Fort Hood, Was It An Act Of Terrorism?

I find it infuriating that we have become a nation of egg shell-walkers and pussy-footers that are more concerned about "political correctness" than establishing "truths". The majority of the news reports on the Fort Hood incident have reporters asking "Is this an act of terrorism or did this soldier just snap?". The problem is that everyone resorts to their personal opinions and they say things like "We shouldn't jump to conclusions...". Fact is, it is very simple to judge if this was an act of "Terrorism", you simply look at the definition and match it up. That gives you a simple "yes" or "no", it's not very hard. According to Dictionary.com:

ter⋅ror⋅ism–noun

1.	the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

2.	the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3.	a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Well according to #1, we already know that the soldier was against being deployed to the current war and even went to the extent of hiring lawyers to stop him from going. By walking into Fort Hood and shooting up soldiers, I would say it is safe to assume that he did so to "coerce" the government from sending him into the battle. This would also feed into #3, as "resisting a government" through said violent or "Terroristic" method. But, let's dive a little further past the "act" and look at the "person".

ter⋅ror⋅ist–noun

1.	a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

2.	a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

What we have also found is that Hasan tried to contact members of Al Queda. This would lead me to believe that he was either "with them" or a "lone wolf" but either way fitting of definition #1. The incident itself would lend to the 2nd definition.

I think that the majority of those that are scared to classify this as an act of terrorism are actually afraid to classify it as "Radical Islam Terrorism", but guess what, he is a Muslim. Again, I am not going to pussy-foot around this issue and ignore the obvious facts in the room. Some in the military, specifically General Casey, would also remark "Let's not jump to conclusions" and according to this article:

"General Casey told CNN on Sunday that the last thing he wanted to see result from this tragedy is anti-Muslim activity or the loss of diversity in military ranks."

This is probably because the military is a little embarassed that this man slipped through the cracks and his behaviour was not caught before it was too late. I tend to disagree and feel that our open-arms political correctness is exactly what would lead to this man falling through the cracks.

Warning: A moment of brutal honesty is approaching...

Let's be clear, we can quickly rule out a lot of this behavior by narrowing down a focus on which of our soldiers are Muslim, doing some additional background checks on them, and clearing them for duty. I even realize that there are blacks and whites that change their religious views to Islam but you know what, you have to start some where when it comes to making our soldiers safer.

Answer to this post: YES it was an act of Terrorism and should be treated as such with all further evidence that is inevitably on the way.

Obama, Fort Hood & Acting "Stupidly"

As some of you may or may not know, I have been on a bit of a break from political writing. Throughout August I was struggling with some arm pains and eventually ended up in the hospital diagnosed with Lymphoma Cancer. So that is where I have been. Other than that, the only political news has really been on the health care reform bill, which I have written about over and over again.

One interesting recent event was that of Obama addressing, or lack there of, of the Fort Hood massacre. Tell me if you notice any problems with the address in the video below...



I will take into consideration that the President does not even approach the podium until approximately 2o seconds into this video, I will therefor subtract that from the total time that it takes him to address a nation that is stress-fully standing by in anticipation of the White Houses' reaction.

2 minutes. 2 minutes almost on the dot.

Apparently the deaths and injuries of soldiers were less important than saying a few "Thank yous" and literally giving a "Shout out". I don't stand alone in this opinion.

Speaking of that "Shout out" to Dr. Joe Medicine Crow, President Obama falsely stated that he was a Congressional Medal of Honor winner.

What is going on here? I may hold some opinions based on Obama's policies but this is just downright unprofessional, insensitive and inexcusable for a President. Would the Indians at this event have been really offended had the President taken the time to address this tragedy first before acknowledging the event's activities? If they had taken offense, would that have really mattered in light of the events at Fort Hood?

The events at Fort Hood were in a sense still playing out when the President took the podium because the shooter was in fact still alive and families, of soldiers stationed at Fort Hood, around the country were still in the dark as to the most current situation. This was not an address of yesterday's events, people were tuning in to hear what their Commander and Chief had to say about the tragedy that unfolded that day and they were let down by the arrogance of the President who felt it was more appropriate to focus more on himself and the party he was attending than those that were immediately effected, and those concerned, by the events at Fort Hood.

