Nidal Malik Hasan's Jihadi Doctrines Backed by Muslims Worldwide

Be sure to read Andrew Bostom's, "Which Muslims Share Nidal Hasan’s Vision of Islam?" Bostom makes reference to Nidal Hasan's PowerPoint presentation to Army doctors at Walter Reed:

Our immediate, urgent task is to understand the extent to which Nidal Hasan’s orthodox vision of Islam is a shared vision—and by which Muslims, in particular.

The seat of Sunni orthodoxy Al Azhar University—which functions as a de facto Vatican of Sunni Islam, repeats in “Reliance of the Traveller” its widely distributed manual of Islamic Law, which “conforms to the practice and faith of the Sunni orthodoxy,” circa 1991,

“Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and, is etymologically derived from the word, mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion [of Islam]…The scriptural basis for jihad is such Koranic verses as ‘Fighting is prescribed for you’ (Koran 2:216); ‘Slay them wherever you find them’ (Koran 4:89); ‘Fight the idolators utterly’ (Koran 9:36); and such hadiths as the one related by (Sahih) Bukhari and (Sahih) Muslim [NOTE: cited in slide 43 of Hasan’s 6/7/07 presentation] that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: ‘I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And the final reckoning is with Allah’; and the hadith by (Sahih) Muslim, ‘To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.’ ”

There's more at the post.

Bostom link to a 2007 survey from the World Public Opinion organization, "Muslim Public Opinion on U.S. Policy, Attacks on Civilians and al Qaeda."

The survey was conducted in Egypt, Indonesia, Morocco, Pakistan. The results are deceptive. While large majority express opposition to violence against Americans, there's widespread support for the establishment of the Islamic caliphate in order to stop the spread of Western values over Islam. For example, "Most respondents express strong support for expanding the role of Islam in their countries—consistent with the goals of al Qaeda---but also express an openness to outside cultural influences. Large majorities in most countries support the goals of requiring a strict application of sharia, keeping out Western values, and even unifying all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state."

Bostom notes that this is perfectly in line with the jihadi doctrines of Nidal Hasan and his al Qaeda-backing mentors:

The findings from the University of Maryland/ WorldPublicOpinion.org poll are ominous—indicating plainly to any rational mind willing to comprehend—the vast underpinning of support for Nidal Hasan’s orthodox vision of Islam, from the creed’s most respected religious leaders, to ordinary Muslims. Our self-righteously ignorant elites—particularly those in political and military leadership positions—must be held accountable by the American public for their ignorance, and worse still, deliberate obfuscation of these plain Islamic realities.

Lou Dobbs Quits CNN: Leftists Claim Firebrand Anchor Left 'Under Pressure'

I watched Phyllis Chesler's appearance on Lou Dobbs show this morning (the first time I'd watched the CNN broadcast for some, mainly since I've long had the feeling that Dobbs is more the opportunist that a culture warrior). So now, clicking on Memeorandum, it was way surprising to see the top headline there, "Lou Dobbs to Quit CNN":

Lou Dobbs, the longtime CNN anchor whose anti-immigration views have made him a TV lightning rod, said Wednesday that he is leaving the cable news channel effective immediately.

Sitting before an image of an American flag on his television set, he said “some leaders in media, politics and business have been urging me to go beyond the role here at CNN and to engage in constructive problem solving as well as to contribute positively to the great understanding of the issues of our day.”

“I’m considering a number of options and directions,” Mr. Dobbs added. A transcript of his remarks is available here.

There's lots of reaction to the announcement, especially among the lefties. Pam Spaulding's ecstatic, "Glory be ..." Media Matters has this banner headline up right now, "Under Pressure, Dobbs Announces Immediate Departure From CNN," and their YouTube title reads, "Dobbs' History of Hate and Paranoia." Think Progress claims Dobbs had become a "publicity nightmare" for CNN, and gay hate-merchant Joe Sudbay announces, "CNN's On-Air Racist, Lou Dobbs, is Gone After Tonight's Show."

Of course, these are the same folks who fist-bump the degenerate Keith Olbermann, and there was no outcry on the left when the MSNBC host attacked Michelle Malkin on air, for what he said was her "total mindless, morally bankrupt, knee-jerk, fascistic hatred without which Michelle Malkin would just be a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it."

It's all power no principle with these totalitarians.

See CNN's announcement as well, "Lou Dobbs leaving CNN."

Act of Terrorism? Phyllis Chesler vs. John Nichols on CNN

From Phyllis Chesler, "Talking 'Bout Ft. Hood Terrorism on CNN: Pajamas Media vs. Nation Magazine":

Last night I was on the The Lou Dobbs Show on CNN to talk about whether the Fort Hood massacre was or was not a terrorist attack. I’ve been writing about this very subject rather steadily right here. I was “facing off” on CNN with someone who writes poppycock about “Islamophobia” for The Nation. What greater joy could there be? And I was flying the colors of Pajamas Media, which is how I was identified. (I was, of course, also identified as a professor, author, etc.) Dobbs was a gracious and seasoned host, and his producers were impressively organized and very friendly. The makeup artist was a genius. I’d go back daily just for her.

As it turned out, Dobbs wanted to take The Nation guy on as much as I did, and he did so quite effectively. He made my job a bit easier. John Nichols was effectively neutralized. Once I distinguished between radical, jihadic Islamism, and Muslims in general, including the Muslim and ex-Muslim feminists and reformers with whom I work—Nichols had no Straw Woman to oppose. Of course, some of my esteemed colleagues and commenters at this very blog site wanted me to denounce all of Islam, every Muslim—but I did not do so. I will deal with this very subject in a future column.

I have been around television studios for the last 40 years. I was on the David Frost Show (yes, the same Frost who interviewed Nixon!) and on Donohue when he was still in Dayton, Ohio. Over the years, I’ve done all the major network programs many times including The Today Show, Good Morning America, Merv Griffen, Geraldo, Oprah, Sally Jessie, the Mac-Neil-Lehrer Report, and C-SPAN.

I was on The O’Reilly Factor even though I’m not young or blonde. And yes, he was very kind to me.

I’ve been on CNN many times. In January of 1986, I remember sitting with the entire CNN staff in Washington, D.C., as the shuttle Challenger blew up before our stunned eyes. In 2003, when Judy Woodruff bravely interviewed me about anti-Semitism, two of the cameramen came out from behind their cameras to shake my hand. This was truly a first.

Trust me: This is unusual. And last night, as I was leaving CNN’s very spiffy headquarters in NYC, a tall and handsome CNN man stopped me and said: “You spoke very well. Thank you.” The guest who followed me said, “I agree with you.”

Folks: I am talking about CNN, not FOX. I think, maybe, perhaps, possibly, my God, if not now when, that things might be beginning to change. (The realist in me is scoffing; the optimist has her fingers crossed).

Jamie Glazov at NewsRealBlog thought I “scored big.” Thanks, Jamie. And for me? It’s just another day in my life.

Had there been time enough, here’s what I wanted to say.

'On Her Own Terms': Charla Nash Shows Face on Oprah Winfrey Show

My wife is home today with our two sons. They were watching the Oprah Winfrey Show when I got home (the boys are off from school today for the Veterans Day holiday). So, I normally wouldn't be watching Oprah, but I'm glad I did today. Oprah's guest today was Charla Nash, the Connecticut woman who was eaten alive by a 200-pound chimpanzee in February (see, "Charla Nash Lost Eyes, Nose and Jaw in Chimpanzee Attack").

The story is at Oprah.com, "The Will to Live." It turns out that photographers have been staking out Ms. Nash's hospital room, trying to get a picture of her without the veil she wears to cover her injuries. Ms. Nash was mauled beyond recognition. Oprah said she'd never seen anything like the extent of her injuries. I have to admit that viewing the show was even hard from me -- and I have a strong stomach. The Huffington Post has the full story with pictures, "Charla Nash, Chimp Attack Victim, Shows Face On "Oprah" (PHOTOS)."

Here's a picture of Ms. Nash with Travis, the chimpanzee said to have attacked her:

It seems almost unreal that an animal of that relative size could inflict such a devastating attack. According to Oprah's page:

On February 16, 2009, Charla went over to the Stamford, Connecticut, home of her friend and employer, Sandra Herold. According to news reports, Sandra called Charla because Sandra's 14-year-old pet chimpanzee, Travis, escaped and she needed help getting him back inside.

When Charla arrived, Travis savagely attacked her. Sandra called 911, and when police arrived, they found Charla in a devastating state. "I would never have imagined that an animal could have done that," emergency worker Andrea Repko says. "[Her hands] honestly looked like they went through a meat grinder."

Ms. Nash lost her eyes due to infection, and she's not a candidate for a face transplant. Oprah said that after sitting and talking to Ms. Nash, it was less upsetting to view her injuries.

Oprah interviewed Ms. Nash on her 56th birthday. She announced a couple of times that Ms. Nash wanted to reveal her looks to the world "on her own terms." There's a YouTube with a partial clip of the show here.

Also, check the support website, Friends of Charla Nash.

'Honoring All Who Served - Veterans Day 2009'

America's Military Stands Tall

From David Ignatius, at the Washington Post, "Standing Tall in Harm's Way":

In the aftermath of the Fort Hood shootings, some commentaries have examined the damage to the U.S. Army from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A few have spoken about the alleged shooter, Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, as an extreme version of what can happen with an overstressed force.

This picture of a traumatized military is misleading. Certainly, the Army and the other services are stressed by the demands of combat. But what's striking to me this Veterans Day is how healthy the military is, given all the weight it has been carrying for the country these past eight years.

Facing a new and disorienting kind of warfare, the military has learned and adapted. Rather than complain about their problems, soldiers have figured out ways to solve them.

In truth, the U.S. military may be the most resilient part of American society right now. The soldiers are clearly in better shape than the political class that sent them to war and the economic leadership that has mismanaged the economy. (I'd give the same high marks to young civilians who are serving and sacrificing in hard places -- the Peace Corps and medical volunteers I've met abroad and the teachers in tough inner-city schools.)

Through all its difficulties, the military has kept its stride. That sense of balance comes partly from the fact that soldiers are anchored to the American bedrock. This includes the stereotypical small towns in the South and Midwest that have military service in their DNA. But it also counts plenty of hardworking, upwardly mobile Hispanic and African American families in urban America that produce some of the best soldiers I know.

More at the link.

Matthew Yglesias: Nidal Hasan Terrorist Threat 'Not That Big a Deal'

Thirteen people were killed and 29 wounded during Nidal Malik Hasan's jihadi rampage at Fort Hood. President Obama spoke today, and the PowerPoint transcripts of Hasan's Army doctors' lecture have been made available. Of course, I've been covering the story extensively. I've noted the remarks of a number of extremely pernicious leftist commentators, but Matthew Yglesias' post today - coming at the same time as this new information paints a damning indictment of Hasan's propensity to fanatical violence - really takes the cake for willing blindness, even complicity, on the radical leftist:

I think a pretty good case can be made that this kind of situation actually is the main face of the terrorist threat. Not a big well-thought-out plot centrally directed from a “safe haven” in South Asia and undertaken by brilliant covert operatives, but the desperate violent act of a clearly disturbed individual. It’s going to be very hard to prevent this sort of thing. As long as the United States remains a country in which firearms are widely available—for the foreseeable future, in other words—we’re going to be unusually vulnerable to mentally ill spree killers of various kinds, including spree killers who nod in the direction of Islamist thinking.

But the larger point is that while these incidents are serious crimes and major tragedies for the victims, they hardly rise to the level of a major macro-level social crisis. They’re certainly not a first-order national security threat. And even put in the lower-stakes context of violent crime in America, the whole set of mentally disturbed spree killers is a pretty minor slice of the pie. Reducing the volume of these incidents isn’t going to inspire gun rights enthusiasts to support major curbs in firearms availability, and certainly shouldn’t convince Americans to contravene our commitments to diversity and non-discrimination. Simply put, if this is the terrorist threat then the terrorist threat isn’t that big a deal.

Of course, it's not like Yglesias is sympathetic to Islam:

Related: From Mere Rhetoric, "Matthew Yglesias: Anti-Semitic Genocidal Maniacs Are Hip, Terrorists Are Fashionable (UPDATED AND BUMPED: Yglesias Article From Today Predictably Anti-Semitish)."

FBI Says Anwar Al Awlaki May Have Encouraged Nidal Hasan; Yemen to Search for Fanatical Islamist Preacher

From Fire Andrea Mitchell, "Anwar al-Awlaki 'May Have Encouraged' Fort Hood Gunman Nidal Malik Hasan":

Lamar Alexander has told radio station WOAI (and their web site) FBI Director Robert Mueller says the bureau is investigating whether a radical Islamic imam in Yemen Anwar al-Awlaki ‘had been encouraging’ Fort Hood gunman, jihadist, and terrorist (Yes I said it, TERRORIST) Nidal Hasan to commit violent acts against U.S. soldiers.

“They had no real early warnings,” U.S. Rep Lamar Smith (R-Tx), who is the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, reported Mueller as telling him earlier today. Smith spoke with 1200 WOAI’s Michael Board. “He said they had some of the intelligence that we have heard about, the connection to the radical, but because the individual in question seemed to be a major in good standing, they didn’t pursue it as much as they might have.”

Awlaki wrote on his blog Monday that Hasan ‘is a hero’ and a ‘man of conscience.’ Awlaki has been identified as the imam at a mosque in Falls Church Virginia, where Hasan and his family occasionally worshipped.

“I have been told that the individual who had been perhaps even encouraging the major in these violent acts, had previously had contact with three of the terrorists that were involved in the 9/11 attacks, so this may be a widening story, and the major may well have been in touch with those who were known terrorists, and if that is the case, this really opens up this situation to the fact that we need to be very very careful in the future, and we need to perhaps pay more attention to any red flags that may come to our attention.”

Smith said he is worried about the FBI and other agencies ‘covering up’ any ties between Hasan and ‘radical Islam.’

“In the future, when that comes to our attention, we shouldn’t try to diminish it or play it down,” he said.

Also, from Jawa Report, "Yemen Decides to Search for Anwar Al Awlaki":

Yemeni-American terror advocate and penpal to murderer Nidal Hasan, Anwar Awlaki was never charged with a crime in Yemen or the US. He had one of those "Saleh" deals - he promised to refrain from all violent activity within Yemen and they let him released him from jail. Its quite a common arrangement. But he stopped checking in nine months ago.

AP -- A radical American imam who communicated with the Fort Hood shooting suspect and called him a hero was once arrested in Yemen on suspicion of giving religious approval to militants to conduct kidnappings. Yemeni authorities are now hunting for Anwar al-Awlaki to determine whether he has al-Qaida ties.

Al-Awlaki, who has used his personal Web site to encourage Muslims around the world to kill U.S. troops in Iraq, disappeared in Yemen eight months ago, according to his father (former Minister of Agriculture and previous head of Sana'a University). Yemeni security officials say they believe he is hiding in a region of the mountainous nation that has become a refuge for Islamic militants. ( In August Anwar excitedly blogged about a battle in Marib between Yemeni forces and al Qaeda.)

--------

Al-Awlaki was arrested in 2006 with a group of five Yemenis accused of kidnapping a Shiite teenager for ransom...The group also plotted to kidnap the U.S. military attache in Yemen and rented a villa near the attache's house using a fake ID, the officials said. There was no immediate confirmation of the plot from American officials.

But investigators could not find any evidence for al-Qaida ties. Tribal leaders - who hold enormous influence in Yemen, where the central government is weak -intervened and pushed for the group's release, the Interior Ministry official said. The group was freed in December 2007 after they signed documents promising to remain in Yemen and to avoid any contacts with militants.

But authorities' suspicions over al-Awlaki were raised again several months after his release because he stopped checking in regularly with security officials as required under his release agreement, the officials said. Also, months later, another member of the group arrested with al-Awlaki left Yemen and was arrested in Syria on terrorism charges.

Ralph Peters on Obama's Fort Hood Memorial: 'Not One Mention of Terrorism'

Via Pat Dollard, "Ralph Peters Pissed at Obama's Ft. Hood Speech":

Note that Peters predicted as much in his essay today, "Deadly Denial: Fudging the Facts on Fort Hood":

As President Obama belatedly appears at Fort Hood today, will he dare to speak the word "terror?"

He won't use the word "Islamist." If he mentions Islam at all, it'll be to sing its praises yet again.

We've already learned that Islamist terrorist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan attended the Northern Virginia mosque of Imam Anwar al-Aulaqi, a fiery al Qaeda supporter who later fled the United States. We know that Hasan's peers, subordinates and patients repeatedly raised red flags that his superiors suppressed. We know he was a player on Islamist-extremist Web sites. The FBI's uncovering one extremist link after another.

But to call this an act of terrorism, the White House would need an autographed photo of Osama bin Laden helping Hasan buy weapons in downtown Killeen, Texas. Even that might not suffice.

Islamist terrorists don't all have al Qaeda union cards in their wallets. Terrorism's increasingly the domain of entrepreneurs and independent contractors. Under Muslim jurisprudence, jihad's an individual responsibility. Hasan was a self-appointed jihadi.

Yet we're told he was just having a bad day.

More at the link.

