-
Anyone Still Believe Me?
May 21, 2013 | 38 comments
-
What Those Who Boycott Israel Really Want
May 14, 2013 | 143 comments
-
Mitt on Marriage
May 8, 2013 | 38 comments
-
The One Constant
May 1, 2013 | 118 comments
-
Trudeaus and Terrorism
April 22, 2013 | 15 comments
The Obama Watch
Obama, Gun Violence & Fort Hood
Why in his litany of recent massacres does he continue to omit the shootings at Fort Hood?
Since the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14, 2012, President Obama has made eight public statements regarding gun violence. His most recent remarks took place on Monday in Minneapolis.
In those remarks, President Obama has not only deplored the gun violence that took place at Sandy Hook but the gun violence that has taken place over the past couple of years in Tucson, Aurora, Colorado and Oak Creek, Wisconsin. He has also made reference to gun violence in cities such as Chicago and Philadelphia.
Consider these remarks made by President Obama on January 16, 2013, which are fairly representative of his statements over the past few weeks:
The right to worship freely and safely, that right was denied to Sikhs in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. The right to assemble peaceably, that right was denied shoppers in Clackamas, Oregon, and moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado. That most fundamental set of rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness — fundamental rights that were denied to college students at Virginia Tech, and high school students at Columbine, and elementary school students in Newtown, and kids on street corners in Chicago on too frequent a basis to tolerate, and all the families who’ve never imagined that they’d lose a loved one to a bullet — those rights are at stake. We’re responsible.
Well, what about the right of our military personnel to carry out their oath to defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic? Surely that was compromised on November 5, 2009, when Nidal Malik Hasan shot and killed a dozen military personnel, one civilian and one unborn child at Fort Hood. Surely these 14 people were also victims of gun violence.
And yet President Obama has not once seen fit to mention those who died at Fort Hood during any of his public remarks on gun violence over the past seven and a half weeks.
Now I am not the first person to mention Obama’s omission. Following the vigil in Newtown in which Obama spoke of Tucson, Aurora and Oak Creek, Mark Levin pointedly asked, “What happened to Fort Hood? How come he didn’t mention Fort Hood?”
But the fact that Obama still hasn’t uttered a word about Fort Hood in this entire discussion about gun violence nearly two months after the fact, it is a question worth asking once more.
From where I sit, there are two reasons that Fort Hood does not traverse President Obama’s lips and both of them open a can of worms for the White House.
The first reason is that, to this very day, the Obama Administration does not recognize the massacre at Fort Hood for what it was — a terrorist attack. They deemed it an act of “workplace violence” despite the fact that Hasan screamed “Allahu Akbar” as he slaughtered his fellow soldiers. They deemed it an act of “workplace violence” though he carried business cards bearing the inscription, “S of A — Soldier of Allah.” They deemed it an act of “workplace violence” despite his contact with al Qaeda in Yemen’s representative Anwar al-Awlaki; a man the Obama Administration saw fit to kill with a drone nearly two years after the Fort Hood massacre.
If Fort Hood was an act of “workplace violence,” then the attacks at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 was the biggest act of workplace violence in American history. Yet to characterize 9/11 as an act of “workplace violence” is to utterly miss the point. So long as Obama insists that the Fort Hood massacre was nothing more than an act of “workplace violence,” he sullies the memory of those who died on November 5, 2009.
Nevertheless, it is important to remember that the death toll at Fort Hood could have been much, much higher if not for two Killeen police officers who shot and paralyzed Hasan. This brings me to the second reason Obama does not mention Fort Hood. Unlike Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek, and Newtown, the assailant was subdued by people carrying guns. Although police officers were responsible for stopping Hasan, Obama sees guns as the problem, not part of the solution. Thus it isn’t in his interest to mention Fort Hood when discussing gun violence.
If President Obama really wants to have an honest national conversation about gun violence, it would behoove him not to sweep the Fort Hood massacre under the rug. But since when do demagogues want an honest conversation about anything, especially where it concerns our liberties?
Photo: WhiteHouse.gov
About the Author
Aaron Goldstein writes from Boston, Massachusetts.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (86) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Aaron Goldstein
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/02/05/obama-gun-violence-fort-hood
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Inside the Gates of Eden
- The (Real) Great Divide
- Wincing at Cumberbatch
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.5.13 @ 6:56AM
It's rather strange how Hassan was not rushed to trial and still awaits a trial. The trial has been delayed for all sorts of trivial reasons including cutting a beard. He should be slapped in irons, tried and then executed.
That's the part Obama is trying to avoid. The Obama administration would rather Hassan receive a life sentence and want to delay the trial as long as possible.
TLP| 2.5.13 @ 9:04AM
BHO is exactly right. (This one. Not the one I. The District of Corruption)
Why is this Piece of Excrement getting Delays for refusing to shave?
Get a coupla MPs to drag this POS in to a room, cuff him to a Radiator, Club him in his F-ing Head, and then Shave all of his Friggin Hair Off.
The MUSLIM in the Oval Office is what he is. He's a MUSLIM. He was BORN a MUSLIM. He was RAISED a MUSLIM in Indonesia. He has told George Stephenopoulas, point blank, that "The Muslim call to prayer is the most beautiful sound in the world". He has WRITTEN, in one of his books, that: "Should it ever come down to Israel or the Arabs? I will side with the Arabs".
That's who he is. That's WHAT he is.
My question concerns Why everyone else is Kissing the Muslim's Asses?
Beat this POS to a Pulp, and throw his ass in Court.
NOW!
Appleby| 2.5.13 @ 7:02AM
Obama does not mention Hassan because Hassan is a Muslim. If he had been a White Catholic and he'd shouted "Praised be Jesus Christ!" before shooting up the place, he'd be the poster boy for gun control and all kinds of other limits on the Constitution. But a man named Hassan reminds everybody that the President's name is Hussein and that reminds people that we don't actually know very much about this guy although he's been President for 5 years....
Jack in Wi| 2.5.13 @ 8:39AM
Hassan would not have killed so many if the people on military bases could carry loaded guns. Obama and his pals like Biden, Clinton, Bloomberg, Emmanuel, Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, Nadler etc want the rest of us to be like the Palistinians. They want all the guns and drones and the rest of us to have rocks. From my cold dead hands.
Robert| 2.5.13 @ 12:41PM
Interesting you'd cite "Palistinians" (sic) as the one example of an unarmed people. First of all, Since there is no Palestine, there cannot be Palestinians. Secondly, the moment one of these Arab Hashemites would be given a gun is the moment that gun would be trained on an Israeli.
Occam's Tool| 2.5.13 @ 1:03PM
Robert: Jack can neither spell nor think.
As a guy who, but for an act of Fate, would have been a colleague (and therefore dead colleague) of Hassan, I despise Obama and his administration's view of this forever.
And Cheeseheadf Jack, you support Hassan's murder of American soldiers every day.
Jack in Wi| 2.5.13 @ 4:50PM
Occcam is a the Dr. Hassan of this webbsite. Will this so-called Psychiatrist with his murderous fantacies finally go over the cliff like Hassan? We can only hope he gets help before that happens. I mention the Palistinians because the biggest pushers of gun control are also the biggest Zionists in public life. Of course they have people like the Clinton's, Obama, and Biden with them. But they are all Zionists as well. Perhaps I could of brought up the kulaks in the Ukraine as well. On the other side the Jews under Hitler's control, were disarmed. Free people are armed.
Occam's Tool| 2.7.13 @ 5:35PM
Yes, and the Israelis are armed because Jews weren't armed under Hitler. "Occam" by the way. "Fantasies." And why the hell do you persist in misspelling Palestinians?
I haven't noted Michael Moore being a strong Zionist, nor George Soros---both pushers of gun control. Enlighten me, Cheesehead.
And Jack, but for an act of fate I would have been Hassan's Target. Learn to read and spell.
avidyananda| 2.5.13 @ 1:31PM
Ironic, isn't it. Unarmed on a military base, easy pickings for a coward like Hassan. This irony further makes the point that 'gun control' laws work only with people who obey laws, and military people are taught to obey without fail. We saw the result. This kind of slaughter will be writ large once all the other law-abiding, obedient citizens give up their protection too.
Pecos Pete| 2.5.13 @ 5:48PM
avid: You are so correct. Excellent comment.
Joellen| 2.5.13 @ 7:10AM
One more thing should be emphasized:
Never does the media, other than conservative media, bring up FORT HOOD - EVER!
And Bill Hussein O'Stalin, right on - why is this trial still not done with.
Remember how quickly Timothy McVeigh was prosecuted - well no need for me to ask,
Hey what's the difference!
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.5.13 @ 7:57AM
What was particularly curious about McVeigh was not so much the speed with which he was prosecuted (which was quick compared to Hassan, but far from swift), but the speed with which he was executed. McVeigh detonated the bomb at the Murrah Building on 041995, and was executed in the spring of 2001 (just over six years). Most death penalty cases (even many who waive their appeals like McVeigh) languish at least a decade, and the federal government is notoriously slow.
TLP| 2.5.13 @ 9:33AM
That's because there's a huge difference between Intentionally Murdering a lot of people, and a Workplace Violence Instance.
Everything that Orwell has predicted, has come true.
From The Animal Farm that is this Administration, to the Newspeak in 1984.
And, you can add to that - H.G. Wells: The Time Machine, as the Left seeks to take if Forward to the Past, where Pharaoh's Word was Absolute. Where only Noblemen and Noblewomen owned Property. Where there was no Middle Class. And where the People were forced to work in Indentured Servitude, with no hope of ever having a better life.
Throw in - Jules Verne's: 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, which represents the Crushing Weight of the Immense Oceans of Debt that he has laid upon us, that will, inevitably, Crush the Futures of our Children, and their Children.
And, if nothing can be done at the Ballot Box (and I have no faith in that ever happening) then one more Tome will have to make an Appearence, if we are to Continue as a Free People living in a Free Country - James McTiegue's 2005 Movie: V for Vendetta.
After all................Isn't that how movies, like the one we're living now, always end?
Cause, I'm thinkin that it is.
Anthony| 2.5.13 @ 9:43AM
True, you gotta love the newspeak of the left. Hasan's murder of 12 Americans is as much a crime of "workplace violence" as Obozo is in fact, an "American Christian".
Bill8472| 2.5.13 @ 9:49AM
While it's true that to characterize Nadal Hasan's act as an incident of "workplace violence" is to miss the point, it's equally true that it WAS an act of workplace violence, carried out in the name of Allah by an Islamic militant jihadist.
How come Hasan used that FN Five-Seven instead of a standard-issue military firearm?
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.5.13 @ 10:25AM
I have seen it written that 5.7mm will penetrate standard body armor of the responding police officers in a way that 9mm will not.
Bob K| 2.5.13 @ 1:42PM
You are exactly right, Joellen!
In fact, the so called moderate conservative media have been tip-toeing around this subject since the Fort Hood murders happened and the only conservative I have heard who has brought it up regularly is Michael Savage which probably will make Aaron wish he didn't bring it up now.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.5.13 @ 8:08AM
“The right to worship freely and safely, that right was denied to Sikhs in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. The right to assemble peaceably, that right was denied shoppers in Clackamas, Oregon, and moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado. That most fundamental set of rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness — fundamental rights that were denied … those rights are at stake. We’re responsible.”
Once again, Obama portrays his ineptitude as a Constitutional law professor, and portrays his desire to create a constitution that creates positive guarantees for subjects. The dissatisfaction that the current POTUS and the Left express for our Constitution stems from the fact that it delineates the powers that that each branch of the government will have with respect to the other branches and the people, and goes on to list some of the things that it cannot do.
It does not set out to protect what individual or mobs of people may choose to do to one another, except when they attempt to organize as a government entity. To protect against either event, they established the Second Amendment.
That Obama wishes to tamper with it, reveals everything about his views and intentions.
TLP| 2.5.13 @ 9:36AM
He seeks to Destroy the Founding Fathers.
The Movie: Patton.
"Rommel, you Glorious Bastard. I READ YOUR BOOK!"
Same thing, here.
Kwan| 2.5.13 @ 9:47AM
For a wannabe dictator like Obama the Constitution is an obstacle that restricts his quest to be King-for-Life like his Marxist heroes Kim Jong-iL and Castro. The Constitution is suppose to protects the country and its citizens from such psychos. Without such a document the country could quickly devolve into Idi Amin's Uganda or Sadam Hussein's Iraq.
Job| 2.5.13 @ 3:16PM
brilliant statement Kwan this needs to be on billboards around the country.
Bill8472| 2.5.13 @ 9:51AM
Obama also displays his Constitutional ineptitude when he talks about a private organization, the Boy Scoust of America, being obliged for some unstated reason to open their ranks to homosexuals.
I thought the BSA, like all other private organizations, possessed a First Amendment right to freedom of association.
Robert| 2.5.13 @ 12:33PM
"Ineptitude" not! Conscious, willful agenda, yes.
Bill8472| 2.6.13 @ 9:57AM
Of course, it IS just possible that one can be acting consciously and willfully and still be inept, all at the same time.
Frank Drackman| 2.5.13 @ 8:31AM
Let me get this out of the way first,
Redsox/Patriots/Celtics SUCK!, Larry Bird wore stupid sneakers, Bellecheks a cheater, and Brady's a pretty boy, who I wish had been born 20 years earlier so LT could have broken his leg too...
That being said..
EICSSOTUS(Evolver in Chief Skeet Shooter of the United States)won't mention Ft Hood, cause it doesn't fit the narrative, Crazy A-rabs don't massacree(HT Arlo Guthrie) Peoples, their guns do!!
And I didn't think it was possible but EICSSOTUS even shoots like a girl...
Frank
Cat Shot| 2.5.13 @ 10:35AM
FOUL! My mother was driving nails at 50 feet with a .22 when she was 12. He shoot if this gun is...like...eww.
Dagny Taggert| 2.5.13 @ 12:55PM
Glad to see you like the Bruins, Drack.
spike59| 2.6.13 @ 5:45AM
frank, you can kiss my arse-you're not worthy to lick the sweat off Larry Bird's...you name the body part-CELTICS RULE!!!!!!! i'm guessing you're one of those Lakergirls...you can't POSSIBLY be a Knicks fan, as they don't actually exist, except for Spike Lee-which proves my point
Anthony| 2.5.13 @ 9:34AM
Really now, how do you expect the Muslim Marxist president to speak ill of the Muslim gunmen who killed 12 American soldiers at Fort Hood, when Obozo is contemplating pardoning him for his "crimes", or giving him the Medal of Freedom in a private ceremony, for doing Allah's bidding?
During daily prayers, Obozo gives thanks to Major Hasan, soldier of Allah.
Von Mises Jr| 2.5.13 @ 9:35AM
The rationale of denying terrorism at Fort Hood is consistent with Benghazi (whom DRed thinks was a guy he once dated) and the lack of interest in the two deaths at the Recruiting Office and the Algerian Hostage Crisis death of three additional Americans. This is also why there is no more body count in Afghanistan as we surpass 2,000 dead on Barry's watch.
These could not have happened in a megalomaniacs mind since the egomaniacs have already killed Osama and destroyed Al Qaeda.
These liberal/progressives live in a world of Norman Bates who talks to his dead mother's corpse and murders the pretty young girl for being real.
TLP| 2.5.13 @ 9:38AM
Clap! Clap! Clap! Clap!
Don't say I never gave you anything.
Bill8472| 2.5.13 @ 9:52AM
A dose of clap?
Von Mises Jr| 2.5.13 @ 10:03AM
The clap? I thought the penicillin took care of that?
Bill8472| 2.5.13 @ 10:19AM
Unless it's penicillin-resistant.
Pecos Pete| 2.5.13 @ 9:48AM
If Major Nidal Hasan had been white, non muslim, and named Major Jim Smith, he'd be dead now.
Jack London| 2.5.13 @ 10:05AM
No one has classified Fort Hood as 'workplace violence'. Obama clearly indicated that the effect on the victims was as of war - he said:
"Here, at Fort Hood, we pay tribute to 13 men and women who were not able to escape the horror of war, even in the comfort of home."
It was not terrorism as it's usually defined.
The actual motivations of the shooter will no doubt be explored at trial. But it is unlikely he acted in the same way as the other mass shooters, so to bring him into the current debate, especially while a trial is pending, is unwise.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.5.13 @ 10:36AM
No, this one was reported to the FBI and to the Defense Department, who ignored the obvious signs that the Soldier of Allah was a threat, leading to a mass killing.
Of course, if I understand your legal point, talking about Holmes' motivation before his trial is wise, but to talk about the motivations of the Army officer/ psychiatrist employed by the government at the time he shouted Allahu Akhbar and opened fire at a US military base while all of the victims and the shooter were under the purview of the Commander-in-Chief would be unwise.
Actually, as opposed to all mass shootings not on a federal reservation, at Fort Hood, as commander in chief, this is where he actually had an obligation to provide force protection for the victims, and failed by ignoring the threat that his Major Hassan posed.
Jack London| 2.5.13 @ 11:53AM
I take it you're agreeing that there is an obvious difference between a military event - Hasan is being court martialed - and the civilian events?
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.5.13 @ 12:25PM
It is a bad idea for a President to comment on any case pending trial (by court martial for a person subject to military jurisdiction, or by jury for a person subject to civilian jurisdiction). While the military (by virtue of the President’s status as CinC) trial risks being tainted by command influence, he can also taint a civilian jury pool with his remarks, thereby denying any appropriate venue (as was brought up by the Manson family defense team during the Sharon Tate et al murder trials).
As a lawyer, the President should know that and shut up (which of course is not only good advice to him, but many others who won’t follow it).
Jack London| 2.5.13 @ 12:44PM
As far as I can see Obama has made wholly appropriate remarks about civilian gun control (after the school massacre) and the sacrifice of serving military (after Ft Hood) and has not strayed into any 'tainting'. Of course plenty of others have because we do not have a strict contempt of court law here as other countries do.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.5.13 @ 1:00PM
The Aurora shooter Holmes has a pending trial, that didn't stop Obama from mischaracterizing his monstrous act as a denial of civil rights ("The right to assemble peaceably, that right was denied shoppers in Clackamas, Oregon, and moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado").
Is Hasan's right to a fair court martial ("...to bring him into the current debate, especially while a trial is pending, is unwise...) greater than Holmes' right to a fair trial?
Jack London| 2.5.13 @ 1:52PM
There's no 'mischaracterizing', Albert. The full quote (below) is clearly in the context of the right of citizens to have threats to their lives minimized. It would be hard to say something about gun control without referencing the dead. I'd grant that if you could show there were no dead bodies at Aurora you may have a point though.
"The right to worship freely and safely, that right was denied to Sikhs in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. The right to assemble peaceably, that right was denied shoppers in Clackamas, Oregon, and moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado. That most fundamental set of rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- fundamental rights that were denied to college students at Virginia Tech, and high school students at Columbine, and elementary school students in Newtown, and kids on street corners in Chicago on too frequent a basis to tolerate, and all the families who've never imagined that they'd lose a loved one to a bullet -- those rights are at stake. We're responsible."
Frank Drackman| 2.5.13 @ 2:18PM
Bla Bla Bla, Jeez-us, never use 2 words when you can bore us to death with 200,002....
"Sikhs"?? Did you know "Khan" in "The Wrath of Khan" was a Sikh?
A genetically engineered Sikh, to be sure, and did he have some awesume genetically engineered game with the ladies(I think one of my first jack-offs was to Madelyn Rhue in "Space Seed")
Frank
Jack London| 2.5.13 @ 2:30PM
Frank - you've not stopped jacking off since.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.5.13 @ 4:10PM
"Is Hasan's right to a fair court martial ("...to bring him into the current debate, especially while a trial is pending, is unwise...) greater than Holmes' right to a fair trial?"
I noticed that you haven't answered the question, Jack.
Jack London| 2.5.13 @ 4:30PM
I did - I don't think Obama has said anything prejudicial to a fair trial of Holmes. But if you're asking me if I think our 'system' is set up to maximize fairness I have to say no - the media here is free to publish any trash that could influence a jury before a trial starts and many poorer people suffer from woefully inadequate counsel.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.5.13 @ 4:40PM
I asked if Holmes' right to a fair trial is less than Hasan's right. I can't find your answer to that anywhere.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.5.13 @ 6:17PM
Of course, Jack, to violate someone's civil rights is a violation of federal code, so the government already has 42 US Code Chapter 21 to punish those who do this ( except, of course, that this is the same chapter that the Obama / Holder USDOJ refused to enforce against the Black Panther Party in Philadelphia in 2009 for their 2008 poll intimidation).
I am sure that you are aware that federal law does not contain a statute punishing individuals who by themselves violate the new civil right to shop and go to the movies by killing them, and a statute can't conflict with an amendment provision of the Constitution (such as the 2nd Amendment), so his couching these actions as civil rights violations is a mischaracterization of the law, and reality.
Aaron Goldstein| 2.5.13 @ 12:41PM
The Department of Defense classified Fort Hood as an act of workplace violence in December 2011.
Aaron Goldstein| 2.5.13 @ 12:42PM
The Department of Defense classified Fort Hood as an act of workplace violence in December 2011.
Jack London| 2.5.13 @ 12:46PM
You said that twice but I don't think it's true - can you give a proper source? They did issue a report with a lot of recommendations, including improving the prevention of violence generally in the military workplace.
Occam's Tool| 2.5.13 @ 1:07PM
Have you read the report, London? I have---I had a SPECIFIC personal interest. It was NOT described as an act of Islamic terrorism.
Jack London| 2.5.13 @ 1:58PM
No - so what was it described as? I'm just taking issue with the notion that it has been somehow 'classified' as anything. It was not terrorism though, as that normally does not get applied to military targets, as they are not deemed to be capable of being 'terrorized'.
JD| 2.5.13 @ 2:38PM
Jack, please describe how Ft. Hood is different from other events in such as way as to make it inapplicable to the "gun control" conversation. So far you've only defined the motives of the shooter as potentially different (even that's quite debatable). How does that matter?
You quoted Obama as saying "Here, at Fort Hood, we pay tribute to 13 men and women who were not able to escape the horror of war, even in the comfort of home." You act as though that, in contradiction to all of the official classifications, proves that Obama didn't regard Ft. Hood as workplace violence. Hogwash. Even if you take that quote sincerely, the "horror of war" does not necessarily imply designation as an act of war. It could easily be a mere rhetorical flourish describing the act of being gunned down.
You take plenty of liberties with speech - stretching it in both directions depending on your view of the speaker. That's one of many reasons we conservatives have learned to put little stock in speeches.
Jack London| 2.5.13 @ 2:46PM
I didn't say it was inapplicable to all talk of gun control - but clearly what goes on in military bases, which by definition are run by armed forces, is different from civilian life (and death).
TLP| 2.5.13 @ 3:15PM
It was described as an Act of Workplace Violence by Big Sis, at Homeland Security.
And you know it.
YOU KNOW IT.
So, stop with the Bullsh*t.
Occam's Tool| 2.7.13 @ 5:36PM
Workplace violence.
Occam's Tool| 2.7.13 @ 5:38PM
As I have stated before, I was offered a job at Ft. Hood at Darnell before being offered, and accepting, accepting my current job. Yeah, I track this one closely.
JD| 2.5.13 @ 1:14PM
How does one reason with the Leftist when he denies even the most certain of facts?
But even that is not so absurd as Jack's reason for continuing to claim that Ft. Hood should be left out of the gun control conversation.
TLP| 2.5.13 @ 3:16PM
One doesn't.
That's why SCUMBAG was Reelected.
Aaron Goldstein| 2.5.13 @ 2:12PM
Here's the source:
http://www.defense.gov/news/d2.....llowon.pdf
Pecos Pete| 2.5.13 @ 2:19PM
And now from Communist/Marxist/Village Idiot Jack: crickets
Jive Bomber| 2.5.13 @ 3:22PM
To further avoid his being nothing more than a source of online amusement, Jack would do well to remember the following:
" Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
John Adams
One might argue that it was the DoD and not Obama that addressed the massacre as "workplace violence" Okay, but when did Obama ever call it an act of terrorism?
Jack London| 2.5.13 @ 2:38PM
So - where in that is the 'workplace violence classification'? It does though say 'indicators for violence and radicalization'.
Jive Bomber| 2.5.13 @ 3:30PM
Here's the first item mentioned in the "Final recommendations of the Fort Hood Follow-on review":
"In particular, the Department will strengthen it's policies, programs, and procedures in the following areas:
- Addressing workplace violence"
Jack London| 2.5.13 @ 3:46PM
That's right - it's the start of a list. A bit later they refer to 'radicalization'. Indisputably this is violence that happened in their workplace. What that report does is set out a lot of improvement and prevention measures that could involve what this major did. It does not classify this particular incident as only workplace violence.
CJW| 2.5.13 @ 5:26PM
Commie Jack
What is your opinion why he was shouting Allah Akbar while killing American soldiers? Do you think this gives you a clue to his motivation?
If it is not terrorism as usually defined, then what type of terrorism is it? What do you mean by the terrorism as usually defined?
Pecos Pete| 2.5.13 @ 5:52PM
And now from Communist/Marxist/Village Idiot Jack: crickets
Bill8472| 2.5.13 @ 10:19AM
The Department of Defense, in denying combat-related compensation to the families of the killed and to the injured, has characterized Nadal Hasan's shooting as an incident of "workplace violence." President Obama has not contradicted this characterization.
By interfering with the deployment of troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, and by doing so in a shooting incident that displays many signs of being inspired by Islamic terrorism, Hasan could legitimately be said to have committed an act of Islamic terrorism. Certainly an investigation could have turned up evidence for or against that proposition by now.
Frank Drackman| 2.5.13 @ 2:16PM
I'm as Right Wing as the next guy, but sorry, what Nadal Hassan did wasn't "Combat" unless I've got Alzheimers and missed the United States declaring War on the United States Army.
Because you know, in the"Comba"t I've been involved in(OK, yes, a whole grueling 96 hrs of Desert Storm) the Combatants on both sides carried loaded weapons(I had a whole 30 rounds of 9mm, counted em out and shined em everyday, like Barney Fife)
It was first degree Murder, and Nadal should be put in the general population where he can get the Jeffrey Dahlmer treatment.
Frank
TLP| 2.5.13 @ 3:17PM
Agreed.
spike59| 2.6.13 @ 5:48AM
it's long past time to put the mad dog down
rjh| 2.5.13 @ 10:22AM
"If President Obama really wants to have an honest national conversation about gun violence"...you can stop right there. That is not his goal.
Bill8472| 2.5.13 @ 12:11PM
The conversation that the president and the gun-control crowd want is different from the actual conversation that has been going on for decades.
Actual dialogue:
Gun control types: "We want gun control"
The American public: "No. It doesn't work to solve the issues you say are problematic."
The new dialogue as conceived by the Obama administration:
The gun-control lobby: "Do what we want."
The American public: "Okay."
Michele San Pietro| 2.5.13 @ 11:53AM
There's nothing new about that, it's normal for unreliable people like Obama to only quote what they see fit to quote in their own interest.
Riff Raff| 2.5.13 @ 12:01PM
The notion that Barack 0bama wants to have an "honest national conversation" about ANYTHING is absurd on it face. This is politics, and politics is about promoting the self, elevating and worshiping one's own ego, to the exclusion and detriment of all else. Barack 0bama will never have an honest conversation about anything, and to believe that he would is embarrassingly childish sentimentality. Time to grow up, America. Stop worshiping politicians, who are for the most part, dirt.
Pecos Pete| 2.5.13 @ 5:55PM
Really dirty dirt, and if it rains, really dirty mud.
Bill8472| 2.5.13 @ 12:14PM
The "honesty" of national conversation on guns can be measured by the "honesty" of the national conversation on race called for Eric Holder (as he instructed his subordinates not to prosecute the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation).
TLP| 2.5.13 @ 4:08PM
My Hero.
Louis Jenkins| 2.5.13 @ 1:00PM
Does Obama really care? He is in the last term of his presidency having survived the ultimate decision. So what if we don't like what he is doing or has done about Ft. Hood. So what if we don't like what he is doing about Sandy Hook. So what if gun control, blah, blah, blah. So, and so, and so. It doesn't matter, no longer, no more. Obama, the Muslim, so what? What can we do? We can blather and go poop in the corner, and it doesn't influence him one way or the other. We are in the Age of Obama, and we must endure, revolt if needed, but he is the president for now. Come get them!
TLP| 2.5.13 @ 4:10PM
He has "More Leeway Now" don'tcha know.
PolishKnight| 2.5.13 @ 4:42PM
Looking back, Clinton won a second term and largely was ineffective due to his BS with the Lewinsky case. He lied and lied and lied and then made a fake apology which still loomed over his presidency.
So don't crown Obama just yet.
Obama still has a lousy economy and the doom and gloom looms (love the double o's!) over his presidency. Nobody is excited about Obamacare kicking in. Every day in Obama land sucks even for his supporters. His presidency is one of the few where he has a decent approval rating and yet, his minions are miserable. It's the ultimately chickens-coming-home moment for the left: When they "win" and get their Soviet paradise, it's all gray uniforms and gruel for dinner (nevermind his wife's nutrition policy).
This is the moment of opportunity for crafty conservatives to seize on this, and the left's race and gender politics, and shake things up. But it won't happen as long as the champagne flows at the country club. Let Obama raise taxes on the wealthy even more. Maybe then they'll care.
Pecos Pete| 2.5.13 @ 5:58PM
I'd like to see the reaction of the trust fund babies, Buffetts and Gates if King O went after their asset wealth. Maybe then they'd get the picture.
Petronius| 2.5.13 @ 3:25PM
This piece is pointless. You might as well ask why the Secret Service disarms Our troops every time Obama does a photo op using them as props. Major Hassan shot and killed a squad of White soldiers who wouldn't vote Democrat if they were allowed to vote. Ask them how many were restricted to base so that they couldn't get to the polls on election day.
Marc Jeric| 2.6.13 @ 4:33PM
Almost 3-1/2 years after the jihadist murder of our soldiers at Fort Hood, Mullah Obama is still shielding his brother-in-arms "Major" Hassan of the Allahu Akbar fame. What did you expect our marxist Muslim President from Kenya to do?
wrlord| 2.11.13 @ 9:38AM
It's terrifying that the president speaks of the Bill of rights as protecting us against each other, with enforcement needed from the government. This is a complete perversion. Rights of assembly, of the freedom of religion, etc. are guaranteed against GOVERNMENT interference, not private actors. He's citing the rights of freedom FROM GOVERNMENT as a basis for government interference. That's perverse, and the people are eating it up. Were he the right age, I would suspect he had come up with "arbeit macht frei".