PC Kills

PC Kills

November 10th, 2009 Posted By Pat Dollard.

r550775505

WASHINGTON (AP) – Finger-pointing erupted between federal agencies Tuesday over Fort Hood shooting suspect Nidal Hasan. Government officials said a Defense Department terrorism investigator looked into Hasan’s contacts with a radical imam months ago, but a military official denied prior knowledge of the Army psychiatrist’s contacts with any Muslim extremists.

The two government officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case on the record, said the Washington-based joint terrorism task force overseen by the FBI was notified of communications between Hasan and a radical imam overseas, and the information was turned over to a Defense Criminal Investigative Service employee assigned to the task force. The communications were gathered by investigators beginning in December 2008 and continuing into early this year.

That Defense investigator wrote up an assessment of Hasan after reviewing the communications and the Army major’s personnel file, according to these officials. The assessment concluded Hasan did not merit further investigation — in large part because his communications with the imam were centered on a research paper about the effects of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and the investigator determined that Hasan was in fact working on such a paper, the officials said.

The disclosure came as questions swirled about whether opportunities were missed to head off the massacre in which 13 died and 29 were wounded last Thursday — a familiar, early stage in the investigation of headline-grabbing crimes when public officials involved in a case often speak anonymously as they try to shift any blame to rivals in other agencies.

The disclosure Tuesday of the defense investigator’s role indicated that the U.S. military was aware of worrisome behavior by the massacre suspect long before the attack. Just hours later, a senior defense official, also demanding anonymity, directly contradicted that notion.

The senior defense official said neither the Army nor any other part of the Defense Department knew of Hasan’s contacts with any Muslim extremists. But the defense official carefully conceded this view was based upon what the Pentagon knows now.

The FBI has launched its own internal review of how it handled the early information about Hasan. Military, law enforcement and intelligence agencies also are defending themselves against tough questions about what each of them knew about Hasan before he allegedly opened fire in a crowded room at the huge military base in Texas.

Hasan has not been formally charged but officials plan to charge him in military court, not a civilian one, a choice that suggests his alleged actions are not thought to have emanated from a terrorist organization. He could face the death penalty.

Investigators believe Hasan acted alone, despite his communications with Anwar al-Awlaki, an imam released from a Yemeni jail last year who has used his personal Web site to encourage Muslims across the world to kill U.S. troops in Iraq. Because the communications between Hasan and al-Awlaki did not contain threats or advocacy of violence, no formal investigation was opened into Hasan, they said.

Officials said the content of those messages was “consistent with the subject matter of his research,” part of which involved post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from U.S. combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A law enforcement official said the communications consisted primarily of Hasan posing questions to the imam as a spiritual leader or adviser, and the imam did respond to at least some of those messages.

Investigative officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case on the record. Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said it was his understanding Hasan and the imam exchanged e-mails that counterterrorism officials picked up.

Born in New Mexico, al-Awlaki is a former imam at a Falls Church, Va., mosque where Hasan and his family occasionally worshipped. In 2001, al-Awlaki had contact with two of the Sept. 11 hijackers. That contact was investigated by the FBI, but no charges were brought against al-Awlaki.

On Monday, al-Awlaki’s Web site praised Hasan as a hero.

By Tuesday, his Web site was offline, but it was unclear whether the site was taken down deliberately.

The imam’s site was hosted by a Culver City, Calif.,-based company, Media Temple Inc., which also runs Web sites for well-known corporations, according to Internet registration records and the company’s own sales literature. Media Temple did not immediately respond to phone calls or e-mails Tuesday from The Associated Press. Internet records indicated Media Temple was itself leasing the site’s Internet address from a Brea, Calif.,-based company, New Dream Network LLC, which declined to answer questions about the Web site Tuesday, citing customer privacy.

“We do work routinely with law enforcement on the local, national and international level in an expedient manner,” New Dream Network said in a statement.

Hasan’s electronic interactions with al-Awlaki have drawn new attention to the imam, who is well known among intelligence circles, a former senior U.S. intelligence official told The Associated Press. Al-Awlaki is considered to have deep and close links with al-Qaida but is not understood to be an al-Qaida operative, the official said.

The Senate has already launched its own inquiry into the Hasan case. Sens. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, plan to hold a hearing on the shootings next week.

It’s the Jihad Stupid

It’s the Jihad Stupid

November 10th, 2009

By Frank J. Gaffney Jr, Washington Times

 Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s motives clearly show an intent to create havoc and terror

Poll after poll indicates that official Washington is held in very low regard by the American people. One reason is that our leaders are seen as out of touch with the realities confronting ordinary folks – and with what those folks’ common sense suggests are appropriate responses to such realities.

There could scarcely be a more graphic example of that disconnect – and its ominous implications – than the contortions the U.S. government is going through in the wake of the murder of 13 people and the wounding of dozens more at Fort Hood last week. For example, the FBI declared immediately after the attack that it was not an act of terrorism. Other officials are promoting the idea that it is simply a case of an individual afflicted by stress or deranged by the prospect of an upcoming deployment to a war zone. President Obama insists we should reserve judgment, evidently because the facts are open to varying interpretations.

Such statements are an affront to most Americans’ intelligence, which common-sensically applies a prosaic form of the scientific method: They look for the explanation that best fits the facts. The facts – which are becoming ever more numerous by the day – are that the purported perpetrator of these crimes, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, is “a devout Muslim” who, as such, has had to follow at least since 2001 the dictates of the theo-political-legal and seditious program that authoritative Islam calls Shariah. One of those dictates is that the faithful must engage in jihad, or holy war, to achieve the submission of unbelievers to Islam.

Consider the following partial but illustrative listing of behavior that speaks to Maj. Hasan’s dangerous proclivities:

Read More:

Obama’s Cowardly Ft. Hood Speech

Obama’s Cowardly Ft. Hood Speech

J.C. Arenas

Today the President did his job and I say that in a non-complimentary fashion. He spoke before a nation that was still in mourning over the first terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11, but he did so in a cowardly manner.

At no point during his speech did he mutter any words that describe the enemy we continue to face. He spoke vaguely of “twisted logic” and “extremists”, but failed to point the finger directly at Islam. If we didn’t know any better, we wouldn’t have a clue who or what he was talking about.
However, with all that being said, I’m once again not surprised that Obama willingly chose to miss the boat. First, our aloof commander-in-chief felt the need to send a shout-out to Chief Joe Medicine Crow before he spoke of the 14 dead and 30 wounded at Ft. Hood (yes I’m counting the fetus in Francheska Velez’s stomach), then during the weekend following this horrific incident, he retreated to Camp David while his predecessor quietly went and paid his respects.
If we have any more terrorists disguised in U.S. military fatigues like Nadal Malik Hasan, they have nothing to worry about. Obama will continue to sleep comfortably at night in his Bubble House and his repeated actions of willful ignorance will allow them to conclude he’s just asleep at the switch.
Feel any safer yet?
No, I don’t either.
J.C. Arenas is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and welcomes your comments at jcarenas.com

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/obamas_cowardly_ft_hood_speech.html at November 10, 2009 – 08:30:43 PM EST

Jihad in Texas

Jihad in Texas
By the Editors

What was the craziest reaction to the attack at Ft. Hood by Major Hasan, the crazed jihadist? It could be Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano’s saying that what we most have to fear now is a possible wave of anti-Muslim sentiment. Or it could be journalist Michael Tomasky’s saying that we should not draw any inferences from “Allahu akbar,” the murderer’s battle cry, because it’s just something that votaries of the religion of peace say in moments of stress. We vote for a collective prize to all who attributed the bloodbath to post-traumatic stress disorder, not that Hasan ever experienced any trauma himself, but only heard tales of it when treating patients — presumably in the intervals when he was not trying to convert them to Wahhabism.

In time of war, a man who redefined his identity (he called himself Palestinian, though he was born in Virginia), prayed with a jihadist cleric, complained and preached to acquaintances, and may have contacted terrorists, shoots several dozen people, most of them servicemen and -women, and our commentariat wonders what is going on.

We see the operation of the same political correctness that cocooned Major Hasan in his Army career. Fellow soldiers noticed his strident and unbalanced behavior, but did not report him, lest they discriminate against him (or — their more likely fear — be rebuked for discrimination). He was invited to attend a conference of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University in 2008. (Major Hasan, as it turned out, had a lot to say — not that he would have said it all, or that his plump-minded peers would have listened, even if he had.) We should not be surprised that journalists and pundits are no smarter than our defense and security bureaucracies.

We also suffer from a larger American unwillingness to acknowledge political violence. We rightly applaud ourselves for having avoided Europe’s upheavals. Yet the historic free flow of ideas in this country means that pernicious ones will lodge in the minds of very bad actors. Few of our famous assassins were mere loony loners without political motives. JFK’s assassin was a Marxist, RFK’s was another Palestinian, McKinley’s was an anarchist. Lincoln was murdered by a rogue Confederate intelligence operation. The solution is not to restrict freedom, but to take ideas seriously — to flag them and combat them; to monitor those who take them to extremes and to come down on them when they first cross the line to incitement or action; certainly to keep them out of positions of power or responsibility, even to the rank of major.

