Major Hasan Was Designated A Star Officer

We owe a debt of thanks to the Senate Homeland Security Committee for its report on the Ft. Hood jihadist massacre titled "A Ticking Time Bomb." The Wall Street Journal column below provides a compelling insight into what the Senate committee found.

Over the past three years, we have put out numerous emails highly critical of political correctness, noting that PC can be annoying and even exasperating, but that when it comes to the threat of radical Islam, it can be deadly. Just as it was at Ft. Hood. Yet, every branch of the military issued a final report on the Fort Hood massacre. Not a single one mentioned radical Islam.

By Dorothy Rabinowitz

Major_Nidal_Malik_Hasan1
Self-Proclaimed Jihadist

IN A MONTH OF MOMENTOUS CHANGE, it was easy to overlook the significance of another revolutionary event. Who would have believed that in the space of a few weeks the leaders of the three major European powers would publicly denounce multiculturalism and declare, in so many words, that it was a proven disaster and a threat to society?

One after another they announced their findings—Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel, Great Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron, and France's President Nicolas Sarkozy. Multicultural values had not only led to segregated communities: They had, Mr. Cameron noted, imposed policies of blind toleration that had helped nurture radical Islam's terrorist cells.

There can be no underestimating the in-so-many-words aspect of these renunciations. This was multiculturalism they were talking about—official established religion of the universities, the faith whose requirements have shaped every aspect of cultural, economic and political life in Western democracies for the last 50 years. Still, they were out there—words coolly specific, their target clear.

They came at a fitting moment, just as Americans had been handed a report providing the fullest disclosures so far about the multiculturalist zeal that had driven Army and medical school superiors to smooth Nidal Malik Hasan's rocky way through training, promote him, and, despite blatant evidence of his unfitness, raise not a single concern. Maj. Hasan, U.S. Army psychiatrist, would be assigned to Fort Hood where, in November 2009, he opened fire, killing 12 fellow soldiers and a civilian employee, and wounding 32 others.

In this report, titled "A Ticking Time Bomb" and put out by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, there is a detail as dazzling in its bleak way as all the glowing misrepresentations of Dr. Hasan's skills and character, which his superiors poured into their evaluations of him. It concerns the Department of Defense's official report on the Fort Hood killings—a study whose recital of fact made no mention of Hasan's well-documented jihadist sympathies. Subsequent DoD memoranda portray the bloodbath—which began with Hasan shouting "Allahu Akbar!"—as a kind of undefined extremism, something on the order, perhaps, of work-place violence.

This avoidance of specifics was apparently contagious—or, more precisely, policy. In November 2010, each branch of the military issued a final report on the Fort Hood shooting. Not one mentioned the perpetrator's ties to radical Islam. Even today, "A Ticking Time Bomb," co-authored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I., Conn.) and Susan Collins (R., Maine), reminds us that DoD still hasn't specifically named the threat represented by the Fort Hood attack—a signal to the entire Defense bureaucracy that the subject is taboo.

In magical thinking, safety and good come to those who obey taboos, and in the multiculturalist world, there is no taboo more powerful than the one that forbids acknowledgment of realities not in keeping with the progressive vision. In the world of the politically correct—which can apparently include places where psychiatrists are taugh—magical thinking reigns.

For the superiors in charge of Hasan's training at Walter Reed and his two years at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, the taboo was of a more complicated order—one that required elaborately inventive analyses through which Hasan's stated beliefs, ominous pronouncements, and evident unconcern with standards of behavior required of an officer could all be represented as singular virtues, proof of his exceptional value to the Army. It could not have been easy. Still, they managed.

They did so despite Hasan's astounding trail of performances, each more telling than the next. To fulfill Walter Reed's academic requirement for a presentation on a psychiatric theme, Hasan proffered a draft consisting almost entirely of wisdom from the Quran arguing for the painful punishment and liquidation of non-Muslims. Hasan evidently viewed the Qur'anic verses as a sufficient presentation—a view his superior didn't share, given its lack of any mention of a psychiatric theme. When that guide warned him the presentation was "not scholarly" and might prevent his graduation, Hasan revised. The finished product was not much different. Still, Hasan was allowed to graduate.

He went on to his medical fellowship, where he soon delivered another class lecture, this one on the Islamist theme that the West, in particular the U.S. military, had mounted a war on Islam. The presentation brimmed with views sympathetic to Osama bin Laden, the motives of the 9/11 perpetrators, and suicide bombers. It so infuriated his classmates that their outraged eruptions caused the instructor to end the presentation.

There would be more of the same to come. One classmate witness told investigators that Hasan sought every possible opportunity to share his radical Islamist sympathies. His highest obligation, he told classmates, wasn't to the Constitution, which he had sworn to protect and defend, but to his religion.

His Islamist sympathies would attract the interest of the FBI, which soon picked up on this U.S. Army major's contacts with a terrorist suspect, unnamed in the Senate report. The agency would, however, have no continuing great interest in Hasan. Among other reasons, its agents had seen the impressive evaluation reports characterizing Hasan as an authority on Islam—one whose work even had "extraordinary potential to inform national policy and military strategy," as one of his superiors put it in his officer evaluation report.

The same Hasan who set off silent alarms in his supervisors—the Psychiatric Residency Program Director at Walter Reed was one of them—would garner only plaudits in the official written evaluations at the time. He was commended in these as a "star officer," one focused on "illuminating the role of culture and Islamic faith within the Global War on Terrorism." One supervisor testified, "His unique interests have captured the interest and attention of peers and mentors alike." No single word of criticism or doubt about Hasan ever made its way into any of his evaluations.

Some of those enthusiastic testaments strongly suggested that the writers were themselves at least partly persuaded of their reasoning. In magical thinking, safety and good come to those who obey taboos, and in the multiculturalist world, there is no taboo more powerful than the one that forbids acknowledgment of realities not in keeping with the progressive vision. In the world of the politically correct—which can apparently include places where psychiatrists are taught—magical thinking reigns.

A resident who didn't represent the diversity value that Hasan did as a Muslim would have faced serious consequences had he behaved half as disturbingly. Here was a world in which Hasan was untouchable, in which all that was grim and disturbing in him was transformed. He was a consistently mediocre performer, ranking in the lowest 25% of his class, but to his evaluators, he was an officer of unique talents.

He was a star not simply because he was a Muslim, but because he was a special kind—the sort who posed, in his flaunting of jihadist sympathies, the most extreme test of liberal toleration. Exactly the kind the progressive heart finds irresistible. A decision as to whether Maj. Hasan will go to trial—it would be before a military court-martial—should be forthcoming next month. He stands charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder, committed when he turned his laser-equipped semi-automatic on members of the military at the Soldier Readiness Center. The likelihood is that the trial will go forward. If it does, the forces of multiculturalist piety, which played so central a role in advancing this Army major and concealing the menace he posed, will be the invisible presence on trial with him.

Ms. Rabinowitz, a member of the Journal's editorial board, is the author of "No Crueler Tyrannies: Accusations, False Witness And Other Terrors Our Times" (Free Press, 2003).

Defanging the Islamic Beast, Taming its False Prophet

Robert Spencer
Robert Spencer, founder of Jihad Watch

ROBERT SPENCER SUGGESTS GENERAL DOUGLAS MACARTHUR'S brilliant solution to defang the Japanese Shinto machine could work again, this time, defanging the Islamic terror machine. By all accounts, we, in the slumbering, economically weakened West are not prepared to take such a formidable step against this current foe, but as more and more concerned Westerners awaken to the facts of core Islamic aggression, whose prime directive has been supremicist and militaristic since its founder Mohammed issued his first orders to invade, lie, cheat steal, multiply, agitate, convert, slay, and conquer, we might do well to consider the MacArthur strategy. All we are saying, is give might and muscle, law and order, peace through strength a chance...

The implications of what I'm saying are very bad. There's no way to sugarcoat them. But there are precedents. And there are useful ways forward—if we have the courage to face this problem as it truly is.

This is a problem within Islamic teaching, within core Islamic teaching, founded on the Quran. As such, wherever there are Islamic communities, there will be terrorism and efforts to impose elements of Islamic law through peaceful means, to assert the precedence of Islamic law over the laws of the state in which the Muslims happen to be residing. That will always happen.

Now, in 1945, the McArthur government—the occupational government in Japan—issued an edict saying that Shinto (the religion of the Japanese that had fueled Japanese imperial militarism in World War II) would have no interference from the United States' occupying forces as an expression of individual piety, as the religion of any Japanese citizen. No interference whatsoever from the government. However, Shinto would have no role in the government or in the schools.

The distinction was made—it was imposed from without—that Shinto would have no way to express the political militarism that had led to World War II in the first place.

Now, the United States, Great Britain, Europe, are all facing a very similar problem, with growing Muslim communities asserting political and societal notions that are at variance with our ideas of the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of women with men, the equality of rights of all people before the law.

If our governments had the courage to stand up and say that any assertion of these political aspects of Islam that are at variance with our existing laws will be considered to be seditious under existing sedition laws, there would be a tremendous amount of progress made on this problem.

But of course we're nowhere near that, because we can't even admit that there are such initiatives going on from the Islamic communities as such.

And so as long as this unrealism persists, then the cognitive dissonance will continue to grow. And as long as the cognitive dissonance continues to grow, so also will the assertiveness and beligerence of the Islamic communities in the West, because they will see that we are not able and not willing to take the decisive steps necessary to do anything serious to stop them.

If America has no other role in the world than minding its own business, as a nation handicapped by its own first amendment in offering freedom of religion, it should be involved in defanging the Islamic beast, and taming its false prophet. After all, we took on Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witnesses, each in their time of self-indulgence. We can handle Islam. After all, we should have an app for it by now. Spencer speaks at the Vienna Forum, May 8, 2010.

Saving Our Republic

constitution_quill_pen
The Constitution of the United States of America

We take pause at the burning question of what type of government is best-suited to protect the rights of individuals, and to structure society and enforce norms so as to insure the benefits of liberty and justice to its citizens in times of crisis such as our own.

The most noble, most effective attempt to address this question in the history of the world was the Constitutional Convention of 1787. These men, drawn forth as dutiful representatives of their respective homelands recently bound together to form a conceived new nation, admitted that the US Constitution had flaws, but the flaws were the result of compromising opposing principles.

The US Constitution, more than anything else, is the bulwark Americans of each generation have to boast against totalitarianism and authoritarianism in any form. It is not perfect or especially efficient in times of sinister approach, but it has served us for well over two hundred years despite having enemies both domestic and abroad. Yet, it is simply the best set of reasonable principles we have to guide this great nation forward right now...

One of the major areas of argument brought out by the Federalist Papers was the power of a government to protect its own existence. The revolutionaries argued that a government ought to be subject to change occasionally. The framers argued that a government that cannot guarantee its own existence does not have the power to protect its citizens.

As has been often repeated, the US Constitution is not a suicide pact.

And so, the US government has the power to protect its own existence. This principle serves us as protection against the extra-legal authority of the UN, the World Court, some variant of the European Union, or any other opposing body. The US government simply does not have the power, nor the right, to make commitments which would impede its power to protect itself.

In the American republic its citizens are bestowed with rights and proper powers we need to protect ourselves against uncriticized and unchecked Islamic immigration, which represents a dire threat to our form of government. Enough already of the talk about moral equivalencies which is nothing but straw man establishments. Laws to fight our nation's enemies do not even need to be logically consistent with the laws of our daily inheritance. Why not? Is it not perfectly plain that no body of laws created by men to rule men has ever formed a perfect consistency? No. That is why we seek a more perfect union within this bounty of freedom and liberty with justice for all...

War is war. Or to put it another way, from the Mohammedan mouth, "War is deceit!" And while we might argue that Art is the creation of beauty and truth, originality and transcendence, much the same, we weep, is war.

NO TO SHARIA!

Doctors, Lawyers and the Ten Little Indians of Healthcare

nurse
Healthcare professionals...
IF HEALTH INSURANCE WERE like car insurance, I would be responsible for obtaining it as opposed to having my employer supply it for me. After all, it's my body and my health—why do I expect someone else to be responsible for it?

If health insurance were like car insurance, I would be able to shop around for the cheapest insurance with competitive rates from multiple vendors to find a plan best suited for my lifestyle. If health insurance were like car insurance, I would not be denied insurance unless I demonstrated repeatedly offensive and ill-advised behavior.

On the other hand, what if my car insurance were like my health insurance? My employer would be required to obtain my car insurance, which means I couldn't drive if I didn't have a job. Everyone would pay the same for auto insurance regardless of driving history. The system would breed lack of accountability since there would be no incentives for good driving behavior and no repercussions for accidents or speeding. Sure it would be economical for the irresponsible driver, but only at an exorbitant cost to the safe driver and society as a whole.

There is an urgent need for major overhaul of the health care system in the United States. While the debated health care reform bill addresses some issues that warrant change, it continues to penalize the delivery of care by cutting reimbursements without providing incentives for healthy lifestyles and quality of care.

The argument above was snipped from a thought-provoking piece by American Thinker contributor, Jon George MD. Uniquely unserviceable, the entire hypothesis of personal healthcare is stigmatized by tall tales, bald-faced lies, limp-wristed half-truths, rotten damned statistics, dubiously forgotten if not forbidden habits, twice wilted violets, luridly gilded stopwatches and post-convoluted twists of fate far too frankly philistine to be repaired in its current state.

And thus needs to be scrapped. The facts are these: there is the concept of literate self-reliance, bound by cold capitalist principle, personally tempered by an odd and multitiered assortment of fancy humane considerations. Then there is somebody else trying to oblige you your very existence. The whole "healthcare" argument is really about government control of populations. When I vote, I'll vote to keep my freedom as reckoned against belonging to the giant government-controlled family.

So in that spirit, I highly recommend the whole article, if only in the context of the rich reader commentary which follows it. The intelligent reader will quickly comprehend the bottom line is one's own and is ALWAYS the endgame, no matter how consistent or inconsistent the rules of play.

Don't be an accident statistic. Obey that nerve which commands choice and resolve.

Is Congressman Pete King The Pocket Rocket of CAIR?

Now the bricks lay on Grand Street
Where the neon madmen climb.
They all fall there so perfectly,
It all seems so well timed.
An' here I sit so patiently
Waiting to find out what price
You have to pay to get out of
Going through all these things twice.
Oh, Mama, can this really be the end,
To be stuck inside of Mobile
With the Memphis blues again.
—Bob Dylan, 1966

WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS WHY Peter King has not only failed to call Islamic experts Robert Spencer and Steve Emerson to the stand in his “radical” Islam hearings, but now he has also bowed down to Islamic pressure again and has stated he will not call Hirsi Ali to the stand. In return for not using these three very knowledgeable non-and-ex-Muslims as witnesses, King has said he will go with mostly Muslims and Arabs to make his case.

Does Congressman King even begin to realize that Islam encourages Muslims to lie in defense of Islam at ALL TIMES?

Pete King has always shown us a tough New York demeanor, ready to talk hard when required, always the first patriot on the line, a no nonsense character one wouldn't want to cross, but suddenly he appears to have been lured into bed by the deservedly tarred and feathered Council on American-Islamic Relations. I do not ask rhetorically, but demand to know, how much longer until the truth is made know about CAIR, its strategic, pernicious, unjustifiable intentions, and the disgusting insult to American intelligence that it represents...

Mr. King, we encourage you take the time to pursue the hard-won comprehension of these witnesses you have allowed CAIR to dissuade you from hearing. The body of plain evidence they represent, much of it linked here as a good beginning will not be a struggle to comprehend but will an eyeopener for any loyal patriot like yourself. You will learn that CAIR is a liar's club, not to be trusted, better to be avoided, even shunned, until they are legally prosecuted or disbanded. The American nation needs you to understand the full reprehensible story of the Camp of Islam...

Read more at Loganswarning.

You Kafir, You Must Submit!

Dalia Mogahed
Dalia Mogahed

I HAVE BEEN FIGHTING this semantic battle for years now. Our problem is NOT only with "radical Muslims"...it is with all of Islam! The heart of the "religion" is that the entire world must be politically conquered for "Allah" (a.k.a. Satan, or Lucifer) and all people must either bow down to "Allah" or be killed. No other choices are allowed, folks... sorry! I should also point out that the "peaceful Muslims" are the ones who fund the radicals, harbor the radicals, and celebrate the victories of the radicals over the "infidels" (infidels = you and me). The "peaceful Muslims" may not pull the triggers or slit the throats themselves, but they ARE complicit, and will side with their more active brothers and sisters once the crowd dynamic is favorable, by and large.

By the way, note the natural alliance between the Progressive Marxists and the Muslims: one of the Progressive "gods" is, Saul Alinsky, who dedicated his book to Lucifer...

Is it any wonder that BOTH the Muslims and the Progressives want to destroy traditional American society and "fundamentally change" it?

I also agree with the important point raised by Athletik in his comments: we REALLY need to define what constitutes a religion that may be practiced in the United States. Does that sound unreasonable? Well, would we allow the practice of a religion of Cannibalism here? How about a religion of Random Rapists? How about the worship of Moloch, where babies are murdered as sacrifices to a god? Until we come to recognize as a society, that allowing Islam to exist here is just like allowing a rabid dog to roam in your own home, we are signing our own death warrant. It cannot end well. Ask Europe...

You Kafir, yes you, you MUST submit!

More The Same Of Those Subterranean Homesick Blues

Posted by: GeorgiaBoy61

Iran Barks Like Hyena
Iran Barks Like Hyena

I COULD NOT AGREE MORE with the substance of your column. Over and over again, I have asked myself since the 9-11 attacks, how it could be that virtually everyone in the [civilized] west, including many Americans, feels compelled to use euphemistic language when speaking of Islamic violence. Why is everyone walking on eggshells? The few who dare to voice their honestly-felt opinions about Islam are derided as racists, xenophobes, Islamophobes, etc. The whole phenomenon is still somewhat mystifying to me, but reading Mark Steyn's "America Alone" and other works has helped bring this strange behavior into focus somewhat. First, nearly all of our cultural elites and political/military leaders are either in denial, or have been co-opted in some manner.

Second, the pervasive influence of cultural Marxism—otherwise known as political correctness—is everywhere. Americans never used to apologize for voicing unpopular or unpleasant views or opinions; now they do—hence the triumph of P.C. Third, many of us have forgotten what the responsibilities of free people entail, c.f. eternal vigilance, protection of the Judeo-Christian heritage, et cetera.

Little-used, and dulled by years of easy affluence, many of us have forgotten how (if we ever knew in the first place) how to exist as free men. Fourth, cowardice. It isn't simply that many in the west are physically afraid of the believers of Islam; they are also intellectually and morally overmatched and intimidated. They lack the skills and fortitude to engage those bullying them.

Fifth, is apathy. Many people are too focused on the trivialities of modern existence to care about the renewed march of Islam. Of one thing I am certain—we cannot effectively oppose a foe we dare not name.

We risk the embarrassment of repeating ourselves among supposedly intelligent men and women, not because we think our readers are stupid, but because we believe our readers think we are stupid. Yet, nothing is so realistic in the realm of mathematical certainty than the political engines of blunt force survival.

Put another way, if Elohim wants to use an Objectivist to do His work, they will do so. Research the Voice of God to the Hebrew Jeremiah when describing the Babylonian King Nebecannezzar as His servant. Just one of many examples of conscription into The Great Plan. Belief in God is not necessary. There is no escape from God in that model.

The personal acts of disengaging from perishable folly to embrace the realities of this brutal race towards intelligent survival must not be underestimated, or too casually declined. Here are two more stringent points of view, compelling in their own intelligent way:

Ihis country better start circling the wagons of Christianity, and start re-developing a strong UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and holding our elected officials to the constitution or we are done! Rejecting militant Islam has to be a major priority!

If your grandfathers had taken to blathering on about "Naziofascists", "Nazionazis", "Nazists", "radical Nazis" and "Nazi extremists", let alone about "Hijackers of the Great Political Party of Peace", unless they were running a fever something just awful, their own mothers would have blistered their britches before General Patton could even get to them. —Bessie

You betcha! And from a board debating the essence of birthday girl Ayn Rand's Objectivist thought:

Following that logic, certain activities that have become profit-making are not necessarily meant to be so. It's funny that the example of saving a life was brought up—perhaps, according to Ms. Rand, healthcare should not be a profit-making enterprise, but she would place it more in the realm of social responsibility under direct government supervision—"morally" superior to the general welfare than the current Affordable Care Act that has so many Atlas Shrugged thumpers fit to be tied.

I disagree. A lot of these activities were started by churches and philanthropists, ie, hospitals, libraries, et cetera, and did not become money makers until government stepped in to regulate them. Even now, someone trying to feed hungry people cannot do so without permission from the government. Ask the people who were in Katrina who provided more direct help, the government or individuals. Government just does more advertising because they can then charge it to the taxpayers.

Alan Greenspan's statist policies would have never been supported by Ayn Rand. Anyone that has actually read Ayn Rand would never suggest that Greenspan held to her ideas. Her positions are the strongest that exist against any type of corruption...maybe too many business people are afraid that if they stand up for the moral virtue of profit, they will have to forgo the moral loopholes that are accepted in our current system.

Alan Greenspan, an initiated member of the Rand cult, used her totally misguided ideas to run this country into the ground. Besides that, all she did was give false legitimacy to soulless, compassionless, sociopathy. An a-moral crackpot through and though. But all is not lost, Wall Street losers. Your woeful ignorance of both Rand and Greenspan tell us much more about you than them.

To describe her philosophy and ethics as "a-moral" (as many believers in God, gods, unicorns, and gremlins do, claiming that only religionists—you know, those organizations created by men to control, keep ignorant, deny/suspend reality/reason as it suits, fleece, and murder hundreds of millions of others in God's name—possess a monopoly on morality denied to an a-theist) is a grotesque libel.

Put another way, if Elohim wants to use an Objectivist to do His work, they will do so. Research the Voice of God to the Hebrew Jeremiah when describing the Babylonian King Nebecannezzar as His servant. Just one of many examples of conscription into The Great Plan. Belief in God is not necessary. There is no escape from God in that model.

Objectivism and its Ethics shine as the greatest philosophical development yet of a proper morality for dignified men and the enhancement of life (as opposed to corrupt original-sinners who worship death and some imaginary afterlife). Ayn Rand's morality is of such comprehensive stature and sufficiently rigid in nature, that I have little doubt one of your self-humiliating ignorance would be incapable of fully comprehending—let alone living up to it.

Oh my, my beloved America has become such an arch-schizophrenic phenomenon!

1. Rand promoted the ideas that government control over the economy and money supply was immoral and would be ruinous to the economy.

2. Greenspan, a who at one time was friends with Rand, later headed the Federal Reserve, and exercised the exact controls that Rand had warned against—which resulted in the exact sort of outcomes that she warned against.

So, how do you conclude that Greenspan "used her totally misguided ideas to run this country into the ground"? Alan Greenspan's statist policies would have never been supported by Ayn Rand. Anyone that has actually read Ayn Rand would never suggest that Greenspan held to her ideas. Her positions are the strongest that exist against any type of corruption...maybe too many business people are afraid that if they stand up for the moral virtue of profit, they will have to forgo the moral loopholes that are accepted in our current system.

A society and government that believed in the same principles as Ayn Rand would tolerate none of the corruption we see today in business—and would demand personal responsibility from businessman, without loopholes to fall back on if times got tough or they wanted to be lazy or shortsighted.

Maybe too many of today's businesspeople are too afraid of the personal responsibility they'd have to take if they took Ayn Rand's stance on the morality of profit.