I guess if I were to take a Liberal point of view, an address of any kind was at least better than none at all.

Teaching The "Entitled" Generation Y

I was reading through this article, written by Kristen Miller, saying "Yes, Yes, YES!" because I have been so fed up with the way people today feel they are entitled to everything. According to the article, written by a teacher:

"There is something about the current generation of students in school that makes teaching extremely difficult: entitlement. The first few months of my teaching career were eye-opening in terms of this phenomenon. I had one student ask me, "Mrs. Miller, why don't we get paid to go to school? We're forced to be here, so why don't we get paid for it?" I was dumbfounded. We had a long discussion that day about this topic — instead of the discussion on rational and irrational numbers."

"Education in the United States is FREE. These kids don't know how lucky they are. Knowledge is power, but as Oprah says, kids in this country are more worried about having the latest pair of Jordan's or the newest iPod or iPhone than they are about getting a good education. In Oprah's special, Robert Martin, executive editor of "The Chicago Defender," blames parents for this phenomenon. I completely agree. I can't tell you how many students I have had who have straight F's and their parents take them on a shopping spree for $600 jeans and other outrageously expensive items of clothing. "

Oh man, spot on, I love it! It even spills into people thinking that everyone should own a home, whether they can afford it or not, or a car or even with the current health care debate! I was loving this teacher...and then it happened, she ended her article with:

"I'm not sure how to fix this problem, but fortunately we now have a president who did not take his education for granted and does not promote this astounding sense of entitlement so many Americans feel today."

Wow.

Actually, Kristen, the current president is one of the biggest advocates for this behavior AND I would argue it is him in office, or on the campaign trail that has stirred up (at least a little) this type of behavior with your students!

We can apply the old analogy to you, you just pulled your head up from the sand, noticed what is going on and then stuck it right back in the ground...In the end, your article just made me chuckle at your obliviousness.

Obama Is A Bigger Celebrity Than The Joker!

I may be late to the game with this post but I feel that it is important because of all the hypocrisy out there right now.

Obama as the Joker and "Socialism".

According to this article:

"..the President's supporters have condemned the image, calling it 'mean-spirited and dangerous.'

A spokesman from the Los Angeles urban policy unit said that depicting the president as demonic and a socialist 'goes beyond political spoofery.' "

Then there are the mean-spirited comments like these:

"Poor Joker, he doesn't deserve this."

And..

"Brilliant and profound."

Oh wait, those were for an artist's rendering of BUSH as the Joker last year, seen here:



So wait, it is okay to mock up Bush as the Joker but not Obama? Because liberals can never be guilty of hypocrisy obviously (I am not talking about democrats).

From a different perspective, we can also look at this from a "marketing" angle. The funny thing about that is that "it works". The point of marketing is to grab the attention of an audience and draw them in. While this does not lead to a product or service, it has lead to publicity and, good or bad, in this case it is certainly obvious that ANY publicity is "good" publicity.

It has achieved the goal of being "controversial" and "stirring the pot". In that sense, the artist did a fantastic job. As far as the "Socialist" tag line to it, yes, Joker was an "anarchist" BUT you are manipulating a photograph of someone that isn't the Joker to be something different anyway! It could just as easily have had Fidel Castro with Joker makeup and "Totalitarianism" below it. The only thing that has every one's panties in a twist is that the liberals know the connotation of "socialist" fits the bill of this president, and while those that support Obama and socialism, they don't want the rest of the "oblivious" and "head buried in the sand when it comes to politics" to know and group with the Conservatives for the next election.

Just as an example of other liberal hypocrisy, especially in the media. Check out this link, where the video shows Bush protesters are "concerned citizens" and are "peaceful" and yet the police are arresting and abusing. Compare that, which was covered extensively, with today's TEA party protesters who are labeled "Right Wing Extremists" and an "angry mob" and "obviously organized by a right wing organization".



What I find even more interesting is the media's recent HUGE interest in the "Death to Obama" sign at a rally lately (which I continue to think was a disguised lib), yet check out that video and look at what the signs say about Bush! The hypocrisy of the liberals and completely repulsive coverage by the media is astounding.

Am I shocked though? For me to be surprised by the Liberals, especially this administration, anymore would take something extremely off the wall....yet, I guess there is always tomorrow.