Fort Hood Political Cartoons

Fort Hood Attack Meets the Definition of Terrorism

The FBI barely had their boots on the ground at Fort Hood when Fox News reporting that the FBI was saying that the attack was not terror related. At that time there was no confirmation of the number of fatalities and wounded, the identity of any of the perpetrators, or even the number of perpetrators. There was virtually no information at that time upon which to comprehensively determine a motive for the massacre, let alone rule out terrorism, and yet, it was being reported that it was not terror related.

As more information became available we found out that this attack was the work of one person, Major Malik Nidal Hasan, a Muslim. A man who joined the military prior to the September 11th terror attack and was very much opposed to the war on terror as a war against his fellow Muslims. Col. Terry Lee (retired), who had worked with Major Hasan, told Fox News that Major Hasan had made several troubling statements in the past that point toward a possible motivation. Col. Lee quoted Hasan as saying things like, "Muslims have the right to rise up against the US military", "The Muslims have a right to stand up against the aggressors", and "maybe we should have more of these where people strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square."

At this moment, Lt. Gen. Robert Cone has just announced that Hasan, who previously been reported as having been killed at the scene, is in fact wounded and very much alive. Cone also said that he could not rule out terrorism as a motivation, but that he believes that the evidence does not suggest terrorism.

There seems to been a knee jerk effort to paint this attack as anything but terrorism. This is not surprising since we have a foreign policy 'woosie' as Commander in Chief. The last thing that the Obama administration needs is a horrific terrorist attack on a military base on US soil. At this moment, terrorism is exactly what it looks like. I have no doubt that an extreme effort is going to be made to define 'terrorism' in a way which would exclude this attack.

From the FBI's own website we found that the agency's own definition of terrorism is as follows:

There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)

If all that we know right now turns out to be accurate, this attack appears to meet that definition. Further, since Major Hasan is in fact alive, we may find out much more about his motives in the coming days which may make it much more difficult for this administration to avoid the truth.

UPDATE 11/6/09:

The jihidi, Major Hasan, yelled "ALLAH AKBAR", (God is Great) just before he began shooting. The death toll now stands at 13 dead, 38 wounded. Hasan is the son of Palestinian immigrants who grew up and went to high school in Roanoke, Virginia.

Muslim groups across the country are coming out with statements of condemnation for the attack, decrying the frequent mention of the fact that Hasan was a Muslim, and insisting that Islam is a religion of peace. Really!

"Kill non-Muslims wherever you find them. Lie in wait and ambush them, seize and capture them using every stratagem of war." - Koran 9:5

"Whether unarmed or well equipped, march on and fight for the cause of Allah, with your wealth and your persons." - Koran 9:41

"Are you waiting for anything to befall us except victory or martyrdom?" - Koran 9:51

Of course, the argument that Islam is a religion of peace would be much more believable if the adherents thereof would stop killing people in the name of Allah. But, not all Muslims in the US are condemning Hasan's actions, some are actually praising him.

An officer and a gentleman was injured while partaking in a preemptive* attack.

Get Well Soon Major Nidal

We Love You

We do NOT denounce this officer's actions....

(H/T - The Jawa Report)

Despite the mounting evidence that this was a jihadi attack, a terrorist attack, the MSM is feverishly laboring to portray Hasan as a victim of combat related 'post traumatic stress disorder' (PTSD) or, that he did this because he feared going to war. Both of these assertions are completely absurd. Hasan had never been deployed, but was to be deployed. The "post trauma' did not as yet exist as he had not yet been in actual combat, nor would he have been, since he is a psychologist, and would have been assigned to a rear area. The MSM will continue to avoid the obvious until the story grows cold, and is replaced by other news.

Party 'Brand' Loyalty vs Ideology

The subject of party loyalty was brought up before this election with respect to the upcoming special election in New York's 23 district. Sarah Palin, favoring ideology over party, came out in support of the Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman over the 'RINO' Dede Scozzafava on her facebook page. She was not alone. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R), Dick Armey and Fred Thompson had also broken with the Republican party to endorse Hoffman. In response to what appeared to some as party treason, Newt Gingrich offered a substantively weak argument in favor of supporting the party candidate no matter what.

“I just think it is a mistake for the conservative movement to think splitting in the special election is a smart idea,” Gingrich said. “If we give that seat to the Democrats, shame on us.”

This is the same old 'if we split the center right vote, the left wins' argument. Problem is, this attitude does not serve the conservative movement in all cases, and it certainly did not in this case. Scozzafava is not a conservative (she even endorsed the Democrat over the Conservative after she dropped out of the race), she should never have been chosen as the Republican candidate, and if she could have won the election, she would have done nothing to advance the conservative movement. Opposing her did more to advance conservatism in the Republican party than supporting her ever had any chance of doing. The polls prior to the election, as well as the actual election results bear this out. New York 23 is a Republican district in which Scozzafava, the Republican, was getting killed in the polls precisely because she was anything but a conservative. The final election results show that Hoffman, the third party candidate, lost the election by only 5 percentage points.

The lesson that the national Republican party should learn from New York 23 is that political ideology is more important that party 'brand' loyalty. The Republican party even ran ads against Hoffman, and dispite them, Hoffman still continued to climb in the polls. Hoffman may have lost the election, but he did much better than a third party candidate would have done under normal circumstances. If the GOP county chair in NY had actually chosen a conservative candidate instead of Scozzafava, who by the way, even received the unsolicited endorsement of the founder of the DailyKos, Democrat Bill Owens would have been conceding defeat last night. The fact of the matter is that it was Scozzafava, not Hoffman, who was the spoiler in New York 23.

The message to the GOP is reinforced by the election results in my own state of Virginia. Bob McDonnell ran a Reaganesque campaign. He ran as conservative. He ran on the conservative issues of primary concern to the voters. He ran a positive campaign. If you look at the election results map, it is easy to see how successful his campaign was. State wide, McDonnell won 59% of the vote, and in many counties, he got as much as 70% of the votes cast. Rather than spend time and effort on spinning the election results as a referendum against the Obama presidency, the GOP needs to understand it as a referendum in favor of conservative principles.

More Americans are conservative than moderate, or liberal, with 40% identifying themselves as conservatives, 36% as moderates, and 20% as liberals. The likely voters who self identify as Republicans is approximately 1/3 of the electorate, the same is true of those who self identify as Democrats. This leaves approximately 40% of the electorate who are independents. Winning elections have always been about attracting the votes of those independents. The Republican party needs to finally get the message that the way to attract a winning majority of the voters in the middle is by remaining loyal to conservative principles before, during, and after the election. If Republicans do this, party 'brand' loyalty will never be an issue.

Vote Today!

Your Republic is Calling!

From now on, we all, every American, needs to come to the realization that every election is important. We must change our habits to accommodate a new mind set of being at the polls to vote every single time that they are open. No election is trivial. No race is too small. And remember, if you don't vote, you have no basis to complain. Make your voice heard, and make your opinion count.

The vast majority of America is center right. The left does not believe this. We have to prove it to them. If we wait until we no longer have the right to vote, it will be too late. Our republic is in peril, and it is up to those of us who value our freedoms and liberties to take a stand. Vote!

FNS Interview with Rush Limbaugh

It is not often than Limbaugh grants an in depth interview. It's pretty rare. On today's Fox News Sunday, Rush gave one of the best interviews that I have seen him do. If you missed it, here it is.



The White House wasted no time in responding to the Limbaugh interview via David 'the commie' Axelrod on Face the Nation

Halloween Open Thread

Happy Halloween

Guardians of the Republic

The photo at right is a close up of some peculiar 'tabs' and an odd American flag facsimile patch worn by an active duty member of the U.S. military serving in Mosul, Iraq. If you are unfamiliar with what these emblems refer, let me explain.

The 'three percent' tab and the flag patch identify him as a 'three percenter'. What is a 'three percenter'? During the American revolution, the active forces in the field fighting the tyranny of King George never amounted to more than three percent of the population of the colonies. Today, 'three percenters' are those who understand that America will lose the freedom won by the original three percent if we continue to allow the federal government to take our guns away from us.

Oath Keeper refers to an effort begun earlier this year, to remind active duty members of the military, veterans, of their oath to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic, heavy emphasis on the word 'domestic'. Oath Keepers understand that their allegiance is to the Constitution, not the politicians; this includes the President. Oath Keepers members acknowledge that there are orders which they will not follow.