Media Reporting and the Fort Hood Massacre

There's a fundamental incongruity -- if not traitorous dishonesty -- to media reporting on the Nidal Hasan Fort Hood massacre. CBS is reporting, "Officials: Fort Hood Shooter Acted Alone." But hey, why the rush to judgment, as everyone on the left has been saying regarding the question of terrorism? Sure, while so far there's no evidence that Hasan had outside direction or help, the investigation's still young -- and considering how much revelatory information has come out since last Thursday, we may indeed learn of a dramatically more complicated, and connected, terrorist plot.

Contrast the CBS report to ABC's, "Senior Official: More Hasan Ties to People Under Investigation by FBI: Alleged Shooter Had "Unexplained Connections" to Others Besides Jihadist Cleric Awlaki" (via Memeorandum):

A senior government official tells ABC News that investigators have found that alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan had "more unexplained connections to people being tracked by the FBI" than just radical cleric Anwar al Awlaki. The official declined to name the individuals but Congressional sources said their names and countries of origin were likely to emerge soon.

Questions already surround Major Hasan's contact with Awlaki, a radical cleric based in Yemen whom authorities consider a recruiter for al Qaeda. U.S. officials now confirm Hasan sent as many as 20 e-mails to Awlaki. Authorities intercepted the e-mails but later deemed them innocent or protected by the first amendment ....

In Texas, an hour before a memorial service for the Fort Hood victims, four FBI agents showed up at the Killeen mosque where Hasan prayed and searched a trash bin outside. The mosque president was clearly upset when he had to return from traveling to the service to sign a document handed to him by agents, apparently authorizing the search.

The FBI would not comment on what the agents were looking for at the mosque a full five days after the shooting, but motivation remains the focus.

"Obviously, the key is did he act alone," former senior FBI official Brad Garrett told ABC News. "And secondarily is, what evidence might potentially be in the dumpsters or at the mosque."

Plus, this short Fox video above, "Sympathetic Media," is a classic. Note how it begins with Chris Matthews' now immortal comment, "'That's not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it?'"

Obama's Fort Hood Memorial: No Mention of Terrorism or Jihad

I read the president's memorial speech earlier. The text is here. As always, the speech is both respectful and reserved, and I'm confident the president's talk will help many families with their grief and recovery. But frankly, there's little more than anodyne language here -- we have simply no repudiation of the Islamic extremism that drove Nidal Malik Hasan's attack. I know there's a way to denounce the fanaticism while reassuring moderate Muslims that our quarrel is not with them. But the president has no time for that. Whether it's his own Islamic background, his Marxist ideological upbringing (with its romance of tyranny and terror), or his fawning sensitivity to the Democratic terror-coddling base, Barack Obama is simply unsuited for the fight facing this country in radical Islam. I'll update with some of the partisan spin forthcoming tonight. In the meanwhile, Phyllis Chesler puts into words my own thinking as I read the speech earlier today. See, "Obama at Ft. Hood Memorial: No Mention of Terrorism or Jihad":

Radical jihadic Islamism/jihadic terrorism was given a free pass by the President of the United States at the Memorial Service for the thirteen soldiers and mental health professionals who were slaughtered at Ft. Hood.

See also, Victor Davis Hanson, "Sacrificing Americans," especially this:

Bottom line: The society at large, driven by the sermonizing of its elites, has come to an unstated conclusion that, unfortunately, a few Americans will have to be sacrificed from time to time, for the larger goal of establishing the fact that Americans in no way think Muslims are any more likely than any others to commit either random or premeditated terrorist violence. I think that is the initial lesson of Fort Hood.

Nidal Hasan's PowerPoint: 'Whoever Desires a Religion Other Than Islam ... Shall Be One of the Losers'

There's a lot in the news today. President Obama has now delivered his memorial eulogy for the troops at Fort Hood. The transcript is here. I'll comment in detail on the speech later. Here I want to share Nidal Malik Hasan's PowerPoint presentation from his talk to senior doctors and staff at the Walter Reed Army Medical in 2007. The pdf document is here: "The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military." I've read the presentation from the Washington Post, "Hasan on Islam." Slides 46 and 47 caught my attention, although it's a striking lecture all around. It's hard to believe this event didn't set off more warning alarms. As one participant at the lecture noted at the time, "It was really strange .... The senior doctors looked really upset [at the end]."

See also, Dana Priest, "Fort Hood Suspect Warned of Threats Within the Ranks: Cited Stress Facing Muslims Hasan Spoke at Walter Reed in 2007."

More at Memeorandum.

