Has Political Correctness Finally Gotten People Killed?

Last week, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan entered a medical facility at Fort Hood, prayed briefly, then shouted “Allahu akbar” before he began gunning down American troops, killing 13 and wounding another 31.

I happened to be watching cable news when the story was breaking and was struck by the fact that at least two cable networks were reporting within the first hour that the FBI had issued a report that the incident was not an act of terrorism. A few hours later when President Obama addressed the situation for the first time, he also seemed to be warning Americans not to “jump to conclusions” concerning the cause of the shooting.

The mainstream media wasted no time, or research, in jumping to their own conclusions that the suspect was suffering from “stress” and had snapped. The day after the slaughter, the New York Times ran one editorial and two of three op-eds asserting as much. The Los Angeles Times jumped to the same conclusion, running an article on the massacre titled: “Fort Hood Tragedy Rocks Military as It Grapples With Mental Health Issues.” Time magazine followed suit, posting an article titled: “Stresses at Fort Hood Were Likely Intense for Hasan.”

Since Maj. Hasan had never been deployed overseas, much less seen combat, progressive bloggers and the mainstream media seem to have discovered the first recorded case of “pre-traumatic stress syndrome.” Their point seems to be that the real victim of the massacre at Fort hood was Maj. Hasan.

According to numerous eyewitness accounts, Hasan

· denounced the “war on terror” as a war against Islam.
· said Muslims should attack Americans in retaliation for the war in Iraq
· defended suicide bombers as the same type of hero as the soldier who throws his body on a hand grenade to save the lives of his comrades
· reportedly had said he was “happy” when a Muslim murdered a soldier at a military recruiting center in Little Rock, Arkansas earlier this year
· shared a “spiritual adviser” with two of the Sept. 11 hijackers, Imam Anwar al-Awlaki, whose unseemly enthusiasm for jihad got him banned from speaking in Britain, even by video link
· A few years ago, Hasan delivered an hour-long PowerPoint lecture to an audience of doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, arguing that non-Muslims should be beheaded and have burning oil poured down their throats
· has attempted to contact al-Qaeda

Despite being well aware of Hasan’s disturbing views and conduct, the Army did nothing. It is not illegal for someone to say that Muslims should attack U.S. troops due to their operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, or that more Muslims should conduct attacks like the June 1 shooting at the recruiting center in Little Rock. As Chris Matthews of MSNBC argued, it is not illegal to contact al Qaeda. However, any or all of these actions would certainly appear to be conduct unbecoming a U.S. Army officer which is a violation of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). You see, the military member who volunteers to protect every other American’s freedoms, gives up some of their own to do so. The Army could have removed Maj. Hasan from duty and the whole issue could have been avoided.

The government knew of Maj. Hasan’s views and his activities and the question becomes why wasn’t something done before the shooting. Where was the breakdown in communication? Did the FBI provide the Army with their information? Did the NSA intercept incriminating communications between Maj. Hasan and Imam Anwar al-Awlaki? Did Maj. Hasan see the article by by the leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Nasir al-Wahayshi, for jihadists to conduct simple attacks against a variety of targets in the Muslim world and the West?

Admittedly, I don’t have all of the facts of the case, but a little thing like not having all of the details wouldn’t stop David Shuster, Chris Matthews, or Keith Olbermann from giving their opinions as fact, so I won’t stop here. If I were one of the analysts who handled information concerning Maj. Hasan, I might have considered the treatment of CIA members who followed their directives concerning some other alleged Muslim terrorists only to find their government turning on them and wanting to prosecute them. It appears that if you do your job in the intelligence community, but aren’t careful to be politically correct and determine which way the wind is blowing, you could find yourself being the guilty party.

I can determine a couple of things without an expensive investigation that will only get politically correct results. Maj. Hasan committed an act of terror. Maj. Hasan is a follower of Islam. Maj. Hasan’s views appear to be a little on the radical side (the United States Army being a little on the conservative side as a whole). Therefore, Maj. Hassan is a radical Islamic terrorist.

It’s time to get past the political correct culture that avoids the truth. Am I saying that all Muslims are radical? No. Am I saying all Muslims are terrorists? No. Is there any evidence of a backlash, either in the military or the counrty as a whole that had Progressives worried to the point of making excuses for Maj. Hasan? No.