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrant less searches of the American people
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

The Oath Keepers Mission Statement declares;

"If you, the American people, are forced to once again fight for your liberty in another American Revolution, you will not be alone. We will stand with you."

Oath Keepers founder, Stewart Rhodes, is a former member of Congressman Ron Paul's Washington, D.C., staff, as well as a graduate of the Yale School of Law and a former Army paratrooper disabled during a night jump. Rhodes began Oath Keepers on March 2, 2009 on Blogger. I became aware of them on March 14th. The efforts of Oath Keepers became phenomenally successful and by Oct. 20, they had officially moved to their new dot org site. Up until now, Oath Keepers had been fortunate to slip under the liberal radar, with the notable exception of the Marxist front group, Southern Poverty Law Center, which said that they were a "a particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival." Now, the moonbats are sounding the alarm, (see here, and here) including Chris Matthews.



Oath Keepers membership numbers in the thousands. Now that the left is aware of them, and will unwittingly give them all the press that they deserve, look for their ranks to rapidly swell to the hundreds of thousands. The MSM is good for something after all.

Beck: Redistributive Change Will Destroy America

Because Their Lips Are Moving

Nobody enjoys being lied to. Unfortunately, it happens way to much these days. Back in 2002, a University of Massachusetts study found that 60 percent of people lied at least once during a 10-minute conversation and told an average of two to three lies. A 2001 study found that compulsive liars tell about 200 lies a day. While it is a disturbing trend that dealing with liars on a daily basis is becoming 'usual and customary', it has ever been the case in the arena of politics.

To achieve an unprecedented control over Americans, a la health care reform, the Democrats have pushed credibility to its limits. Democrats have lied from beginning to end in this debate. They have lied about the number of uninsured in America. They have lied about health insurance providers profits. They have lied about their intent to cover illegal aliens in their plan. They have lied about their intent to cover abortions in their plan. They have lied about the cost of health care reform. They have lied about our ability to keep our current plans. They have lied about health care rationing. They lied when they said health care reform would lower health care costs. Seems that the only thing Democrats have not lied about is that they want a government run health care plan, for us, but not for them. Congress will be insulating themselves from the government run plan they will be forcing upon the rest of us. They have been fairly dishonest about that as well, at least by omission.

Americans have not been decieved. A new Rasmussen poll shows that most Americans are not buying the hype.

If the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats passes, 57% of voters nationwide believe it will raise the cost of health care, and 53% believe the quality of care will get worse. That’s part of the reason that just 45% support the plan. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 51% are opposed to it. Those numbers include 23% who Strongly Favor the plan and 40% who are Strongly Opposed. Just 18% say passage of the congressional plan will reduce costs, while only 23% believe it will lead to better care.

Voters under 30 are most likely to support the health care proposal while those over 65 are the least supportive. Just 36% of senior citizens favor the plan while 58% are opposed. Those figures include just 19% of senior citizens who Strongly Favor the plan and 47% who are Strongly Opposed.

Stealth Tyranny

Obama promised transparency. He promised that piece of non-emergency legislation would be available for public review online for five days before he would sign it. To date, not one bill has been so displayed. On Jan. 21st, the administration released the following announcement:

"My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. …"

The reality is that they have made no attempt what-so-ever to keep this promise. Obama signed his first bill, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, only two days after it was passed. Obama signed the S-Chip expansion bill only three hours after passage. Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus bill one day after passage. At this point, for one to give Obama any benefit of doubt with respect to his sincerity in making these promises, would betray the fact that one is a moron.

Right now, democrat leaders are laboring behind closed and locked doors to engineer a take over of one sixth of the U.S. economy.




How could anyone consider this acceptable? They would not be doing this in secret if they believed that the people would really approve of the end result. They are doing it in secret in order to avoid any public backlash which might cause some legislators to get cold feet. They intent to craft a bill, make sure that they have all the democrat votes they need to pass it, and ram it through before any of us even have a hint of what is in it.

Obama said, "Openness will strengthen our democracy..." That is a true statement, but then again, strengthening our democracy is obviously not he object of the exercise. The expansion of power is! Tyranny is! In a free society, tyranny cannot be easily imposed openly. It is done through deception, and if not through deception, then behind closed doors.