Ralph Peters' "Fort Hood's 9/11" And The Mounting Evidence That A Terrorist Attack Took Place

Ralph Peters wrote a strong piece in the New York Post that makes clear that the tragedy at Fort Hood was a terrorist attack.

This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it’s an act of terror. Period.

When the terrorist posts anti-American hate-speech on the Web; apparently praises suicide bombers and uses his own name; loudly criticizes US policies; argues (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his military patients over the worth of their sacrifices; refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; lists his nationality as "Palestinian" in a Muslim spouse-matching program, and parades around central Texas in a fundamentalist playsuit — well, it only seems fair to call this terrorist an "Islamist terrorist."

But the president won’t. Despite his promise to get to all the facts. Because there’s no such thing as "Islamist terrorism" in ObamaWorld.

And the Army won’t. Because its senior leaders are so sick with political correctness that pandering to America-haters is safer than calling terrorism "terrorism."

And the media won’t. Because they have more interest in the shooter than in our troops — despite their crocodile tears.

It has been truly disgraceful watching and listening while excuses and justifications are made for this piece of human refuse, Nadal Malik Hasan. This vile subhuman has made it clear he is an enemy of the United States while drawing a paycheck from its taxpayers and maintaining employment despite an ever-growing list of "red flags" that should have resulted in this murderer's expulsion from the military. Some of his actions prior to the killings were deserving of criminal investigation.

Political correctness is an epidemic that kills. Hasan maintained his position because no one wanted to be seen as an anti-Muslim bigot. Speaking for myself, I would much rather be called a bigot while protecting the lives of fellow Americans than kick the can down the road in the name of diversity and allow the "diverse" killer to murder American soldiers. Those who knew of Hasan's vitriol towards America and heard his incendiary language while staying silent should be held responsible for these deaths.

It seems that every hour more information is coming to light. Hasan was involved with a radical cleric who is tied to al Qaeda and U.S. intelligence officials knew about it.

Major Hasan’s 10 to 20 messages to Anwar al-Awlaki, once a spiritual leader at a mosque in suburban Virginia where Major Hasan worshiped, indicate that the troubled military psychiatrist came to the attention of the authorities long before last Thursday’s shooting rampage at Fort Hood, but that the authorities left him in his post.

“There was no indication that Major Hasan was planning an imminent attack
at all, or that he was directed to do anything,” one senior investigator said. He and the other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying the case was under investigation.

Whether or not Hasan announced his plans to commit mass murder or not is immaterial. If individuals in the U.S. military are involved with radical Islamists and expressing sympathy for suicide bombers, they need to be removed from the armed forces. There is an ocean of difference between an individual disagreeing with government policy and actively supporting our enemies. Should the United States have inducted Nazis into the World War II marines? Maybe we should have allowed Viet Cong to camp out at Fort Bragg.

The mealy-mouthed reaction to Hasan's lunatic rantings begs the question, "how many more Islamist would-be murderers are in the U.S. military?" If Muslim soldiers are involved with radical mosques and openly endorsing jihad against the American infidels they should be removed or imprisoned. I doubt that patriotic Muslims would disagree with such a policy. They are as endangered by the semi-human extremists as are we "infidels."

Congressman Mike Pence Defends Freedom In The Face Of The Marxist Health Care Takeover

Indiana Congressman Mike Pence defines the stakes in the fight against the Democrats' attempt at a hostile takeover of the American health care industry.



Folks, it ain't over. The fat lady ain't even warming up, but the Statist/Marxist/Progressive Democrats have moved an inch closer to the totalitarianism that their leadership desires. The passage of the Pelosi version of ObamaCare should wake up Americans to this violent attack on individual liberty.

Now, two things must happen. First, intensify the fight against ObamaCare in the Senate. There are already nervous Democrats in the Senate and it is highly unlikely Harry Reid can muster 60 votes to prevent a filibuster. Can 10 Democrats be convinced to uphold their oath of office? Maybe. However, forcing Harry Reid to employ procedural shenanigans to pass this monstrosity will add to the pressure on Dems in 2010. Call your Senators. Email your Senators. Even if the Senate version passes, it is different than the House bill. A conference bill will still have to be put together, meaning that House members will have to cast another vote. That means Real American has more time to makes its voices heard.

Secondly, keep an eye on November, 2010. Democrats who voted to strip American citizens of individual liberty in health care matters and who risk destroying jobs and economic growth in order to carry out a Marxist ideology must pay a price at the ballot box. The Leftist health care and cap-and-trade bills are attacks on the Constitution and the American people. The perps must pay with the loss of their jobs.

This is no time to rest in Real America. The fight is only beginning. Our future and our children's futures depend on our willingness to fight the traitors and tyrants in our midst.

Arizona Congressman John Shadegg Offers Common Sense Health Care Reform Alternatives

Democrats seem to believe that a lie becomes a fact if repeated often enough. The lie that has been at the heart of the Leftist Democrats' defense of their hostile takeover of the American health care system goes something like this: "Well, if Republicans had any ideas we would listen, but they just want the status quo." President Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama has repeated the Big Lie ad nauseum as he plots his unconstitutional usurpation.

Today's Wall Street Journal features an op-ed by Arizona congressman John Shadegg is which the dedicated defender of the Constitution clearly refutes the Big Lie. First, Shadegg defines the problem:

It is true that many Americans cannot find affordable health coverage. However, it is the government-imposed barriers that make coverage expensive, especially for the working poor in America. Fixing these problems would cost the taxpayer absolutely nothing, yet congressional Democrats refuse to consider these no-cost solutions.

The already high cost of insurance is often increased by excessive state regulations. States have passed more than 1,800 benefit mandates, requiring insurance companies to cover services from hair prostheses (wigs) to infertility treatments to acupuncturists to massage therapists. These state mandates raise the cost of insurance, which, in turn, increases the number of Americans who are priced out of the health-insurance market.

You may be thinking, what if I don't need a hair prosthesis or infertility treatments? Tough luck. Instead of having a choice in coverage you do need, you'll likely be paying for health insurance at an exorbitant cost to cover things you may never use or desire.

Contrary to what the Statists would like you to think, Big Government has been at the heart of the problem. The high costs in health care are not a function of the free market. They are largely the result of over-regulation. The Leftist Democrat solution? Let's have even more regulation and interference. Shadegg proposes a different path:

The solution: Allow American families to purchase health coverage across state lines. According to a study by the University of Minnesota, 12 million more Americans would be able to buy coverage if this simple solution were enacted into law.

Another no-cost solution? Give Americans the option to take the cash their employer uses to purchase health care and let them buy a plan on their own. If they are happy with their current plan, let them keep it. If not, let them take their business elsewhere and buy their own health coverage. This would force the insurance industry to innovate and control costs, or face losing
business to companies that do.

Americans should also be able to purchase their health insurance on the same tax-advantaged basis as their employers. If your employer purchased health insurance on your behalf today, he would be able to do so with pre-tax dollars. However, in today's market, if you go it alone, you won't get any tax incentive to purchase your own health care. This would be a simple remedy to our still antiquated tax code, which favors big government and punishes individuals.

Allowing insurance portability and fixing the tax code is just a cost-savings start. How about enacting restrictions on runaway medical malpractice litigation such as pre-litigation review panels and loser-pay provisions for frivolous suits? Making any one of these changes to our health-care system wouldn't cost taxpayers a single cent and could save us billions over the long
term.

These ideas considered separately or enacted together will reduce costs for those who have health-insurance coverage and enable others to afford it. The savings could be used to fund high-risk pools for individuals with pre-existing conditions, and to provide tax credits and vouchers so no American goes without basic health coverage.

Conservatives have pushed many of these ideas for years with Democrats fighting tooth-and-nail against any reform that doesn't give government greater power over our lives. The ideas presented by Congressman Shadegg (none are new--Conservatives have talked about these for years) would reduce health care costs and enable more Americans to be able to purchase their own policies. One additional reform not mentioned in Shadegg's essay is to allow small businesses, members of organizations and other groups to create pools that could help spread the risk and lower costs.

But rather than consider these common sense proposals, congressional Democrats are insisting we push through a new trillion-dollar government controlled scheme.

Proponents of ObamaCare can't cite one shred of evidence that giving politicians and Washington bureaucrats more power and control will produce better quality health care or lower costs. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office admitted it has had no time to study exactly how much the bill will increase premiums for average Americans—something it routinely does for health-care legislation that is moving through Congress.

Does anyone believe the billions in new taxes as well as hundreds of pages of new rules and regulations being proposed will lower the cost of health care in America? But not knowing how much this will harm families didn't stop Congress from advancing one of the most sweeping pieces of legislation our nation has ever seen. That's scary and irresponsible.

Why aren't we trying, or even debating, these no-cost solutions that insert choice into the health-care reform equation? Before Congress acts and passes an expensive, untested, new health-care system, the American people need to be heard.

The answer is simple. Power and ideology. Government solutions, even if they solve nothing, make the state more powerful. The Democrat Party is now dominated by Marxists who, despite all evidence to the contrary, believe that only the state can deliver the services needed by a people. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and their fellow travelers are extremists and they will stop at nothing to control every aspect of how you and I live. After all, the government always knows best.

Sarah Palin is "Going Rogue" In Roanoke on November 22

Put it on your calendar (from The Roanoke Times)...

Palin book tour to include Nov. 22 stop in Roanoke

Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin plans to swing through Roanoke to tout her new book.

By Katelyn Polantz

Sarah Palin will visit the Barnes & Noble bookstore at Valley View Mall Nov. 22 as part of the promotional tour for her book "Going Rogue: An American Life."

The former Republican vice presidential candidate's appearance will be at noon, a HarperCollins spokeswoman said. She didn't know if Palin would appear along with her family members, who traveled with her on the campaign trail last year.

To handle the expected crowds, the Valley View store will hand out wristbands to fans at 6 a.m., said Deanna Lemburg, Barnes & Noble's regional community relations
manager.

Palin's last visit to the Roanoke Valley, for a presidential campaign rally in October 2008, drew a crowd estimated at 16,000 to Salem Stadium. Since then, her celebrity status hasn't diminished: "Going Rogue" has an announced first printing of 1.5 million copies and has been at or near the top of Amazon.com's best-seller list for weeks.

The book, which "imparts Palin’s vision of a way forward for America," the publisher says, will go on sale Nov. 17.

My advice: get there early! The Palin campaign rally in Roanoke was a madhouse and Sarahcuda is as popular as ever. She is a strong, accomplished, intelligent woman who has run businesses, run governments and raised a family. She is the true embodiment of real feminism. But, since she isn't a Marxist or radical opponent of traditional culture she is hated by Big Media, Big Entertainment and so-called "liberals." You see, women should only speak if they are Democrats and believe in the state as the center of all activity.

It Is A Great Day to Be A Conservative

The Conservative Republican sweep in Virginia and the GOP win over Jon Corzine in New Jersey made November 3 a turning point in the political fortunes of Conservatism in America. Not the Republican Party per se, but Conservatism. The three Virginia winners are all solid Conservatives and even Chris Christy in New Jersey is solidly Conservative on most issues.

This was also the first referendum on the Obama/Pelosi/Reid version of "hope and change." Big Media will attempt to downplay this fact, but it is inescapable. The Tea Party movement and the summer town halls all played a role in Tuesday's outcomes. These were votes for responsible government, not taxes, bailouts, and handouts.

Big Media will point to the Democrat win in the upstate New York congressional race as proof that Conservatism has been marginalized. The truth is just the opposite. Disgraced GOP nominee DeeDee Scazzafalla's endorsement of the Democrat candidate exposed the so-called "moderate" for what she and her ilk are: trojan horses who are simply misaligned Leftists. Conservative leaders across the country, for the most part, showed that they would support an independent over a RINO. No more Arlen Specters or Olympia Snowes. Doug Hoffman's loss was the result of party in-fighting and those who felt that outside forces influenced Scazzafalla's withdrawal. In the long run, Conservatives have shown that they must provide an alternative not an echo.

In one year, the entire House of Representatives and approximately one-third of the Senate will be up for re-election. What will happen? November 3, 2009 may well have been the preview for Election Night, 2010.

Alonzo Rachel Must-See-PajamasTV: "Damn, It Feels Good To Be A Victim"

This video speaks for itself. Great stuff from Alonzo Rachel at PajamasTV.

PJTV Video: "Victicrat: "Damn It Feels Good To Be A Victim" http://www.pjtv.com/v/2619

Gun Shot Hits Lou Dobbs' House; Who's to Blame? Obama? Pelosi? Olberman? SPLC?

From the Associated Press via My Way News:

Oct 29, 7:11 PM (ET)

WANTAGE, N.J. (AP) - Police in New Jersey are trying to determine who fired a bullet that struck CNN commentator Lou Dobbs' home as his wife stood nearby. State police Sgt. Stephen Jones says Dobbs' wife and driver were outside the home Oct. 5 when they heard the gunshot. Jones says the bullet didn't penetrate the siding and fell to the ground outside.

Dobbs mentioned the bullet earlier this week on CNN and his radio show.

Dobbs says he had been receiving threatening phone calls for weeks. On his radio show, he connected the gunshot to his advocacy for a crackdown on illegal immigration and to his opponents' rhetoric.

The home is on a farm in Wantage, about 50 miles northwest of New York City.

It is small-game hunting season, but no hunters were seen in the area.

Why isn't this story the lead on every newscast? Why isn't it a headline in every newspaper? A couple of months back, Big Media and Leftist Democrats were apoplectic claiming that Tea Party Patriots and others who protested at town meetings were a threat to their safety. All of the angry verbal exchanges made them fear for their physical security. But, were any of those folks targeted by violent attacks? No.

Now, a radio and television commentator whose views are hard to pigeonhole but who is certainly on the conservative end of the spectrum is the victim of a drive-by shooting. His wife was close enough that she hit the ground. The Dobbs house was struck by the bullet. Do you think this could be linked to Statist?Leftist pundits and politicians who marginalize people like Dobbs and accuse them of racism over political disagreements? Could the responsibility be laid at the door of the Southern Poverty Law Center which has turned from being an information center focused on the KKK, Skinheads and Neo-Nazis to just another Leftist advocacy group that accuses mainstream Conservatives of hate speech over issues such as illegal immigration (the SPLC supports the law breakers in this case)? Could we possibly say that a White House that accuses every political opponent of ill will and ulterior motives is responsible for this sort of violence?

I pray that Lou Dobbs and his wife will face no more attacks and will be able to go about their daily business. Was this the act of a nut acting of his own volition or someone who felt the President, the press or their Congressman had declared folks like Dobbs to be fair targets? Has lumping legitimate political thought (you know, the things the Founders believed in) into the same category as Neo-Nazi rants legitimized such violence in the minds of some? Something tells me Big Media won't ask these questions.