Still, the man is a terrorist and we need to get over the age of political correctness and say so. I just did.

Is Fort Hood Shooter a Homegrown Jihadist?

An Army soldier killed 12 people and wounded 31 in a rampage at Fort Hood, Texas. The assailant has been identified as Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army mental health professional.

Most of those killed were also soldiers, according to the briefing by Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone, post commander. Cone said that a gunman entered a facility known as the Soldier Readiness Facility, where soldiers who are preparing to deploy go for last minute medical check ups and dental treatment. Sources told ABC News that the soldiers gathered there were getting ready to deploy to Iraq.

Initial reports said the shooter was killed and there were “eyewitness accounts of more than one shooter,” and the others were tracked to an adjacent facility and apprehended. They were taken into custody, questioned and cleared of involvement in the shootings. Hasan is, at the time of this writing, alive and in stable condition.

Federal law enforcement officials reportedly told the AP that Hasan had come to their attention at least six months ago because of Internet postings that discussed suicide bombings and other threats. The officials say the postings appeared to have been made by Hasan, but are still trying to confirm that he was the author. They say an official investigation was not opened.

One of the Web postings that authorities reviewed is a blog that equates suicide bombers with a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades.

Cone did not speculate about a motive, but the Army released a statement saying it did not believe the shootings were an act of political terrorism.

Scott Stewart and Fred Burton of STRATFOR (www.stratfor.com) which is a leading online publisher of geopolitical intelligence, wrote an article released just today said that al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) leader Nasir al-Wahayshi had written an article that called for jihadists to conduct simple attacks against a variety of targets was published in an online magazine which was released to jihadist Web sites last week.

That al-Wahayshi gave these instructions in an Internet magazine distributed via jihadist chat rooms, not in some secret meeting with his operational staff, demonstrates that they are clearly intended to reach what Stratfor calls “grassroots” jihadists and not intended for his own organization.

I’m not necessarily suggesting that the shootings at Fort Hood was an act of radical Islamic terrorism, but I’m not saying it isn’t. I would hope the authorities at least take a look at Hasan’s computers to see if he has accessed any sites that included al-Wahayshi’s message.

Obama To Skip 20th Anniversary Celebration of the Fall of the Berlin Wall

Important celebrations are coming up in Germany. They mark the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the historic event that started the reunification process of East and West Germany. The fall of the Berlin Wall – a new beginning in Germany and Europe – will be celebrated with a huge Festival of Freedom on both sides of the Brandenburg Gate starting November 7 to 9, this year.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel invited the leaders of Russia, Britain, France and the United States to the ceremony on November 9 as the four victorious World War II powers signed the treaty that paved the way to German unity.

Berlin is going all out for the anniversary, with such luminaries as Kofi Annan, Mikhail Gorbachev and Lech Walesa expected to be in attendance. Chancellor Merkel said other invited guests including presidents Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Dmitry Medvedev of Russia, and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown had confirmed their attendance. Merkel is pushing hard to complete ongoing coalition negotiations soon so that her government is fully formed in time for the festivities.

White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs said that President Obama’s schedule will not allow for a visit to Germany. “Obviously, we have a lot to work on here and we have commitments for an upcoming Asia trip,” Gibbs said.

The anniversary festivities are scheduled for November 9, and the president leaves for his ten-day tour of Asia on November 11.

Merkel and Obama have repeatedly denied reports that their relations are strained, but a headline in Germany’s Spiegel which said “Barack is Too Busy” may give an impression of true German feelings.

This is yet another terrible decision by the Obama White House. Scheduling for the President’s time should have been arranged to allow for an appearance in Berlin prior to, or perhaps while enroute to the Asian meetings.

After months of campaign rhetoric about President Bush ignoring our European allies, Obama has acted more like a snob who cares little about trans-Atlantic relationships. I would suggest that it would have taken him little more time than it did to make a trip in his failed attempt to bring the Olympics to Chicago.

Support Doug Hoffman in NY-23

I’ve said in the past that I no longer will consider giving money to the RNC even though they continue to ask for it.

As I stated, I don’t want to give them money only to find that they have used it to support candidates that I would NEVER consider supporting. I’m sure that many others from both parties have found the same thing to be true.