Obama's Fort Hood Visit: Comfort the Bereaved, Confront the Realities of Islamist Violence

From the Austin-American Statesman, "At Fort Hood, Preparations for a Presidential Visit: Focus Shifts to Counseling, Healing." Also, at the Dallas Morning News, "Obama's Fort Hood Visit Part of Presidential Tradition of Offering Comfort":

When Barack Obama stands today before the mourning children, spouses and comrades of those cut down last week at Fort Hood, he will confront one of the most delicate and painful duties a president undertakes.

Only a president can offer the condolences of a nation. In a moment of crisis and sorrow and anger, only a president can soothe raw emotions, allay fears, elevate a senseless act into a call to action, and offer the assurance that – as his aides put it Monday – no stone will be left unturned.

This is by far the biggest test of Obama's ability to fulfill the role of consoler in chief.

The Fort Hood massacre is the worst single tragedy on his watch. And – because the victims and the shooter were soldiers, and because the suspect is Muslim and Obama has put such a premium on repairing relations with the Muslim world – the expectations on him, as commander in chief, are especially high.

But see the New York Daily News, "Fanaticism Hits Home: Blame Islamic Extremism for the Carnage at Fort Hood":

It is increasingly apparent that the mass murder at Fort Hood by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is the latest in a line of attacks or attempted attacks by Americans radicalized by fanatical Muslim ideology.

Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, is not just a man troubled by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, traumatized by veterans' wrenching stories and unhappy about being deployed to the war zone.

Although he may have been all those, Hasan is also a man who followed twisted religious beliefs into revolt against the nation of his birth.

That Hasan began his rampage, according to witnesses, by saying "Allahu Akbar," or "God Is Great," is relevant to his crime.

So is the fact that Hasan's classmates say he had expressed anti-American views, justified suicide bombings and contended that Islamic law trumped the Constitution.

So is the fact that Hasan reportedly appeared pleased by the shooting death of a recruiter in June and was heard saying, "Maybe people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Times Square."

Hasan is the latest dot to connect in a picture of homegrown radicalization.

Check the examples at the editorial, and here's this from the conclusion:

There has been no rush to judgment about Hasan's demons. But it has become clearer that he was swept along by the perversion of Islam - repeat, perversion - that has justified violence.

America must wrestle with these realities, lest naivete leave us vulnerable to more of the same.

The president needs to address these realities, or else the visit will do nothing to prevent further attacks of the same kind.

God bless to all those who are grieving and recoving in this time of crisis and danger.

Carrie Prejean on Sex Tape Video: 'It Was Bad Judgment ... I Take Total Responsibility'

Carrie Prejean opened up to Sean Hannity about the sex tape scandal that led to the settlement of her Miss California-USA lawsuit. Andrew Malcolm has a report, "Carrie Prejean Confirms 'Sex Tape,' But..." Hannity said "We might as well go right to it":

The handsome host noted that the high-powered, celebrity website TMZ claimed to have a sex video of the beautiful Prejean that was so outrageously explicit it hasn't posted it yet. But people can feel free to keep clicking back there every few minutes to check. If they don't mind someday maybe seeing a naked female conservative.

Prejean replied -- insert teasing pause here -- yes, there was a tape she had done as a teenager. She made it for a distant boyfriend whom she loved at the time. She said TMZ can call it a "sex tape" if it wants. But she was alone on the video and no one else was in the room.

So everyone (except TMZ, Prejean's mother and the ex-boyfriend, who presumably provided the tape of his beloved) is left to imagine what is on what is no doubt the first such boudoir video ever made in history.

Prejean said it was the "biggest mistake" she'd ever made in her not-yet-lengthy life. She regretted it. She felt mortified talking about it, but it was her own fault. And that as a Christian she'd never claimed to be perfect.

Watch the entire video.

Ms. Prejean is embarrassed to discuss the video at the opening of the segment, but she comes clean. She said she was a teenager and thought her boyfriend was "the one" and wanted to please him: "It was the biggest mistake of my life."

We'll see how this plays out today across the netroots. Ms. Prejean warns that nothing is private. "People are still digging up things from my past."

Nidal Hasan's Al-Qaeda Connection Insignificant, FBI Claims

From the Washington Post, "Hasan E-Mails to Cleric Didn't Warrant Inquiry":

Maj. Nidal M. Hasan exchanged e-mails late last year and this year with a radical cleric in Yemen, but the contact did not lead to an investigation, federal law enforcement officials said Monday.

Hasan, an Army psychiatrist suspected of killing 12 soldiers and a civilian here last week, will be tried in military court, the officials said.

U.S. intelligence agencies intercepted 10 to 20 e-mails from Hasan to Anwar al-Aulaqi, a U.S. citizen who once was a spiritual leader at the suburban Virginia mosque where Hasan had worshiped, said Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Mich.), the top Republican on the House intelligence committee.

Aulaqi responded to Hasan at least twice, Hoekstra said, but he described the responses as "innocent," and a terrorism expert cautioned that the exchanges may have been part of Hasan's academic research.

The FBI determined that the e-mails did not warrant an investigation, according to a law enforcement official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Read the whole thing.

At the article, everybody's saying how "innocent" these communications looked. But really, isn't this just more evidence of abject political correctness. Wouldn't want to inflame those jihaid bros hangin' down under the local minaret.

More at Memeorandum.

President Obama Slurs Tea Party Patriots as 'Tea Baggers'

From "Obama Uses Crude Gay-Baiting Sexual Slur to Attack Tea Party Protesters":

Barack Hussein Obama II, used a crude gay-baiting sexual slur to denigrate Tea Party patriots in a talk with House Democrats yesterday on Capitol Hill, reported the New York Times:

According to Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”

The word 'teabag' is used to describe a sexual practice popular in the homosexual community. Earlier this year as the anti-big government protest movement exploded across the country, liberals in the media first started calling conservative and libertarian protesters organizing under the Tea Party banner, "teabaggers," in a juvenile effort to gay-bait the protesters. Democrats, including now the president of the United States, have also used the slur.

More at the link.

Image Credit: Voting Female Speaks, "Senate Throws Obama's Baton in the Dumpster; Takes Fiscally Responsible Stance and Rejects Abject Obama Socialism."

Glenn Greenwald: Fort Hood Attack Not Really Terrorism, Or Else the U.S. Gov't is Terrorist, or Something...

Patterico's been going a few rounds with Glenn Greenwald, the hardline left's America-basher extraordinaire. At his post calling out Greenwald's recent attack on him and Allahpundit, Patterico notes, "Despite Greenwald’s history of dishonest sock-puppeting, there are times when I want to like him, because he sometimes shows an inclination to act on principle."

That concuding bit of decency toward Greenwald really struck me, considering how vile the dude is. Indeed, just take a look at Greenwald's post up this afternoon, "Can Attacks on a Military Base Constitute 'Terrorism'?":

The incomparably pernicious Joe Lieberman said yesterday on Fox News that he intends to launch an investigation into "the motives of [Nidal] Hasan in carrying out this brutal mass murder, if a terrorist attack, the worst terrorist attack since 9/11." Hasan's attack was carried out on a military base, with his clear target being American soldiers, not civilians. No matter one's views on how unjustified and evil this attack was, can an attack on soldiers -- particularly ones in the process of deploying for a war -- fall within any legitimate definition of "terrorism," which generally refers to deliberate attacks on civilians?

The obvious problem with answering that question is that, as even the U.S. State Department recognizes, "no one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance" -- despite the centrality of that term in our political discourse ....

More at the post, then this:

... a large part of our "war" strategy is to kill people we deem to be "terrorists" or "combatants" without regard to whether they're armed or engaged in hostilities at the moment we kill them. Isn't that exactly what we do when we use drone attacks in Pakistan? Indeed, we currently have a "hit list" of individuals we intend to murder in Afghanistan on sight based on our suspicion that they're involved in the drug trade and thus help fund the Taliban. During its war in Gaza, Israel targeted police stations and, with one strike, killed 40 police trainees while in a parade, and then justified that by claiming police recruits were legitimate targets -- even though they weren't engaged in hostilities at the time -- because of their nexus to Hamas (even though the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem said the targeted recruits "were being trained in first aid, human rights and maintaining public order").

Is there any legitimate definition of "terrorism" that allows the Fort Hood attack to qualify but not those above-referenced attacks? The U.S., of course, maintains that it is incapable of engaging in "terrorism," by definition, because "terrorism" is something only "subnational groups or clandestine agent" can do, but leaving that absurdly self-serving and incoherent exclusion aside, how can the Fort Hood attacks targeted at soldiers be "terrorism" but not our own acts?

Hey, that's some pretty professionalized moral relativism?

The difference, as anyone knows -- most of all a constitutional lawyer like Greenwald -- is that the U.S. is a sovereign state-actor, possessing a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, recognized under international law; and its military campaigns are internationally-substantiated legal actions in response to acts of war against this country. (See, "George W. Bush: Declaration of War on Terrorism.") Even Greenwald's own elaboration of the definition of terrorism infers the fundamental right of the U.S. to respond to attacks on its own terroritory and people.

