IÂ’m disappointed that a member of Congress would back away from a true statement at the behest of apologists for Islamist terrorism.

U.S. Rep. Donald Manzullo told WREX-TV in Rockford, Ill., that alleged terrorists imprisoned at the Navy base are "really really mean people whose job it is to kill people, driven by some savage religion."

The Republican lawmaker confirmed Tuesday those words were his. He said he never specified Islam and apologized for any misunderstanding.

However, the terrorist shills from CAIR leaped to the fore, claiming that ManzulloÂ’s statement was defamatory of Islam. They appear less worried, however, about the claims of terrorists that they act in the name of Islam.

Remember – it is the terrorists themselves who make a claim that their acts of murder and mayhem are based upon religious imperatives. If that does not support the claim that they are practitioners of a savage religion, I don’t know what does.

Oh, that's right.

They commit acts of unspeakable barbarism in the name of the Religion of Peace -- and don't you suggest anything different about that religion or they will cut your head off.

Posted by: Greg at 01:42 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.

To a Christian in the military who made such statements to his superiors?

Captain [Naomi] Surman, [Hassan’s supervisor in the Department of Psychiatry], who was scheduled to be deployed to Afghanistan with Hasan on Nov. 2 told investigators that Hasan had both social and academic issues in his medical training. She said that on one occasion, Hasan told her she was an infidel who would be “ripped to shreds” and “burn in hell” because she was not Muslim.

Would the individual in question have been counseled to change their attitude and behavior?

Would they have faced disciplinary actions?

Would their career have been ended “for the good of the service”?

I think we can all make a reasonable guess – but Hasan was coddled and kept on, even scheduled to deploy in Iraq where he would be a likely fifth columnist for his fellow Islamists, because it would have been politically incorrect to take any action against a “good Muslim”.

The result was13 dead – 14 if one counts the unborn child of one of the soldiers Hasan gunned down.

H/T Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 11:04 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

Ever since Khalid Sheik Muhammad and his fellow terrorists have been granted a civilian trial in a civilian court, I’ve been asking one very straight-forward question – what happens if one or more of the defendants is found not guilty, or if the charges are dismissed (in my opinion, quite possible on grounds of failure to provide a speedy trial)? Does the Obama Administration release these terrorists? Or does Obama order their continued detention, creating a constitutional crisis in the process by rejecting the authority of the federal courts?

Well, there appears to be an answer coming from Obama’s Democrat allies – and the answer is somewhat akin to the arguments of Third World despots.

According to Democratic Senator Jack Reed, “under basic principles of international law, as long as these individuals pose a threat, they can be detained, and they will.” Come again? You mean if KSM is acquitted he will still be detained? Yes indeed, according to Senator Reed. He will not be released, “because under the principle of preventive detention, which is recognized during hostilities,” we can continue to hold KSM.

Well, now. It seems to me as though President Obama and Attorney General Holder need to be asked whether they agree with Senator Reed. If not — if they believe that the proud, self-confessed mastermind of the deadliest attack in history on the American homeland should be able to walk free if acquitted in this trial — then Obama and Holder should certainly say so. If KSM were acquitted, the president and his attorney general should proclaim from the rooftops that Mohammed is a free man, found innocent in a civilian court of law, and then allow voters to render a judgment on their decision.

If, on the other hand, Obama and Holder agree with Senator Reed, they should state that as well.

The problem is that it does not matter a whit what international law says in the scenario laid out by Reed – taking such actions would unambiguously violate the US Constitution. What’s more, in such a situation we would see established the principle that the mere acquittal of a defendant or dismissal of charges with prejudice is insufficient to guarantee that the Executive Branch will not continue to deprive an individual of their liberty after they have been adjudicated to be innocent. Quite bluntly, the Obama Regime cannot have it both ways – claiming that terrorism is a criminal matter best left to the criminal justice system while at the same time declaring it to be a military/national security matter subject to unreviewable executive discretion when the courts prove inadequate to the task.

Indeed, the only way that ReedÂ’s argument based upon international law works is if one recognizes that the War on Terrorism is, in fact, a war and that combatants (both lawful and unlawful) may legitimately be held without trial or access to civilian courts for the duration of the conflict. It is impossible to argue for some sort of hybrid classification and system that allows for the continued detention of the legally innocent without making their trials nothing more than a sham and a show.

Posted by: Greg at 10:58 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 535 words, total size 4 kb.

So I really donÂ’t give a damn if this jihadi pig ever walks again.

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the accused Fort Hood gunman, is paralyzed from the waist down, his lawyer said Friday.

"It appears he won't be able to walk in the future," said Hasan's civilian attorney, retired Army Col. John Galligan.

Hasan also has severe pain in his hands, the attorney said.

HereÂ’s hoping that they lubricate his wheelchair with bacon grease, and that we eventually solve his medical problems via lethal injection. The we can see if his false Allah will cure him when he joins his false prophet in Hell.

Posted by: Greg at 09:28 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 114 words, total size 1 kb.

As pointed out by retired Col. Alan West, Nidal Hasan is only the latest home-grown jihadi to attack American troops.

We have seen this before in 2003 when a SGT Hasan of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) threw hand grenades and opened fire into his Commanding OfficerÂ’s tent in Kuwait. We have seen the foiled attempt of Albanian Muslims who sought to attack Ft Dix, NJ. Recently we saw a young convert to Islam named Carlos Bledsoe travel to Yemen, receive terrorist training, and return to gun down two US Soldiers at a Little Rock, Arkansas Army recruiting station. We thwarted another Islamic terrorist plot in North Carolina which had US Marine Corps Base, Quantico as a target.
What have we done with all these prevalent trends? Nothing.

And, of course, we could add a great many other terrorist incidents involving Muslims in this country. It wasn’t that long ago that I cataloged several stories that had appeared in the space of 24 hours about newly-convicted jihadis in various parts of the country. A recent investigation spanned the continent from Colorado to New York City, with charges brought against multiple participants. Indeed, we can expect multiple stories each month about would-be terrorists within our country seeking to aid the Islamist cause. Yet somehow, every time, there is a collective expression of shock every time such a story appears, with pious intonations of the P.C. mantra that such individuals are not representative of Islam as a whole and that we must not ask if there is something malignant in Islam that accounts for these cases – even when the perpetrators themselves clearly state that their motivation is their Islamic faith.

Am I saying that all Muslims are terrorists? No, I am not. Am I saying there are no odd ducks in the Christian (or Jewish or Buddhist or . . .) community that act violently and claim a religious justification for their misdeeds? Again, I am not.

But the reality is that there appears to be a higher proportion of such individuals among Muslims, and their propensity towards religiously motivated violence seems to be drawn from the same passages of the Qu’ran and oriented towards the same goal of establishing Islamic supremacy. Doesn’t prudence require that we acknowledge that reality and that our government look more closely at Muslim institutions – whether charities, political organizations, or houses of worship – in attempting to prevent such acts of terror from occurring on our own soil? And does it not require that we investigate more closely those in the Muslim community who have expressed some sympathy with the cause of jihad and those who engage in such religiously motivated violence?

It is now common knowledge that Major Nidal Malik Hasan, like so many of radical Muslims, publicly professed belief in acts of violence against those who Islam defines as infidels. We know that Hasan, like so many radical Muslims, expressed the view that the war on terrorism is in fact a war on Islam. We know that the FBI was aware that Hasan was trying to connect with al-Qaeda. Indeed, there were plenty of signs that Major Hasan was going to “go Muslim” (or, more accurately, “go jihadi”) against his fellow Americans. And yet even now, after the fact, it seems that too many folks in positions of authority would prefer to gloss over that fact and instead express concern for members of the Muslim community rather than the victims of this latest attack and the potential victims of future attacks by radicalised Muslims.

Again, this is not an attack on Muslims as a group. Most are loyal, and the contributions of Muslims in the military and law enforcement are often exemplary. But respect for good Muslims and a desire to embrace the full diversity of our society cannot outweigh the need to provide for security of all. We cannot look away from the problem out of fear of failing to appear “sensitive” enough to a minority religion in our midst. Any other response is nuts.

Posted by: Greg at 12:17 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 690 words, total size 6 kb.

Some see a contradiction between this report on Ft. Hood murderer Major Nidal Hasan and the picture of the man as a devout Muslim.

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan came into the Starz strip club not far from the base at least three times in the past month, the club's general manager, Matthew Jones, told FoxNews.com. Army investigators building their case against Hasan plan to interview Jones soon.

* * *

Hasan's presence at the club paints a starkly different portrait of the alleged killer from that offered by his imam and family members, who have described him as a devout Muslim, and one who had difficulty finding a wife who would wear a head scarf and would pray five times a day.

But is that really at odds with what we know about other devout Muslims who have engaged in acts of jihad against America? I donÂ’t think so. After all, the 9/11 hijackers had a taste for strip clubs and strippers as well.

Call it getting a preview of the promised 72 virgins.

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.