We have a difficult enough problem as it is: We cannot know where we are unless we honestly identify and discuss what happens around us.

 


National Review Online – http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTk1ZTFmNTlmNjkyOTM3ODEyYWZlYmI3YTYxZmVhMjg=

Ignoring Infiltration

Ignoring Infiltration

By J.R. Dunn

It was Friday afternoon that I finished the draft of “The Left and Terror,” at which point I logged on to waste a little time poking around the Net, something I am very good at. Imagine my shock at being confronted with the news from Fort Hood at that moment. Such coincidences tap into sources deep in the subconscious — it was as if my own writing had somehow called Nidal Malik Hasan into existence. It was a disturbing sensation, one that served to curtail analysis of the event. I merely updated the piece and sent it on in.

Developments over the past days have amply confirmed the thesis offered in “The Left and Terror.” What would a serious response to such an atrocity look like? We’d see swift activity aimed at halting any further such incidents. I am not talking about a “witch hunt” — the term so beloved by mass media — but a careful investigation followed by decisive action where necessary. There are undoubtedly more such individuals currently active in the military, not to mention other branches of government. We can only hope that they’re dealt with before yet another massacre occurs.
Is that the response we’ve gotten? Not as far as I’ve been able to see. What the media (not the best guide in the world, granted) has presented is a world away. Obama has confronted the crisis with yet another serving of Hope and Change rhetoric. We shouldn’t “jump to conclusions,” says O., giving no notion of what those conclusions might be. He goes on to praise the “diversity” of the armed forces, as if the fact that Hasan the Assassin’s victims came from different backgrounds somehow makes things better. It’s evident that as in much else, Obama believes that such phraseology amounts to magic words that force bad things to go away. And you know, there just may be something to that. (The original Hasan the Assassin, by the way, was Hasan ibn al-Sabbah, the “Old Man of the Mountain,” who founded the Ismailite sect of Islam. He kept his Muslim enemies at arm’s length through the use of a drug-conditioned corps of killers — the Hashishans — from which the term “assassin” is derived. Funny how names often resonate, isn’t it?)
We move on to Home Defense secretary Janet Napolitano, who is overseeing the country’s protection by traipsing around the global conference circuit. From thousands of miles away, she has stepped in to assure that there will be no “anti-Muslim backlash” in the hamlets and settlements of her benighted and primitive country. Good to see she’s right on top of things.
Army chief of staff Gen. George Casey concurs, at least as far as forbidding any “speculation” concerning Hasan’s faith. (It sounds as if he doesn’t want anyone to figure out that he’s a Muslim.) Gen. Casey, you may recall, made his mark by watching Iraq deteriorate under his command while stubbornly opposing the surge strategy proposed by Gen. David Petreaus. That goes a long way toward qualifying him to deal with potential infiltration within his own ranks.
Though it hasn’t yet hit the U.S., the “backlash” interpretation is all but universal overseas, being featured in papers from the tabloid Daily Mail to the redbrick Guardian. Of course, there has never been a “backlash” against Muslims or Arabs in this country, nor is there any sign of one occurring now. Even after 9/11, uncontrolled acting out was minimal. The sole victim that I can recall was an unfortunate Sikh who ran afoul of an unbalanced (and badly informed) man. If any other incidents took place, we’d be sure to have heard of them daily from such outfits as CAIR, not to mention Napolitano and Dear Leader.
But why confuse ourselves with facts? The narrative has been set: the problem involves not killers shooting innocents for pathological reasons, but nonexistent mobs running the streets of America, waving ropes and looking for anyone wearing a dishdash. It’s not Islamists who are responsible, but us: America and the people who inhabit it. The great thing about multiculturalism is that it can be cut down, trimmed, reshaped, and refurbished to fit anything. Here, it has been reworked to serve as the cover for the murder of thirteen servicemen and the maiming of thirty-odd others. And we’re supposed to sit back and nod and say, “Obama knows best. If anything’s wrong, Obama will tell us.”
It will turn out to be the army’s fault. They simply didn’t “adapt” themselves to Hasan’s needs. They required him to do things. They insisted on sending him to Afghanistan when he didn’t want to go. All those things they never require of Christian, secular, Jewish, or (Vishnu forbid!) Hindu soldiers. Much will be made of the fact that somebody once keyed his car. (Always a good excuse for a massacre — just ask all those lefties I shot after somebody keyed my vehicle for displaying the wrong bumper sticker.) When it happens again — as it will — we will hear cries for more “understanding,” for the armed forces to adapt to changing circumstances, for removal of crosses on military bases, for the elimination of Jewish officers in units into which Muslims might be transferred. Obama will give a speech about it. Secretary Napolitano will attend a series of conferences. As for Casey…well, who listens to retired generals anyway?
There’s an interesting photo taken from just after the German surrender in World War II. A G.I. is relaxing in a wrecked German room, laughing as he leafs through a copy of Mein Kampf. The caption stated that he’d have been “court-martialed for sedition” if he’d been seen doing that only a week before. Perhaps that was taking it too far — very few if any American troops would ever have been tempted to take Hitler’s ideas seriously. But would the same thing be taking it too far today? World War II was not a war of infiltration — but ours manifestly is. Eventually, after another dozen, or hundred, or ten thousand murders, we will wake up to that fact.

Until then, the Fort Hood massacre stands as one more signpost on the road to the next catastrophe.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/ignoring_infiltration.html at November 10, 2009 – 02:03:58 PM EST

What’s behind America’s politically correct ‘love’ of Islam?

What’s behind America’s politically correct ‘love’ of Islam?
Exclusive: David Kupelian reveals secret to ending PC madness


Posted: November 09, 2009
9:25 pm Eastern

 

By David Kupelian


 

The second they heard about the Fort Hood massacre, millions of thinking Americans wondered in their gut: “Oh God, is this another crazy Muslim terrorist carrying out a one-man jihad, as has happened so many times before?”

 

Then, when the alleged perpetrator’s name and religion were made public (Nidal Malik Hasan, a lifelong Muslim) along with eyewitness reports he had shouted the obligatory pre-terror-attack proclamation, “Allahu akbar” (“Allah is greatest”) before commencing his orgy of slaughter, their suspicions were confirmed: This was surely a major attack on the American homeland by a Muslim terrorist.

 

Further evidence quickly rolled in: Hasan had reportedly refused to fight fellow Muslims, called the war on terror a “war on Islam,” told a co-worker Muslims had a right to rise up and attack Americans, and reportedly had posted online his astoundingly twisted belief that an Islamic suicide bomber was morally equivalent to a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades.

 

In other words, although the Army had many warnings Hasan was a certifiable, America-hating, jihadist “ticking time bomb” waiting to go off, it did nothing to avert last week’s terror attack. Why?

 

And why, after the truth about Hasan became undeniable following his mass slaughter, does the government, as well as its mouthpiece the establishment press, agonize in their usual pathetic manner over what could possibly have motivated the Army psychiatrist to coldly, methodically murder 13 and wound 38 others?

 

Why, after a Muslim commits a terrorist act, do authorities always announce almost instantaneously – before they could possibly know – that the attack was not terror-related?

 

Get “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America,” autographed, from WND’s Superstore.

Why do the news media always torture themselves and their readers with the most wildly improbable explanations in their attempts to avoid the obvious truth?

 

Before we answer these questions, lest you think I overstate the case, take a quick trip with me down jihad memory lane.

 

  • Remember the beltway snipers? In October 2002, Muslim convert John Muhammad along with 17-year-old Lee Boyd “John” Malvo paralyzed the Washington metropolitan area for three bloody weeks, killing 10 and critically injuring three others. But after their capture, most in the media were loath to focus seriously on Islamic jihad as a motive, despite the fact that Muhammad had praised the Sept. 11 hijackers and had threatened to commit major terrorist acts within the U.S.Like alcoholics uncomfortable with facing the painful truth, the media retreated into comfortable denial. Their standard analysis of what made Muhammad tick included anything and everything except jihad. Thus, the Los Angeles Times offered up no less than six possible motives for Muhammad’s killing spree, according to Daniel Pipes, an expert on militant Islam. They included “his ‘stormy relationship’ with his family, his ‘stark realization’ of loss and regret, his perceived sense of abuse as an American Muslim post-9/11, his desire to ‘exert control’ over others, his relationship with Malvo, and his trying to make a quick buck,” said Pipes – “but did not mention jihad.”

     

    (Story continues below)

     

     

    “Likewise,” he adds, “a Boston Globe article found ‘there must have been something in his social interaction – in his marriage or his military career – that pulled the trigger.’”