So, what to do? Just denounce the United States as a terrorist itself. That'll do it. Raise a few rhetorical smokescreens and poof!, it's the American military that's the bad guy here, not a methodical fanatical Muslim who killed 13 Americans in cold blood.

You know, this morning Verum Serum used very strong language to denounce Anwar al-Awlaki, who hailed Nadal Hasan's ramage as a heroic act ("anyone who has empathy on any level for the actions of Hasan, or the views expressed by Al-Awlaki, does not deserve to be an American as far as I’m concerned," etc.).

I feel the same way about Greenwald, with all due respect for Patterico's generosity.

New York Times Retracts Headline Indicating 'Fort Hood Suspect Communicated With Radical Cleric...'

The orginal title still shows at Memeorandum's page, for the New York Time's, "Fort Hood Suspect Communicated With Radical Cleric, Authorities Say." But when you click through, you'll get, "U.S. Monitored Fort Hood Suspect Before Shooting." And look at the Google search too. A click through there leads us to the Times' own blog aggregator, Blogrunner, with the original headline still in view:

I guess the Times is not "jumping to conclusions" in its reporting, despite the fact that no one else online is worried about actually saying Hasan contacted an al Qaeda operative prior to mounting a terrorist attack.

Exit Question: Is the Times heading over into fifth column territory?

America's Allies Ask 'Where's Obama?' Leader of Free World Snubs Berlin Wall Celebration

From the Christian Science Monitor, "At Berlin Wall Fall Celebration, Old Allies Ask Where is Obama?":

The celebrations of the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall started off well enough – former President George H.W. Bush, ex-Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, and former West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl gathered in front of nearly 2,000 dignitaries in Berlin last week to celebrate their role in bringing about the end of the Cold War.

It was a happy affair, with Mr. Bush and Mr. Gorbachev exchanging laughs and smiles as they recalled Nov. 9, 1989, a day that all agreed advanced world freedom and ended the looming threat of the cold war.

But in the week since, as leaders have gathered here to mark the Mauerfall anniversary, agreement has been tough to come by and fractures between allies have shown themselves in what has been billed as an event to celebrate unity. One of these signs was the absence of US President Barack Obama as other heads of state gathered underneath the Brandenburg Gate Monday night to make a symbolic journey from the old East Berlin to West Berlin. They group then toppled a wall of dominoes along the path of the Berlin Wall.

But President Obama sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is his place, infuriating many Germans, as the US president is beloved here. Some in Berlin asked if this snub indicated that the alliance between the US and Germans is strained.

Actually, Pamela Geller puts things in perspective, "Tear Down This Presidency!":

On the twentieth anniversary of one of freedom's monumental moments, one of America's finest moments, the fall of the Berlin Wall, Obama is MIA.

Huh?

Yes, the mirror man who has never met a camera or teleprompter he didn't fall head of heels in love with is NOT at the anniversary of the Fall of the Wall.

He sent a video. I kid you not.

He went to a meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference Alliance of Civilizations (instead of the graves of the glorious dead on the anniversary of Normandy), toured Turkey's mosques, bowed to the wahhabi Saudi king, coasted to Copenhagen to whore for his cronies in Chicago (Olympics) -- but he can't go to Germany for this stunning historical triumph of free men.

Sarkozy, Merkel, all the greats are in attendance.

He must have had a late basketball game with Reggie. All kidding aside, Obama could not stand the idea of the exaltation of Reagan. He is so small and so petty. He is the anti-Reagan.

Well, the good news is that 58 percent of Americans expect a Republican to be elected in 2012!

Next President Likely To Be Republican, Poll Finds

Something I've been arguing around here for some time now. From Rasmussen, "58% Say Next President Likely To Be Republican" (via Memeorandum):

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of likely voters say it is at least somewhat likely the next president of the United States will be a Republican, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

The number has been trending in this direction since Democrat Barack Obama took office in January and is up 14 points since then.

Thirty-one percent (31%) of voters see it as Very Likely that the next president will be a Republican.

And what explains this? Well, this administration's unprecedented culture of corruption, for one. But the larger explanation is the public's repudiation of the left's attempted socialist takeover under Barack Obama. See, Mark Steyn's seminal essay, "The Europeanizaion of America."

Also, previously, "Socialism Schmocialism? Let's Get Real About Marxism in America." Plus, Gateway Pundit, "58% of Voters Believe Next President Will Be Republican."