While the administration continues to search for solutions to its self-imposed problem of what to do with the GITMO detainees, one influential senator offered the White House some advice. Here’s what he said:

“My advice to the president is, with a great deal of respect, take New York Off your radar screen. Find another location. The most logical place is in some isolated military base that is completely far away from population centers and is self-contained.”

That sounds like GITMO to me, and the senator was none other than New York liberal Chuck Schumer. When a liberal like Schumer sees the light, conservatives are clearly winning the debate.

But here’s more evidence of the Left’s misplaced priorities. Remember the Department of Homeland Security report last year that suggested that conservatives, soldiers and pro-life activists were potential “domestic terrorists”? The administration took a lot of heat for that report and eventually retracted it.

But we’ve learned in recent days that it also acted on the report. The Associated Press broke a shocking story this week that the Obama Administration did in fact track pro-life activists in Wisconsin last year, conducting a threat assessment on several groups even though they clearly posed no threat to national security.

Unfortunately, this Administration is incredibly sensitive about making sure that admitted terrorists get their constitutional rights. But when it comes to American citizens, the administration tramples on the Constitution because its ideology tells it that the war against Islamic terrorism is just a misunderstanding and that conservatives pose the real threat.

That’s the view of Rep. John Carter (R-TX), whose district includes Ft. Hood. Rep. Carter is furious that the Pentagon’s nearly 90-page report on the Fort Hood shootings fails to mention the threat of Islamic terrorism. Today’s Washington Post buried an article on the report on page A15. The first reference to religion appeared in the ninth paragraph, which referred to “religious practices … that might lead to violence or self-radicalization,” as if Catholics or Jews might be suspect, too.

In his usually straightforward manner, Ralph Peters, a retired Army intelligence officer, thrashes the report as “gutless and shameful” in a weekend New York Post column. Peters writes: “It’s not about what happened at Fort Hood. It avoids entirely the issue of why it happened. …The Fort Hood massacre didn’t reflect an intelligence failure. The intelligence was there, in gigabytes. This was a leadership failure and an ethical failure, at every level. Nobody wanted to know what Hasan was up to. But you won’t learn that from this play-pretend report.”

Sadly, the political correctness that allowed Major Nidal Hasan to wage jihad at Fort Hood and kill 14 people is still running rampant at the Pentagon. This willful ignorance is just as dangerous as any jihadist, and both must be defeated.

The evidence is now overwhelming that the Fort Hood murderer, Nidal Malik Hasan, is an Islamist who was trying to please Allah when he gunned down our American heroes. ABC News reported this morning that the CIA has evidence that he had tried to contact Al Qaeda in recent months. For normal Americans the news that he shouted “Allahu Akbar,” the battle cry of jihadists, as he poured bullets into our sons and daughters was all we needed to know.

But that information wasn’t good enough for Dr. Phil, Larry King, major media outlets such as Newsweek, the president and, sadly, even our military elites. Many of them jumped to the conclusion that this was another example of a soldier “breaking” from battle stress. It didn’t seem puzzling to them that he had never been in combat! In fact, all of our elites wanted to lecture the rest of us and warn us that we’d better not jump to conclusions.

Now we know that for years Hasan was quite open about his Islamist views. In fact, HE HARRASSED his fellow soldiers – not the other way around, as has been suggested. Complaints about Hasan’s anti-American rantings were ignored. Some military people say they didn’t file complaints because they were afraid that doing so would hurt their careers in the increasingly “politically correct” Army bureaucracy.

Hasan made presentations that justified suicide bombings, and argued that the wars we have been fighting since 9/11 are really wars against Islam. He tried to convert his military patients to Islam and was put on probation. He attended a mosque in Northern Virginia that two 9/11 hijackers also attended. The list goes on and on.

As an obvious Islamist, Hasan did the predictable – he killed as many of us as he could. His actions should be no more mysterious than those of the hijackers who killed 3,000 of us on 9/11 or the Palestinian family who celebrates when they receive news that their teenage child has blown himself up while killing Jews.

What is harder to fathom is why so many elites are more interested in spreading politically correct lies than in confronting the strong likelihood that our jihadist enemy has infiltrated key American institutions. More of our soldiers will die, as will more of us, if the media and our government leaders don’t wake up. Nidal Hasan should not have been in the Army – he should have been in jail. He should not have been assigned to counseling returning American warriors. He should not have been promoted.

On Meet The Press Sunday, Army Chief of Staff General George Casey continued to urge people not to jump to conclusions about the overwhelming evidence in this case. He expressed deep concern about a possible backlash against Muslim members of our Armed Forces. He actually said this: “As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.” Does he really believe that? I think that 13 American families would argue that we could have had one person less of “diversity” at Fort Hood in exchange for 13 live American heroes.

And what about the White House? Since long before this attack, this president has refused to use the phrase “Islamic terrorism,” and has banned its use by others in the government. He began his administration by attempting to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where Hasan’s jihadist brothers are imprisoned. Day by day, America becomes less safe under his leadership.

Obama Takes The Prize!

Eyes rolled across America today as the sunrise brought news that our apprentice president had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.  Obama’s name is now added to an esteemed list that includes such note-worthies as Jimmy Carter (2002), Kofi Annan (2001) and Yasser Arafat (1994).  (Somehow the Nobel Committee never got around to recognizing the achievements of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher or Pope John Paul II, who brought down Soviet Communism and peacefully liberated tens of millions of people behind the Iron Curtain.)

All the commentators are suggesting the prize is premature because President Obama hasn’t actually accomplished anything yet to bring about peace.  That view fails to understand the mindset of leftwing elites who run international organizations like the Nobel Committee.  To them, America is the real threat to peace, particularly when we are led by men like Reagan and Bush, confident leaders who believed in American exceptionalism and willing to confront tyranny.

It also sends a message of just how much disdain the European elites have for the rest of us who dare to oppose the president’s appeasement and his socialism. George Bush’s efforts to keep America and the world safe from radical Islamic terrorism – the biggest threat to world peace today – were never deserving of recognition. But by electing Barack Obama, America got it “right,” and the liberal elites want to make sure you understand that fact, so they have bestowed Barack with one of the highest honors the international community can offer.

Today America is led by the “anti-Reagan.”  In his eight-and-a-half months in office, Obama has made apologizing for America a top priority.  He couldn’t find his voice when the Iranian regime crushed skulls.  He tells the United Nations that no country or group of countries can be above anyone else.  He has turned U.S. policy in the Middle East on its head – reaching out to Syria, Iran and Libya while regularly suggesting too many Jews in Jerusalem are the roadblock to peace.  He has dissed our allies, cancelled a defensive missile system and has been silent on human rights abuses in Cuba, Venezuela and around the world.

Just so you know, there were other nominees, including folks like Greg Mortenson, a decorated Army veteran, son of a Lutheran missionary and best-selling author. Mortenson has dedicated more than a decade of his life working in remote regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan building schools and helping to educate tens of thousands of children, especially young girls. You can read more about Greg Mortenson here.

That Mortenson’s incredible record of accomplishment lost out to Obama’s rhetoric is not surprising. If you are a left-wing internationalist who thinks the key to peace is a weaker America willing to take orders from the U.N., who in the world would you give the Nobel Peace Prize to other than Barack Hussein Obama?