     

    This see-no-jihad, hear-no-jihad, speak-no-jihad mindset has become standard operating procedure for the establishment press.

     

     

     

     

     

  • On July 4, 2002, a cab driver named Hesham Hadayet walked into the Los Angeles International Airport and shot two people to death before being shot and killed by a security guard. Despite the fact that Hadayet was Egyptian and that he had chosen the Israeli El Al ticket counter as the site for venting his rage, any suggestion that Hadayet was carrying out his own personal jihad was immediately dismissed.”Investigators … believe that Hadayet was simply an overstressed man who snapped,” reported the Los Angeles Times. “He was known as a quiet, observant Muslim,” added the Times, which explained away the killer’s virulent anti-Semitism by saying, “While Hadayet occasionally mentioned a hatred for Israel, [one former employee] saw it more as a cultural perspective on Mideast politics than an emotion that would fuel violence.”

     

     

  • One of the worst air disasters in modern history, Egypt Air Flight 990 crashed into the Atlantic shortly after takeoff from New York in October 1999, killing 217.Two and a half years later, the National Transportation Safety Board finally reached the same conclusion that virtually everyone else had immediately after the crash – that the plane’s Egyptian copilot, Gameel El-Batouty, had cut power to the engines and intentionally sent the plane plummeting into the ocean, killing all aboard.

     

    But the government panel declined to suggest a motive, except to speculate that El-Batouty might have “committed suicide.”

     

    Suicide? Pardon my French, but I think “mass murder” or “terrorism” would much better describe the wanton annihilation of hundreds of innocent people. Yet, despite the fact the copilot had calmly repeated over and over the Arabic phrase “Tawkalt” (“I rely on Allah”) for almost a minute and a half during his deed – and that such behavior, according to the report, “is not consistent with the reaction that would be expected from a pilot who is encountering an unexpected or uncommanded flight condition” – federal investigators steered clear of suggesting jihad as a motive.

     

     

     

     

  • The U.S. government, not wanting to offend Muslim sensitivities, rarely mentions “Muslim” or “Islamic” when describing Islamic terrorism. For example, when a massive jihad plot to blow up 10 airliners over the Atlantic and kill thousands was foiled in 2006, then–Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff briefed his agency using only the word “extremists” to describe the plotters – no mention of Islam. All of the two dozen would-be terrorists were Muslims.
  • This syndrome has just gotten worse since the ascension to the presidency of Barack Obama, who takes every opportunity to criticize America and fawn over Islam – even calling America “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world” and bowing obsequiously before the Muslim king of Saudi Arabia.

So, why do we have this stubborn inability to come to grips with Islam?

 

Everyone attributes it to “political correctness,” but I think it’s time to move beyond that shallow, passé, near-meaningless phrase.

 

Do we dare admit what is really at play here? The truth is actually very simple.

 

We are afraid of Islam.

 

We are intimidated by Islam.

 

And because we are afraid of and intimidated by Islam, Islam is changing us – in two distinct and profound ways.

 

First, as is appallingly obvious, we’re afraid to criticize Islam openly, for fear of having our head cut off or having a fatwa put out on us like the director of the new “2012″ film, or we’re afraid of being sued by some of the very litigious Islamic organizations like CAIR, or we’re afraid of being called a racist, extremist, hater or “Islamophobe” thanks to the tyranny of political correctness, or we’re afraid of offending those in power and thereby risking our position, stature or other advantage. This reaction, while perhaps selfish and cowardly, is more-or-less conscious and strategic.

 

However, for some it goes much deeper: Being intimidated by Islam (or by anything, for that matter) actually causes some of us to mysteriously grow sympathetic toward it, to defend it, to side with it, even to convert to it. This unconscious shift in attitude, in response to fear of being hurt, is called the Stockholm syndrome, named after the 1973 Swedish bank robbery during which the four terrorized hostages sided with their criminal captors while disparaging the police risking their lives trying to save them.

 

We need to understand that a certain percentage of us, when we’re intimidated and upset, start to emotionally gravitate toward and agree with whatever is intimidating us. Not just superficially, as a temporary tactic of placating a bully so he won’t hurt us, but more profoundly, deep down in the inner sanctum of our being where our thoughts and feelings germinate and our loyalties bloom.

 

Intimidation – that is, causing others to react with upset and fear – is a fundamental principle of mind control, fully capable of causing the victim’s loyalties to shift toward the intimidator, whether a schoolyard bully, gang leader, child molester, hostage-taking bank robber or Islamic radical.