I said at the time, and I’ll say again, that with the power of the internet, I can donate directly to candidates or causes that I totally agree with and encourage others to do the same.

An example of what I’m talking about is the RNC support of the Republican candidate in the congressional race in New York’s 23rd district. Dede Scozzafava is the nominee of the party bosses and is receiving money and support from the party.

The problem with that is that Dede is at least as left-leaning as her Democratic Party opponent. As a state assemblywoman, she voted for massive tax increases, Democratic budgets and a $180 million state bank bailout. She also supported the trillion-dollar federal stimulus package — which every House Republican voted against. She is an abortion rights advocate who supports gay marriage. Scozzafava’s husband is a leading upstate New York union organizer. She supports the federal “card-check” legislation that would massively boost union rolls. Scozzafava in past elections has embraced the ballot line of the Working Families Party, a socialist organization with ties to ACORN. In fact, ACORN head Bertha Lewis, who is a close friend of Scozzafava and a political supporter, wears a second hat as vice chairman of the WFP. The WFP has been listed in ACORN documents dating back to 2000 as an “affiliate.”

It is with this backdrop that I cannot support the RNC, the RNCC or the chosen Republican candidate for that seat. Instead, I have chosen to support the Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman.

Doug Hoffman is committed to ending the reckless spending in Washington, D.C. and the massive increase in the size and scope of the federal government. He stands for smaller government, lower taxes, strong national defense, and a commitment to individual liberty.

You can help Doug by visiting his official website below and joining me in supporting his campaign:
http://www.doughoffmanforcongress.com/donate3.html

Florida’s Plan to Bar Some Patients in the Event of Flu Pandemic

Florida health officials are drawing up guidelines that recommend barring patients with incurable cancer, end-stage multiple sclerosis and other conditions from being admitted to hospitals if the state is overwhelmed by flu cases.

The plan, which would guide Florida hospitals on how to ration scarce medical care during a severe flu outbreak, also calls for doctors to remove patients with poor prognoses from ventilators to treat those who have better chances of surviving. That decision would be made by the hospital.

The flu causes severe respiratory illnesses in a small percentage of cases, and patients who need ventilators and are deprived of them could die without the breathing assistance the machines provide.

In June, Florida Surgeon General Ana M. Viamonte Ros sent the draft guidelines — which had already undergone a series of internal revisions — to 16 state medical organizations for their feedback.

The document addresses one of the most heart-rending issues in medicine: What to do if the number of people in need of ventilators and other treatment dramatically exceeds what is available.

The goal, the plan says, is to focus care on patients whose lives could be saved and who would be most likely to improve. While it says those decisions are not to be made based on patients’ perceived social worth or role, the plan calls for different rules for some populations.

One goal of Florida’s plan is to “reduce or eliminate” the legal liability of health care workers who, in good faith, deny or withdraw treatment from some patients in an emergency. The plan includes sample executive orders that the governor could issue to shield workers and authorize hospitals to implement the guidelines.

The draft document also outlines how the health care system should stretch critical resources before moving to ration care.

The guidelines suggest reusing supplies, canceling surgeries that are not absolutely necessary, training staff to perform additional tasks and drawing on stockpiles. The general public’s responsibilities include treating certain sick family members at home and monitoring public health messages.

I’m sure that the health officials involved in this are not considered by the state Surgeon General’s office as being “death panels” any more than the health care plans being discussed in Washington includes “death panels,” but here we already have government officials deciding who’s to live and who’s to die. We just won’t call those making the decisions “death panels!”

Obama’s Unaccountable Czar

Last week the United States Department of the Treasury Special Master of Compensation Kenneth Feinberg announced a wage control scheme for the 175 executives of the seven companies that have received the most funds from the taxpayer funded Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). At first the Obama administration denied any involvement in Feinberg’s decision.

But after yesterday’s announcement that the Federal Reserve released its own plan to control how banks compensate their employees, the New York Times reported:

“The announcement was choreographed to coincide with the decision by the Obama administration this week to cut the pay of many high earners at the seven companies that received the most taxpayer help. Both decisions were announced amid growing public outrage over large pay packages at many of those companies.”

Which is it? Are the new wage control schemes launched by the Pay Czar and the Fed the acts of independent experts, or are they the closely controlled policy decisions of the Obama White House?

The answer to that question goes to the core of the very real constitutional problems that the proliferation of czars in the Obama administration creates. Obama appointed Feinberg to be his pay czar without any input from the American people and without any approval from Congress.

By Feinberg’s reading of the law that created his office, Obama had no legal authority to veto or modify the pay plan he submitted Wednesday, he said. “The White House has played absolutely no role whatsoever,” Feinberg said. “Zero intervention by the White House in this process.”

The actions and comments by Feinberg raise another question. If these unelected, uncomfirmed Czars of the Obama administration aren’t responsible to the American people or to Congress and apparently, according to Feinberg’s opinion of the law, not answerable to the President…who in the heck do they answer to?

Administration Attempts to Exclude Fox News from White Hous Pool

Over the past two weeks, three White House officials have publicly criticized the Fox News Channel by denigrating its status as a news outlet – White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, Senior Advisor David Axelrod and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Even the president himself commented on his opinion of Fox News.

Last Thursday, the Obama administration failed in its attempt to exclude Fox News from participating in an interview of the Treasury Department’s “pay czar,” Kenneth Feinberg when they planned to make him available to every member of the network pool except Fox.

The pool is the five-network rotation that for decades has shared the costs and duties of daily coverage of the presidency and other Washington institutions.

But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks consulted and decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included. The pool informed Treasury that Fox News, as a member of the network pool, could not be excluded from such interviews under the rules of the pool.

The administration relented, making Feinberg available for all five pool members and Bloomberg TV.

The pushback came after White House senior adviser David Axelrod told ABC News’ “This Week” on Sunday that Fox News is not a real news organization and other news networks “ought not to treat them that way.”

I applaude the bureau chiefs for standing up for what is right. I’m sure the decision was made because they know if they were to allow the White House to exclude Fox simply because the administration feels they are too critical, they would have to live with the threat of “who would be next?”

Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

From the 1961 Operation Coffee Cup Campaign seeking to counter a proposed Democratic plan for socialized medicine, then private citizen and actor Ronald Reagan Speaks out against socialized medicine.

Senate Passes Defense Bill…or it a Hate Crimes Bill?

The Senate Wednesday passed its annual defense policy bill, authorizing $680 billion in spending for the coming fiscal year.  The $680 billion spending bill for FY 2010, which passed on a 68-29 vote, included a recommendation to the administration to continue developing an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, despite a White House pledge to veto it if funding for the alternate engine would “significantly disrupt” the overall program.

The Senate also attached an amendment to the bill as has become a trademark in Washington when the amendment has significant oppostion.  The decision to attach the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act generated some opposition to the defense authorization bill, with 29 Republicans voting against the bill, which usually passes by a wide margin.

The hate crimes provision, which creates additional penalties for violent crimes motivated by the victim’s gender, sexual orientation or disability, had been championed for the last decade the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).

I am not stating here that I am for or against the hate crimes legislation.  I am stating here that I am opposed to this tactic of attaching amendments that are grossly unrelated to the topic of the original bill.  I would urge President Obama to veto the bill simply based on that issue alone.  He won’t, of course.

Attorney General Eric Holder’s Dept of Justice Overrules the Will of Voters

The small North Carolina city of Kinston is getting a taste of what life is like now that the Justice Department is run by Attorney General Eric Holder. Last year, the voters of that city voted overwhelmingly to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections.

The Obama Department of Justice overruled the decisions of the voters and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without candidates being clearly labeled as Democrats. Ben Conery of the Washington Times recently reported:

“The Justice Department’s ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their “candidates of choice” – identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.

The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters’ right to elect the candidates they want.

 Stephen LaRoque, a former Republican state lawmaker who led the drive to end partisan local elections, called the Justice Department’s decision “racial as well as partisan.”

“On top of that, you have an unelected bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., overturning a valid election,” he said. “That is un-American.”

The decision, made by the same Justice official who ordered the dismissal of a voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia, has irritated other locals as well. They bristle at federal interference in this city of nearly 23,000 people, two-thirds of whom are black.”

Say what?!  This is yet another case of Progressives in Washington deciding that We the People cannot make decisions for ourselves.