Another Food Poisoning Attempt

Islam Burka Slaves
Islam Burka Slaves

WE HAVE LEARNED THAT FIVE Muslim soldiers at Fort Jackson in South Carolina were arrested just before Christmas. It is unclear whether the men are still in custody. These five soldiers were part of the Arabic Translation program at the base, and are suspected of trying to poison the food supply at Fort Jackson.

A source with intimate knowledge of the investigation, which is ongoing, told CBN News investigators suspect the "Fort Jackson Five" may have been in contact with the group of five Washington, DC area Muslims that traveled to Pakistan to wage jihad against U.S. troops in December. That group was arrested by Pakistani authorities, also just before Christmas....

Meanwhile, Syrian Jews, of which there are some 100,000 in the New York area alone and whose native language is usually Arabic, are unwanted as translators.

In reply to Jim Foster's question: "Why would our authorities not want native speakers, especially those whose personal experiences would make them ideal partners for combating Islamic terror?"

Spirit of 1683 wrote: "Political correctness—after all it would be 'racism and bigotry' to hire Christian and Jewish Arabic speakers and not Muslims."

I agree. As I have noted long ago, Christian has become effectively an ethnic category—white—such that even black Nigerian Christians (let alone Middle Eastern Christians) are treated as "honorary whites"—i.e., thrown under the bus to placate Muslims, for Muslims have become, under the mainstream aegis of PC MC, the #1 Most Privileged Ethnic Minority of the world.

Muslims have achieved this distinction for three reasons, which all interlock:

  • the West's mainstream and dominant sociopolitical paradigm, PC MC, favors what it considers "ethnic people" over white Westerners...
  • Muslims are perceived to be an "ethnic people" (or better yet, a wondrously diverse rainbow of different "ethnic peoples"— and there is good reason for this, since over 90% of Muslims around the world indeed look ethnic)...
  • And finally, Muslims are the only ethnic people to consistently threaten violence, plot violence, and often regularly successfully deliver violence on a scale that threatens the security of most nations on Earth. No other ethnic people comes close to Muslims in this regard.

#1 and #2 would explain why the white West would endow Muslims with extra deference and privileges, as the white West tends to do with all "ethnic peoples". But it takes #3 to push the equation further, to explain why it is that Muslims have elbowed their way to the #1 spot in the last decade.

Thanks to the aforementioned JW contributors for this report. For more information of other Muslim-generated food tampering please refer to this article and again here.

Deconstructing The Nice Muslim

youtube
please specify correct url
Claude Salhami was 'aghast' at a recent PI newsletterIs a Nice Muslim a Good Muslim? He replied to the newsletter with his Scourge of 'Islam Experts', but he missed my point. The point of the "Nice Muslim" newsletter is that the doctrine of Islam is inhuman, not that Muslims always practice the Islamic doctrine at all times. A Muslim can be a fine person in dealing with a kafir when they are not practicing Islam. A summary of the Nice Muslim argument is:

  • The Koran defines the kafir, a non-Muslim. A kafir is hated and plotted against by Allah. Kafirs can be killed, tortured, crucified, raped, insulted, enslaved and deceived. Kafir is the worst word in the human language. A kafir does not have any positive attributes.
  • There is no Golden Rule in Islamic ethics. The Koran repeats 12 times that a Muslim is not the friend of a kafir.
  • Mohammed repeatedly said that it is good to deceive the kafirs, if it advances Islam.
  • Mohammed destroyed each and every kafir neighbor. It is Islam's purpose to make all kafirs submit to Islam.
  • A Muslim can only be a true friend to a kafir by the use of the Golden Rule, a non-Islamic principle.

  • The conclusion is that there is no good in Islam for the kafir. Sure there are those 2.6% of the Koranic words that seem to be good, but in every case the so-called good verses are abrogated later.

    When you understand that the entire doctrine of Islam is found in Koran, Sira and Hadith, you realize that Islam is simpler than the ‘experts’ told us. All three texts have been made readable today and any disciplined person can become well informed. The ‘experts’ have failed us, and we must teach ourselves.
    Anyone who implements the doctrine of Islam is not the friend of a kafir. If they are actually a friend, it is because of the power of the Golden Rule, not Islam. There is no good in Islam for the kafir. Note that this result was reached without the use of a single verse of the Koran (no cherry picking), but uses the systemic nature of its kafir doctrine.

    Mr. Salhami makes these points in his reply:

  • On many occasions Christians have acted badly and Muslims have acted well.

    So? Christians and Muslims are people. You can prove anything you want by choosing the right member. He also has some remarks about Christianity. To which I reply: I only discuss Islam, not comparative religion.

  • There are good Muslims and bad Muslims and we should not confuse the two.

    What is meant by 'good' Muslims? Do we judge by the Islam of Medina or by the Golden Rule? If we judge by Islam of Medina, then Osama bin Laden is a good Muslim. Of course, by the Golden Rule he is not so nice. Stay with the doctrine of Islam in judging Muslims. A good Muslim is one who follows Islamic doctrine, not one who is likable.

  • Mr. Salhami uses his personal experience with Muslims to learn about Islam.

    This confuses cause and effect. Islam is the cause and Muslims are the effect. A nice Muslim does not prove a nice Islam. Learning from Muslims is Muslim-ology, a sociological personal endeavor. Learning about Islam from the Koran, Sira, Hadith and Sharia law is learning about Islam.

  • He criticizes my use of the coined term, kafir-Muslim.

    I will grant him this criticism and thank him for it. A much better term is Golden-Rule Muslim. Muslims, like all humans, have an innate sense of the truth of the Golden Rule and use it at times. However, this is an un-Islamic act since Islam does not have a Golden Rule.

    The ‘experts’ will talk about nice Muslims, criticize Christianity and the West, while not holding Muslims responsible for their ideology. Every Muslim must be held accountable for Islamic political doctrine and its bloody history.
    All of the nice Muslims Mr. Salhami meets in the Middle East will not teach him anything about the suffering of their kafir ancestors during the jihad invasion and the centuries of being dhimmis living under the horror of Sharia law. He won't learn how the native civilization has been annihilated and replaced with the civilization of Islam. They will not tell him about the murder of millions of innocent Christians, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, animists and Hindus to create the Islamic civilization.

    His nice Muslim friends will not instruct him in the vision, strategy and tactics of jihad to annihilate all kafir civilizations. Nor will his nice Muslim friends ever explain Islam's dualistic ethical system, with one set of ethics for kafirs and a different set of ethics for their Muslim brothers.

    Mr. Salhami is aghast at the self-taught scholars in Islam. There is a good reason for their appearance. The university trained 'experts' are apologists for Islam. They are trained in denial and justification and produce the type of scholarship that allows the army to investigate Major Hasan's jihad at Fort Hood and never refer to Islam.

    Good Muslim
    Good Muslim or Nice Muslim?
    The 'experts' give us the history of Islamic conquest and imperialism and praise it as the glorious rise of Islam. The 'experts' teach courses in women's studies and ignore Sharia law and Mohammed's treatment of women. They lecture on slavery and never mention the Muslim wholesaler who sold the slaves to the white man on the wooden ship or the Islamic slave trade in North Africa, East Africa, Europe and India. The denial goes on and on as the 'experts' drive our university policy. Is there a course in any American university system that is critical of Islamic political ideology? Indeed, the 'experts' argue that such a course would be bigotry. It is the media 'experts' that give us jihad at Mumbai, India and never mention Islam. It is the 'experts' that give us the Official Islam that Bush and Obama talk about. Nice stuff-Official Islam. Too bad it does not exist.

    So, it is no wonder that when we have such dhimmified professors, university trained 'experts' and media that professionals from other fields start reading the Koran, Sira and Hadith to see for themselves what the ideology actually is that drives the contradictions between current events and what we are told. When you understand that the entire doctrine of Islam is found in Koran, Sira and Hadith, you realize that Islam is simpler than the 'experts' told us. All three texts have been made readable today and any disciplined person can become well informed. The 'experts' have failed us, and we must teach ourselves.

    It is easy to be an expert. Know Mohammed and the Koran (the book he brought about). If what you say agrees with the Koran or Mohammed, then you are right. If it does not agree with Mohammed, then it is wrong, no matter who you are.

    Mr. Salhami, buckle your seatbelt and prepare to be aghast again. It is a war between the university-trained dhimmi 'experts' and the self-taught kafir scholars who stand on the doctrine found in the Koran, Sira and Hadith. We will use critical thought on the doctrine and history of political Islam.

    The 'experts' will talk about nice Muslims, criticize Christianity and the West, while not holding Muslims responsible for their ideology. Every Muslim must be held accountable for Islamic political doctrine and its bloody history.

    Bill Warner
    Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam

  • Fritz Shouts It From The Mountain

    If you're walking down the right path and you're willing to keep walking, eventually you'll make progress.
    Barack Obama

    "Remember he is the same President that stated doctors would take out perfectly good tonsils because it would mean more money for them."
    Citizen Rain

    ON OR ABOUT DECEMBER 18, 2009, former South Carolina Senator Fritz Hollings released this scathing essay on why all the jobs have evaporated in America:

    Upside Down? Maybe it's your standard of living?
    Upside Down? Maybe it's your standard of living?

    Who is against jobs in the United States? The big banks, Wall Street, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Business Roundtable, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the National Retail Federation, Corporate America, the President of the United States, Congress of the United States. Everyone is crying for jobs, but no one seems to understand why there aren't any. And the reason for those opposing jobs is money.

    Beginning in 1973, big banks made most of their profit outside of the United States. Industries off-shoring, investing, banks financing the investments, transfer fees, fees and interest on the loans made for bigger profits. Long since, the big banks under the leadership of David Rockefeller have led the way to off-shore and make a bigger profit. Goldman Sachs, AIG, Citicorp and Wall Street, conspiring for a bailout and now using it for bonuses, make more money from the off-shored operations.

    The Council on Foreign Relations ought to be renamed the Council on Making Money. A recent PEW poll reported fully 85% of Americans said that protecting United States jobs should be a top foreign policy priority. But only 21% of the Council on Foreign Relations agrees. Financial interests organized the Business Roundtable to continue off-shore investment and profit. The local Chamber is for Main Street America, but Tom Donahue and the United States Chamber have sold out to the financial interests and oppose jobs and producing in the United States. Thirty years ago, hundreds of thousands of Arrow shirts produced in China were a best seller in the United States. But at Christmastime, the Chinese supply ran short and the retail stores had to order the same shirt from New Jersey. They made 20% less profit on the New Jersey shirt. Retailers are all for profit from imports and against domestic production and jobs in America.

    Corporate America would fight any initiative by the President, the Congress, or the government to create jobs in the United States. That is, production that faces competition offshore. In globalization, US production can't make a profit, can't survive. Its competition will off-shore the same article for a lesser price, putting you out of business. Moreover, Corporate America doesn't have to bother with labor in China. The China government controls labor and you don't have to worry about a work stoppage or minimum wage. All they have is a maximum wage.

    And Corporate America doesn't have to worry with clean air and clean water or the environment in China. Nor does it have to worry with OSHA and all of its safety rules. Many times the factory building is furnished and you don't have to worry with capital costs. If you make a profit, you can just reinvest it in an additional operation and not have to pay any U. S. income tax. If the operation fails, walk away with no legacy costs. Corporate America bitterly opposes its government protecting and strengthening the U. S. economy because producing again in America will put the executives back to work. They can send a Jaycee to China to watch the quality control daily and sit on the 32nd floor on Sixth Avenue with the internet, keeping check, and, leaving early for a massage and drinks. With production in China they don't have to work.

    As Commander-in-Chief, the President dithered for months over the number of troops. But he can't equip the troops except for the favor of a foreign country. The War Production Act of 1950 requires the President to make sure that we can produce in-country those articles necessary for our national defense. Enforcing this law would limit the campaign contributions. Under Section 201 of the trade laws, the President is supposed to take action, like impose tariffs or quotas, when a certain production is endangered. Not only endangered, our automobile production has been bankrupted. But all the President does is give Detroit bailout welfare. The President doesn't want to limit the campaign contributions. The same with Congress. Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota long ago tried to allocate the tax incentive for foreign jobs and production to domestic jobs and production. The Business Roundtable and the U. S. Chamber fought it like a tiger and killed it.

    As the President said in his West Point talk, there is fierce competition in international trade and globalization. All countries move to protect and build their economies while the United States goes out of business. The one advantage that the U.S. has is its richest market in the world. It is fast becoming the poorest market and the U.S. is losing any clout to maintain a strong economy. The economy is in the hands of Summers, Bernanke and Geithner. Campaign contributions are in the hands of David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel. The poor President is smart, diligent and working his head off campaigning. But he is inexperienced and not governing, and the Congress is in a Mexican standoff over an archaic filibuster rule that reveres democracy by the minority.

    Of course, the media, which knows this and keeps it top secret, is owned by big business. If I don't meet you in the breadline, my children will. Merry Christmas!

    And the always interesting James Nollet has this to add...

    There seems to be an optimal size for self-government. Self-governing entities that are too large don't work well. The only way the USSR and Yugoslavia held together was by FIAT from a strong, centralized, authoritarian regime. I hold that America has lost its capacity for responsible self-government. Electing Obama Osama is merely the latest in a long series of proofs of this contention. Democracy in America was always an EXPERIMENT. The experiment has run its course. The only thing that can now save the United States is an American Napoleon.

    The 28 Principles Of Liberty

    Battle Flag
    As Goes The nation

    LOOK NO FURTHER. These 28 fundamental beliefs instituted in the Constitution for the United States of America by the Founding Fathers which they said and we confirm must be understood and perpetuated by every person who desires peace, prosperity, and freedom.

    Sarah Palin on Glenn Beck...

    “Who’d have thought a history buff with a quirky sense of humor and a chalkboard could make for such riveting television?” Palin wrote. “Glenn’s like the high school government teacher so many wish they’d had, charting and connecting ideas with chalk-dusted fingers—kicking it old school—instead of becoming just another talking-heads show host.”

    Editor's Note: Apparently 28 principals were too difficult to commit to memory. If the link above fails to return a page of principals, try this page of 7 Principals of the Constitution Party.

    The Enemy Of Peace

    Unrepentent Defendents
    Unrepentent Defendents
    "I come not to bring peace but a sword," states Mashiach as he prepares his disciples for his imminent crucifixion and departure from them. We add, "Do not hide evil, but expose it. That is ample directive from the Son of God to all of us. Do not allow enduring evil to extinguish love. Sometimes a noble fight is required."

    IMAGINE MY SURPRISE WHEN I opened an email ad from Amazon.com and found that Edip Yuksel, a Muslim who is a leading Islamic reformer, had written a book, Peacemaker's Guide to Warmongers: Exposing Robert Spencer, David Horowitz, and other Enemies of Peace. He made my day. Bill Warner was included in the product description as an enemy of peace. I am flattered.

    Why does Mr. Yuksel call me an enemy of peace and a warmonger? It's simple. Partnered with Robert Spencer, I debated him in Frontpage Magazine Symposiums and beat him like a drum using the doctrine and history of political Islam. As a result, I have gone from being an opponent in a debate to an enemy of peace.

    Am I an enemy of peace? Am I a warmonger? Yes, on an everyday basis and I want you to be an enemy of peace and a warmonger as well.

    The question must be asked: what peace are we talking about? Islamic peace. How does Islamic peace come about? Islamic peace comes after jihad and the victory of Islam. Peace is one of those words that everyone considers to be universally good, but peace is what losers (kafirs) get, while winners (Muslims) get victory. Islamic peace is all about the victory over the kafirs. Islamic peace changes a free man into a slave of Allah.

    We should examine the meaning of all words Muslims use, since Islam does not share a common ground of civilization with us. Islam twists all of the kafir words. To find out what "peacemaker" means we have to go to Mohammed. Mohammed was an Islamic peacemaker. In the last 9 years of his life, he was involved in an event of violence on the average of every 6 weeks.

    Every single neighbor of Mohammed experienced his peacemaking. Take the Jews of Khaybar, for instance. They were going about their lives when the army of Mohammed showed up. It took the murder, rape, theft, torture and becoming semi-slaves before the Jews experienced the peace of Mohammed. Once they submitted to Islam as dhimmis and agreed to live under Sharia law and give him half of what they earned, the jizyah (the dhimmi tax), they were left to live in peace. This is the peace of Islam.

    As long as Mohammed merely preached the religion of Islam in Mecca, he was a failure. Very few people were interested in the religion of Islam. It was only in Medina where he became a warlord that Islam succeeded, and he became a peacemaker.

    The natural state of Islam in relation to kafirs is jihad, not peace. If we want to discover peace in Sharia law, we must look under the general heading of jihad to find the subject of "truce". We learn that Muslims are not to call for a truce as long as they are winning. When Islam offers peace, it means that they are losing and need to gain time to prepare for the next jihad.

    I am a warmonger because I use the doctrine of Islam to refute the deceptions of Muslims like Edip Yuksel. Last night in Nashville, TN, a Muslim stood in front of a college crowd and said that jihad was inner struggle. Working hard to get an A is jihad. Jihad is not holy war. He is right. When you examine the hadiths about jihad in Bukhari, about 2% of them can be construed as jihad is an inner struggle. However, the other 98% of the jihad hadiths are about killing kafirs until the rest submit to Islam.

    Warmongering consists of asking questions to confront Islamic propaganda in this ideological war. Being a warmonger means showing up to support the Coptic Christians at a street demonstration about the jihad killing of Copts in Egypt. Warmongering means going to an interfaith bridge building and confronting the ministers and rabbis with their ignorance about Islam. Warmongering means speaking truth to the lies of Official Islam.

    It works like this. Unless we have enough enemies of the Islamic peacemakers, one day our civilization will experience the peace of Islam, and we will be like the historical majority Greek Christian culture of Asia Minor. Today Greek Christians are 0.3% of Turkey. They've experienced the peace of Islam-annihilation.

    Bill Warner,
    Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam

    [The Enemy Of Peace]

    The Cult Of Disappointment

    oops
    Not the Decider But The Vacationer

    SHOSE AMERICANS WHO VOTED FOR POTUS Obama have not walked away from him. Those who voted against him were never in the room. Those who voted against George Bush and Hank Paulson and the cranky, weary, predictably puckish John McCain are newly persuaded that there was no credible choice in 2008. The rookie or the train-wreck?

    Fourteen months later, it is more clear that the Obamanation crowd chose their idea of the UnBush, and instead what they got was an UnAware. POTUS does not register how much polling trouble his party is in.

    Those voters have now turned not into a big-hearted pumpkin awaiting their shining prince to carry them off into the Brave New World where no adults are allowed but into a steady drift of dead-eyed wanderers, perfectly ripened pickings for the ever so embracing cult of disappointment.

    The red ink in the 2011 fiscal budget has ended all the dreams for Obamanation as well as the last-ditch McCainiacs. What remains is receivership, or something like it, reorganized Federal spending and paying off the debts without taking on new ones. The debts are the end of disappointment. Time to clean out the two-car garage called Congress.

    Read it all.

    Was Fort Hood A False Flag?

    fort-hood-casket-hearse
    Fort Hood Terrorism Attack
    Chuck Baldwin | November 20, 2009
    NewsWithViews.com

    BY NOW, VIRTUALLY everyone has read and reread the copious news accounts of the terrible shooting a few weeks ago at Fort Hood, Texas. This column will not attempt to add new details to what is already a highly scrutinized tragedy. However, I do want to pose three basic questions that, to me, are extremely glaring and, for the most part, absent from the discussion.

    UPDATE: Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was sentenced to death Wednesday for killing 13 people and wounding 32 others in a 2009 shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Tex., the worst mass murder at a military installation in U.S. history.

    Dressed in Army fatigues, Hasan, who turns 43 next month, listened impassively as the death sentence was handed down by a panel of 13 senior military officers in a unanimous decision after less than two hours of deliberations. If even a single panel member had objected, Hasan would instead have been sentenced to life in prison. He also was stripped of pay and other financial benefits, which he continued to receive while in custody. A military jury has convicted Maj. Nidal Hasan in the deadly 2009 shooting rampage that killed 13 people and wounded dozens more. The verdict makes the Army psychiatrist eligible for the death penalty.

    No active-duty service member has been executed since 1961, and legal experts said it will probably be many years, if ever, before the sentence will be carried out. Hasan will be flown shortly to Fort Leavenworth, Kan., where he will join five other inmates on military death row, officials said.

    In military cases, there are several mandatory appeal stages and a military death sentence requires final approval by the president, as commander in chief. Despite the expected delays, survivors of the shooting welcomed the verdict. According to news reports, Kathy Platoni, an Army reservist, said: “From the bottom of my heart—he doesn’t deserve to live. I don’t know how long it takes for a death sentence to be carried out, but the world will be a better place without him.”

    Question 1: Why were the soldiers not armed?

    After all, this is a military base; more than that, it is an Army base that emphasizes the training and equipping of frontline, combat-ready soldiers. For the most part, these were not clerks or cooks; these were combat troops. Fort Hood is home to the 1st Cavalry Division (the largest Division in the Army). Troops stationed at Fort Hood have engaged the enemy in virtually every hot theater of war to which American forces have been deployed. In recent conflicts that means Somalia, Bosnia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Without a doubt, these are among America's bravest and best.

    So, how is it that these intensely trained, disciplined, rugged, highly qualified warriors are not allowed to carry their own weapons on base? This makes about as much sense as the policy forbidding airline pilots from carrying their own handguns on board commercial airliners, or teachers not being allowed to carry their own handguns in the classroom. After all, judges are granted the authority to carry their own firearms into the courtroom. If we can trust lawyers, we should be able to trust soldiers, airline pilots, and teachers.

    Question 2: If the federal government—including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of dollars worth of technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and intelligence gatherers; and myriad Patriot Act-type laws—could not protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly secured and heavily guarded military installations in America, how can anyone in the country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that they might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons? Or is it that, because Hasan was a Muslim, the politically correct nincompoops in charge gave him a pass?

    Consider: we have learned that the shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, had attempted to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda; that numerous classmates of Hasan had reported his anti-American views, which, according to a column written by Dennis Prager, "included his giving a presentation that justified suicide bombing and telling classmates that Islamic law trumped the U.S. Constitution"; and that Hasan had a long history of pro-Islamic, anti-American activity. All of which begs an answer to the question, How could such an individual not only be allowed in the US military, but also be allowed to advance to the rank of Major?

    I think most of my readers have the answer to this question figured out: we have an out-of-control, politically correct federal government that only senses danger from conservatives, libertarians, Christians, pro-lifers, Tea Party protesters, and anti-UN, anti-IRS, pro-Second Amendment activists—and supporters of Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin, of course. To this politically correct federal leviathan today, anti-American jihadists, militant Black Panthers, or illegal aliens who have committed felonious crimes in Mexico pose no risk to anyone, and must be "understood."

    As Prager quotes NPR's Tom Gjelten: since Hasan had never been in combat, he must have suffered from "pre-traumatic stress disorder." No, I'm not kidding. That's what he said. (I'll pause while you pick yourself up off the floor from laughing.)

    To the politically correct crowd running things in Washington, D.C., anyone coming from a socialistic, Big Government, or anti-American point of view is harmless, and anyone coming from a conservative, Christian, constitutional, or pro-American point of view is dangerous. Can one imagine how the mainstream media, federal police agencies, and the Southern Poverty Law Center would have reacted had Hasan shouted "Jesus is greatest!" instead of what he really said, "Allah is greatest!" right before opening fire?

    If one rejects the notion that political correctness favoring Muslims (and every other minority in the United States) had anything to do with the Fort Hood shooting, then we are back to the original question: If the federal government—including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of dollars worth of technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and intelligence gatherers; and myriad Patriot Act-type laws—could not protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly secured and heavily guarded military installations in America, how can anyone in the country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that they might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons?

    Are we now really supposed to believe that all these Patriot Act-type laws, which allow the federal government to trash the Constitution and Bill of Rights—and poke its ubiquitous and meddlesome nose into every corner and crevice of our lives—are actually doing anything to make us safer? You've got to be kidding! The only thing they are doing is stealing our liberties. If the Fort Hood massacre proves anything, it proves that.

    Question 3: How could one man (with no combat experience) armed with only two handguns fire over 100 rounds (demanding he reload at least 3 times) into a crowd of scores and hundreds of fearless combat-trained warriors? I must confess: this is the question that bothers me the most.

    According to the official story, Hasan was the only shooter, and he was allowed to fire at will into a crowd of America's finest warriors for at least 4 minutes, reloading at least 3 times, firing over 100 rounds of ammunition, killing 13 people, and wounding over 30—and was finally taken out by civilian police officers AFTER EXITING THE BUILDING. I've got to tell you: I cannot get my brain around this one.

    Again, these soldiers are warriors. They not only know how to fight, they know how to fight unarmed. They are trained to risk their lives. They are trained to do whatever is necessary to take out the enemy. Had even a small group of soldiers rushed the shooter (especially if they came at him from multiple directions) there is no way that Hasan would not have been subdued—and most likely killed. Yes, a few of the on-rushers would have been hit, but Hasan could not have gotten them all. That is a fact! And yet, we are supposed to believe that Hasan was not only unmolested by soldiers inside the building, but he was allowed to leave the building entirely, and then get shot by civilian policemen? Again, this explanation makes absolutely no sense to me. None.

    Initial reports said there were multiple shooters. If that was the case, the scenario is much more plausible. If multiple shooters had opened fire from various vantage points—especially if they had rifles—it would have made unarmed resistance extremely difficult. That scenario would make sense. The "one shooter with two handguns" explanation makes no sense.

    I realize that no unarmed man wants to rush an armed attacker. Of course, some who would do so would probably die, but again, these are trained warriors. Furthermore, this was an all-or-nothing, kill-or-be-killed environment: something these men are trained for. If untrained civilian passengers on flight 93 on 9/11 could rush and thwart armed attackers on board a commercial airliner from a narrow aisle way and stop a hijacking—a task infinitely more difficult than for a group of highly trained professional soldiers outnumbering an attacker by scores or hundreds in a large building—tell me again how Hasan was able to open fire with only two handguns, kill and wound scores of people, and calmly walk out of the building unscathed? Again, this makes no sense.

    Of course, all of the above is predicated upon the public accounts of the events being a truthful representation of what actually occurred. Which, after trying to comprehend the plausibility of what we are being told, is becoming increasingly difficult to believe. But then again, I haven't believed much that the federal government or major news media has told me since John F. Kennedy was assassinated. And I must say, this story serves only to further fuel my skepticism.

    Former Libertarian candidate for US President Chuck Baldwin makes a compelling case that there is ALWAYS something more than "meets the eye" afoot with regard to the US response to this mullah-declared war for global control. The continued efforts to repolish the same tarnished mask of political correctness with every official response to an event of national security have worn a bit thin. Conspiracy theorists now seem to present a much clearer view, one that jives with the facts with each new Islamic foil. How much longer can we hold this wobbling fixation on multicultural suicide together? Every day the news is packaged in reworked lies and old obfuscations. With an economy in the toilet, an educational system stripped of its original purpose, and a seemingly permanent social glitch in our once cherished American pride, we must vigorously question our leaders who must surely know we cannot hold our breath from the stench of faux reality much longer.