 

“Political correctness” – which is basically a low-grade Stockholm syndrome playing out on a broad societal stage – is actually a subtle form of brainwashing. Even establishment mouthpiece Newsweek, in its famous Dec. 24, 1990, cover story on the then-new phenomenon of political correctness on college campuses (titled “Thought Police”) conceded this truth when it reported: “PC is, strictly speaking, a totalitarian philosophy.”

 

Bottom line: We’re intimidated, bullied, threatened, terrorized – and so we capitulate, not just in word and deed, but in thought. Get it?

 

Most of the time, of course, this occurs below the radar of our own consciousness. We don’t understand what’s really happening. So we interpret our growing sympathy and affinity for whatever intimidated us as evidence of our loving, open-minded, enlightened nature. In reality, it’s the result of craven weakness on our part.

 

The problem with Islam

 

Now imagine there’s a religion, which we’ll call “Religion X.” Many adherents to “Religion X” live peaceful lives in pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Whatever their religious doctrine is, they don’t bother anybody.

 

But other adherents to Religion X believe – indeed, are taught by prominent clerics, including within the U.S. – that they must rule the world, and that the lord of their religion condones, even encourages, their killing those who refuse to convert to Religion X, or who leave Religion X.

 

So, one contingent of this religion we are inclined to allow freely to exist within our borders – indeed our laws and culture demand it. But virtually all Americans would rightly categorize the other contingent of the same religion as a murderous, mind-control cult that should be driven from our shores.

 

The problem with Religion X, then, is that it’s really hard to distinguish one type of adherent from the other.

 

That’s the problem we’re having with Islam. Every time a jihadist like Hasan goes on a terrorist killing spree, invariably all who knew him say they were totally stunned, as he was always so “calm, cool and soft-spoken.” And yet there were warning signs, such that were we not blinded by our fears and cowardice, we would not merely have seen them, we would have acted on them – and prevented last week’s terrorist attack.

 

According to the London Telegraph, in an article headlined, “Fort Hood gunman had told U.S. military colleagues that infidels should have their throats cut”:

 

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at America’s Fort Hood military base, once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.He also told colleagues at America’s top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire.

 

 

Hasan made these incendiary jihadist comments “in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington, D.C.” during a talk on the Quran, according to the report.

 

And how did his fellow doctors respond?

 

Although they were horrified, “One Army doctor who knew him said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim soldier had stopped fellow officers from filing formal complaints,” reported the Telegraph.

 

Are you with me? “A fear of appearing discriminatory” caused 51 brave American soldiers to be shot by an Islamist monster, 13 fatally.

 

This inordinate fear, implanted in us by the lords of politically correct attitude, the subtle brainwashers of modern, secular society, is to blame.

 

It gets worse, much worse. As ABC now reports, “U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al-Qaida.”

 

The evil of “political correctness” – the totalitarian manipulation of thought, foisted on us by twisted elitist sociopaths who hate America and everything our soldiers have fought and died for over the last two centuries, and continue to fight and die for – has to end. Now. It’s over. This nation must rise up and defy the insane thought control that is destroying our country right before our eyes.

 

In America, a land of precious and unique freedoms, there exists a natural and healthy tension between our cherished First Amendment religious freedom for all Americans – including Muslims – and our paramount need to protect our country from infiltration, subversion and terror attacks by “true-believing” Islamic jihadists. This tension must be resolved by our striking exactly the right balance, but that balance can be achieved only when we first rise above fear and cowardice, and defy the treacherous PC mind-control culture that is poisoning our minds and crippling our national security.

 

One last point: If you really want to do something besides complain about the spread of Islamic radicalism in the United States – a level of infiltration already far more advanced than you can imagine – then make a donation to WND’s legal defense fund. We are defending, at great expense, two people who most definitely are not intimidated by Islamic radicalism: “Muslim Mafia” co-author and former federal agent Paul David Gaubatz and his son Chris Gaubatz, who daringly penetrated the belly of the Islamist beast in the U.S. for six months, retrieved 12,000 pages of smoking-gun documentary evidence, reported their findings in the blockbuster book (already the basis for new congressional investigations) – and are now being sued by a terror-front group that wants the evidence of its plots and misdeeds returned! We have hired the best First Amendment lawyer in the country, and we can and must win this all-important fight, but it’s expensive – so please help. OK?

 

Join WND in defending “Muslim Mafia” investigators.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers