Another Muslim attack: Our nation will be screwed before “political correctness” allows the facts to be acknowledged

The excuses for the mass killing given by the media, including FOX and Schlepard Smith include:

• Stressed US troops
• “Upset” about being deployed to Iraq
• Caused by “multiple deployments”
• An act of a “crazy person”
• Delusional

WRONG WRONG WRONG!

In fact, this is another premeditated terrorist attack by at least one Muslim among many who have been encouraged to infiltrate our military to do this very thing.  Whether this is a lone Jihadi acting on what he has been indoctrinated to do, or whether he was an implanted “sleeper”, part of a larger plot, is beside the point.  The results are the same.  The hatred and vile impulse and the religion behind this is all the same. The main point is Muslims indoctrinate themselves to have the beliefs and the mentality to carry out these kinds of acts.

Most of us don’t get it yet. The media gets a Muslim name from multiple sources, yet refuses to utter the name Nadal Malik Hasan for hours after being advised.  That is politically correct suicide – and ignorant.  In fact liberal web sites such as the Huffington Post don’t believe the Muslim religion had anything to do with this – not worth mentioning.  Ignorant Ignorant Ignorant!

Solutions, anyone?  How about keeping Muslims out of the military, just like we kept the Japanese out of the military after their attack on Pearl Harbor.  How about admitting there are few “moderate Muslims” who would not give their life for the Jihadi Muslim cause.  How about acknowledging that “moderate” Muslims are not so moderate and recognize them for what they are: Enemies of the State?

When will we learn?

Here is an update from Robert Spencer.

And doesn’t THIS explain a lot about our neo-Muslim president (from Robert Spencer):

Fort Hood shooter was member of Homeland Security Panel advising Obama

Of course. Why not? He was a "moderate." Until he wasn't.

"Nidal Hasan: Ft. Hood Shooter Participated in Homeland Security Disaster Preparation," from Gawker, November 6 (thanks to Mary Belle):

The gunman who killed 12 people today at Ft. Hood appears, based on current media reports, to be Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan who was listed as a participant in a Homeland Security Policy Institute's presidential transition task force last year.

The task force was not officially affiliated with the White House. It was a project of the Homeland Security Policy Institute, an independent thinktank housed at George Washington University, aimed at drafting policy recommendations for the incoming Obama administration.

According to the task force's May 2009 report [pdf], a "Nidal Hasan" from the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine was a task force event participant. Other participants included Senate and House staffers, Department of Homeland Security officials, Defense Department officials, and reporters for Politico, the Washington Post, and the London Times....

Posted by Robert on November 6, 2009 7:56 AM | 45 Comments
Digg this | del.icio.us | Buzz up!

Technorati Tags: media ignorance,political correctness,Islamic attack on Fort Hood

Pathetic Way to Run a War…

Mmmm, mm, mmmmm, mm, mmmm.  What a way to run a war.  Summon a bunch of politicians who know little about the military, less about running a war, nada about Afghani tribalism, and even less about Islamism, the enemy, and seek their advice.  That is what Obama is doing.  This is turning into the ultimate politician-run war – doomed to failure.  Dumb leading the ignorant.  What a bunch of dopes.  Thus is the danger of hyper-inflated egos.

U.S. lawmakers press Obama on Afghan war strategy

By Sue Pleming

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama told congressional leaders on Tuesday his decision on a new Afghan war strategy would not make everyone happy, while Republicans urged him to heed his military commander's call for more troops.

Obama summoned key Democratic and Republican lawmakers for a meeting at the White House to hash out their views on how to overhaul strategy in the eight-year war, where the military says the Taliban has the momentum in the unpopular conflict.

Obama told the meeting his decision, to be announced in the coming weeks, would be based on what he thought would be the best way to prevent future attacks on the United States and its allies, a U.S. official said.

"He also made it clear that his decision won't make everybody in the room or the nation happy, but underscored his commitment to work on a collaborative basis," the official said.

At the heart of the debate within the Obama administration is whether it would be best to send more troops to Afghanistan and work to earn the trust of the Afghan people or to more narrowly focus the war effort using airstrikes against al Qaeda targets.

Republican Senator John McCain warned Obama against "half measures" and urged him to implement a plan by the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, who wants as many as 40,000 more troops and trainers to fight the war.

"I am very convinced that General McChrystal's analysis is not only correct but should be employed as quickly as possible," McCain told reporters after the 90-minute meeting.

"There is no middle ground," said McCain, who lost the election to Obama last year.

Democrats countered that Obama was being responsible by taking his time to decide on a strategy in Afghanistan.

"We all realize the important decision the president has to make. Eight solders were killed on Sunday, one of them was from Reno, Nevada," said Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, who represents Nevada.

Aid to Enemies; Betrayal of Allies

Obama continues his insane Husseinness.  It is becoming even more painfully obvious that his prior sucking up to Islamist, socialist, and communist nations were not isolated events.  That is his continuing practice – with a vengeance!  It is not enough to become buddies with Chavez and his friends, Hamas and other Islamists in the middle east and in the USA.  It is not enough to turn our backs on Israel.

So now we have the dismantling of our defense shield in Europe.  We have our long time allies saying Obama betrayed them.  We have millions of Americans saying “what the hell are you doing?” (I don’t have a link to that sentiment yet, but I see it coming real soon.)

Most of us agree that American is stretched too thin and cannot continue to be the worlds’ cop. But, if we want to note another clear divide between liberals and conservatives in this nation, it is all about how we sprinkle our resources around the world.

Liberals tend to treat enemies like friends and friends like enemies.  Aid is cut off to those most likely to be our friend and aid is increased to those who have declared us their enemy.

Conservatives tend to treat enemies like enemies and friends like friends.  We think helping our friends and cutting off assistance to those who declare us “infidels” and wish our destruction are good ideas.

Obama wants to buy the love of our enemies.  He naively believes if only we are nice enough to them, they will embrace us – their fundamental reasons for their “former” disdain will melt away.  But that is not enough for him.  We also have to demonstrate to our enemies that we are backing down from aiding our friends.

This practice might pluck the heart-strings of the half-thinkers for a few months while they hear the heaps of praise from the fascist nations who are the beneficiaries Obama’s misspent gifts.  Talk about waste of taxpayer dollars.  Shooting ourselves in the foot would be more cost-effective.

Israels' Livni: “We must be an alternative of hope and go into opposition”

OMG. Livni is parroting the rhetoric of Obama. "We must be an alternative of hope..." she pleads. With Obama, we now have the hope of socialism; the hope of entitlement for those who don't want to be responsible for their own actions; the hope of eliminating the intelligence tools we need to keep our nation safe, and the hope of being overrun by welfare-sucking illegal aliens who threaten both our economy and our security.

What hope does Livni promise?

Hope for negotiating with a terrorist government that proclaims its aversion to treaties and which proclaims in its charter its mission to eliminate Israel and Jews? Hope that the jihadi Islamists on its border will miraculously give up their 1,400 years of Quranic doctrine and become peace loving neighbors of their "beloved" Jewish compatriots? That leads not to "hope" but to the same old same old.

This article declares that "Miss Livni’s decision leaves Mr Netanyahu at the helm of hard line government which would, at best, face paralysis over progress towards a peace settlement." The author of the article stupidly and naively assumes that a "peace settlement" with Hamas and other neighboring Islamists is the way to go. One can only hope that a peace settlement that gives away more of Israel's real estate in exchange for more deceit and takiya will be forever paralyzed.

Winning battles and winning wars and completing military tasks to eliminate the ongoing, cruel and pervasive threats is the way to go. Livni is just another two ton elephant tied to the stake of history who believes Israels precarious and tortured existence cannot be improved. That is the opposite of "an alternative of hope." That is the status quo. "Hope" is more than that.

Israels only future does not have to be under perpetual threat from its Islamo fascist neighbors. Netanyahu and his majority coalition offer a much better hope that believes Israel is worthy and capable of eliminating its threats.

Chilling

It's bad enough that Islamists assassinated Benazir Bhutto, the ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan yesterday. What is chilling is the preference of the average Pakistani on the street for a political leader...

46% for Osama Bin Laden, the acknowledged mastermind of 9/11 and the "destroy the west" mantra.

38% for current Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf

9% for US President George Bush (this is hardly a surprise since his polls are not much higher in the US.)

What does this tell us about the direction of Pakistan and their nukes? Additional background is provided here.

Couple this with the second most popular baby's name in Great Britain: "Muhammad", the forebear of "the religion of peace." (Where is my little "puking" emoticon when I need it?)

The Flushing Rumor: Who Are the Sociopaths?

I'm not sure what's worse: the irresponsible, reactionary, anti-American liberal media, or the irresponsible, reactionary, anti-American, Islamofacists. Well, maybe I am sure.

The casual observer of recent news reports and opinion on this topic will note the majority of the blame being heaped on one of our favorite whipping posts, the "liberal media", in this case Newsweek. They, like the crew at CBS, were so caught up in their anti-American predisposition that they took a shread of information and made it into something it wasn't.

The radical, and perhaps even the moderate, Islamists did the same thing. Starting in Afghanistan, thousands (or is it millions) of these otherwise good and kind people are taking an unsubstantiated thread of information and rioting and killing over it. The average shrink in this country would call this behavior extremely psychotic, worthy of one with a diagnosis of an extreme bi-polar disorder. That kind of reactionary behavior would normally get someone put away in prison or a high security mental hospital for a very long time.

So, have we come to expect this severely reactionary behavior from a major portion of the worlds population as "normal" and worthy of tiptoeing around? I think that "norm" is absurd.

As much as I would like to nail liberal media like Newsweek for their sin of bias, the majority of our finger pointing is in the wrong direction. Muslims would like to be known and understood as decent people, yes? Decent people don't riot in the street killing innocent people because an erroneous innuendo ticks them off. That is a sociopathic mental illness. And apparently a lot of them have it.

Click on the heading of this blog for an excellent related article from the National Review.


And from the web site Jihad Watch, here is another observation of the character defect of the "radicals", however many million there happen to be:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/006202.php

And finally, Ann Coulter's pointed comments about Newsweeks' anti-American rot from within:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20050518/cm_ucac/newsweekdissembledmuslimsdismembered/nc:742