 2



h/t Impeach Obama

VIDEO: CHARLIE RANGEL'S MOMENT OF TRUTH

On December 2nd, the House voted 333-79 to censure Charlie Rangel. He was also ordered to pay any debt he owes the Treasury as a result of his not paying taxes. Here are three videos for your viewing pleasure. First up, a somber outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reads the formal verdict with Charles B. Rangel in the well of the House. Next up, Charlie Rangel addresses the House and subsequently receives a standing ovation. Lastly, afterward, at a press conference he tells the press that he does not deal with average citizens.

Welcome to an inside look at why this country is in the mess it's in.

Via Weasel Zippers





Finally, Charlie speaks the truth...

Via HapBlog: