Fort Hood Shooter Set for Court-Martial; Renounces Citizenship and Criticizes Democracy

November 5, 2009: U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan opens fire at Fort Hood, Texas. At the end of the massacre, thirteen soldiers were dead with 30 more people wounded. A fourteenth victim was claimed that day as one of the slain soldiers was pregnant.

Hasan's court-martial is slated to begin Tuesday, August 6. In statements released to foxnews.com by his attorney, John Galligan, Hasan renounces the citizenship of the country whose armed services he served in and gives the world a glimpse into his islamic beliefs.

From foxnews.com:

Foxnews.com on Thursday posted what it said were writings released by Hasan through his attorney for civil issues, John Galligan. They include one handwritten note dated Oct. 18, 2012, in which Hasan renounces his American citizenship.

Another undated, typewritten note says it isn't "permissible" for someone to prefer American democracy over traditional Islamic sharia law. Hasan says Muslims should not "compromise their beliefs" for the sake of non-Muslims.

The Associated Press received confirmation from Galligan that he did, in fact, provide the statements to foxnews.com.

If there's any question about Maj. Hasan's ideology, one only has to look to the support he received from Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical imam and senior recruiter for al-Qaeda. You know this guy was trouble when Obama placed him on a list of people whom the CIA was authorized to kill because of terrorist activities.

Following the shootings, al-Awlaki posted on a now-defunct website:

Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.... Any decent Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow Muslims, and yet serve as a US soldier. The U.S. is leading the war against terrorism which in reality is a war against Islam...."

When thousands of innocent Americans are killed (3,000 in one day) because of a disdain for Western culture, you better believe war is coming. And al-Awlaki is now room temperature because of that hatred for any country supporting freedom from sharia law.

I hope they coated the warhead of the Hellfire missle that killed him with bacon grease before releasing it.

 

Sharia Law: License to Abuse

WARNING: The video in this post has very graphic images. Please DO NOT watch it with children around. Thank You.

Since a cloudless, sunny day in September of 2001, Americans have been told not to stereotype or "profile" muslims because of the acts committed by 19 jihadis on that day. We have also been told that there is nothing to fear. Really?

Let me say that I am a SURVIVOR of domestic abuse (I refuse to be a "victim"). My now ex-husband of 16 years destroyed every bit of psyche and self-esteem without raising a finger. Phrases like "You're ugly.", "You're stupid.", and "If you loved me you would ___________ ." (fill the blank in with anything) left me with no choice but to get out before I put a bullet in my head.

 Even after the divorce, I was raped by him through the court system and lost primary physical custody of my daughter. I don't drink or do drugs, but his need for control became evident when I decided to move to the next county. Not the next state or halfway across the country, but the NEXT COUNTY. He and his family hired a very expensive attorney while I was pro se. Needless to say, things have never been the same, and my heart breaks every time I have to return her to that monster.

My experiences with this man are miniscule in scale when compared to what many women in today's world face. I didn't have to live in fear of being dragged from my house and stoned or beaten to death because someone thought I wasn't being obedient, but many women in muslim countries do. They are prisoners within their society. Who speaks for them? I haven't heard much from Amnesty International or the UN. Pamela Geller is the one person I know of who is rabid about speaking out on behalf of these women. While I'm no Pamela Geller, I hope to give some voice to these innocents.

Sharia law in America is something that has been considered as a part of the multicultural melting pot that is this great land. Do we really want court rulings based on the thinking of a bunch of troglodytes? It, in effect, would negate any Constitutional rights of women and give men license to abuse. Is that what our politcally-correct society has come to? Are we going to stand by and allow women to be killed in the name of tolerance for other religions? I, for one, will not submit.

For those who think that this doesn't happen or only happens on a small scale, please watch the following video and ask yourselves "Would I tolerate my mother being treated this way?"

President Institutes Mandatory HIV/AIDS Testing

Have you ever engaged in behaviors that would put you at risk of contracting the HIV virus? Shared a dirty needle with someone? Have anal sex? No? Well, get ready to be screened for HIV anyway as part of Obama's Affordable Health Care Act.

Yasmeen Abutaleb, writing for Reuters, has published an article that asserts just such a scenario. Under the guise of wanting to stem the "epidemic" of HIV/AIDS in the U.S., our president issued an executive order mandating that all 15 to 65 year old citizens be screened for HIV whether said citizens are at risk or not. And the person responsible for drawing up a plan to force you to be tested? None other than Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (image right). You know, the one person who refused to grant permission for 10-year-old Sarah Murnaghan to receive an adult lung in a transplant that would save the little girl's life. After a court ruling, Sarah received her transplant.

From American Thinker:

The order said a working group chaired by Grant Colfax, director of the Office of National AIDS Policy, and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would have 180 days to deliver recommendations to the president. (emphasis added -- b&g)

First of all, is there truly an HIV epidemic? Medical advances have been made in the treatment of HIV since the 1980's, and education has helped prevent more cases. While it is a tragedy to those who are diagnosed, I'm not sure that the numbers rise to the "epidemic" level. I would argue that the rate of autism in this country HAS risen to epidemic levels (1 in every 88 children), yet not one word from 1600. Is that because autistic children can't vote yet the gay and HIV advocates can? Just saying....

Second, where is the outcry from those who claim to defend everyone's civil liberties? The ACLU should be on this intrusion into the lives of ordinary people like flies on roadkill. The involuntary medical testing of every citizen is a dream Josef Mengele never got to see. Anyone who still believes in the Constitution should be outraged, yet many will forgo their freedom once again for "the greater good" as they believe. If you give up one liberty, you may as well give them all away. 

 No matter what your political views are, no one should be allowing the government to use its citizens as lab rats. Period.

If they want my blood for testing, they can have it when I'm on the coroner's table.

IRS "Accidently" Posts Thousands of Social Security Numbers

In recent memory, has there been a more incompetent agency within the government than the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)? Many Americans today are quick to respond with "Absolutely not!" as yet another scandal is looming on the horizon.

The IRS was exposed in past months for their shenanigans in targeting conservative groups as part of a political group of thugs hellbent on making sure no one questions their authority. The responsibility for that mess has been passed around like a joint at a Grateful Dead concert with no one willing to be honest for once and admit their culpability. Having been used as a political weapon, the agency seems content to be the scapegoat for those high up in power.

Today, there seems to be yet another instance of the ineptitude of those presently in charge of collecting taxes and, in the future, in charge of making sure the rules of Obamarxcare are followed. The IRS has once again committed a serious faux pas by posting "tens of thousands" of Social Security numbers on their own website, according to nationaljournal.com.

From the article:

" The identifying numbers were on the Internet for less than 24 hours after being discovered, but the damage was done. And unfortunately, the data-breach concerns some of the most sensitive types of transactions: Those made by nonprofit political groups known as 527s."

527 tax-exempt status is generally given to groups who engage in political activities and who gather most of their funds from unlimited "soft money" sources such as individuals who donate to a certain  group furthering an agenda the donor wishes to support. Many unions and social activist groups are certified as 527. For a list of the top 50 federally-focused groups, click here. I'm sure you'll find a lot of familiar faces on that list.

In a society where the knowledge of someone's Social Security number can be used to wreak financial havoc on an unwitting victim, many Americans have gone the extra mile to make sure that their critical information is safe. Yet, the IRS seems to care very little about anyone's privacy or the repercussions that could potentially follow. And when the fecal matter hits the fan, there will be plenty of blame to pass on to the schmuck in the next cubicle.

As long as the current administration can keep pitting the societal classes against one another, you can bet your bottom dollar that stories like this will continue to be heard. We are on a very dangerous and slippery slope, folks.

The time to charge the IRS under the RICO statutes is long overdue.

Secretary of State John Kerry: Sailing....Takes Me Away.....

(image source: The Boston Herald)

Egyptians crying for a government not run by radical muslim extremists rose up and successfully ousted Mohammed Morsi on Wednesday after much clashing with the muslim Brotherhood. During all of the violence, U.S. Secretary of State, former Senator and failed presidential candidate John Kerry, was enjoying some down time on his private yacht.

The State Department confirmed on Friday that during Wednesday's uprising in Egypt, Secretary Kerry was on his yacht. According to The Blaze, the State Department was forced on Friday to fess up to Kerry's whereabouts during the strife after The Boston Herald released pictures of Kerry having a little fun in the sun.

“While he was briefly on his boat on Wednesday, Secretary Kerry worked around the clock all day including participating in the president’s meeting with his national security council,” spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.

Ms. Psaki, as Secretary of State, shouldn't Mr. Kerry have been oh, I don't know, IN WASHINGTON MONITORING THE SITUATION???? He is, after all, the person in charge of forging the relationships this country has with others around the globe. The situation in Egypt seemed to fall into the "pretty damned important" category if you ask me.

Reports from the State Department had earlier denied that Secretary Kerry was on his boat during the rebellion. Psaki had previously stated:

Since his plane touched down in Washington at 4 a.m., Secretary Kerry was working all day and on the phone dealing with the crisis in Egypt.

He participated in the White House meeting with the president by secure phone and was and is in non-stop contact with foreign leaders, and his senior team in Washington and Cairo. Any report or tweet that he was on a boat is completely inaccurate. (Emphasis added at The Blaze)

Darn those pictures revealing the truth.

The question that I cannot seem to find an answer for is "Why is John Kerry Secretary of State?" The man has talked about his disdain for the U.S. after returning home from Vietnam and, allegedly, thrown away the medals he received while serving there. In my opinion, his relationship with Hanoi Jane speaks volumes. And the left has the nerve to call Edward Snowden a traitor???

Kerry's title should be changed to an honest "Secretary of Apologizing for America's Superiority". It appears to be what he does best.

Caught in the Crossfire: Coptic Christians in Egypt

With all of the news surrounding the protests and violence in Egypt, I sat here wondering what I could report about that hasn't really been covered very much of late. Front and center, of course, is the clashing of those who do not want to live in a theocracy run by the muslim Brotherhood and those who support the inauguration of Sharia Law into the Egyptian government. I then thought to myself "What about the Coptic Christians (Copts) living in a war zone?". They seem to have been forgotten in all the chaos.

Coptic Christians comprise approximately 10% of the Egyptian population. The largest Christian group in the Middle East,  most practice the teachings of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria with some 800,000 split between the Coptic Catholic and Coptic Protestant denominations.

In an interview with National Review Online, Raymond Ibrahim, an author and the American son of Egyptian parents, gives a chilling account regarding the treatment of Copts in Egypt since the removal of Mubarak and the installation of the muslim Brotherhood (and Obama)-backed Mohamed Morsi. Violence against Christians in the muslim world is nothing new, but the attacks have allegedly been ramped up since the shift of power in February of 2011.

On April 7 of this year, St. Mark's Coptic Orthodox Cathedral in Cairo (image right), home of Coptic Pope Tawadoros (Theodoros II), was attacked by men armed with guns, machetes, and rocks. Seven Copts were killed and 84 injured. Among the injured were 11 police officers. So much for the religion of peace.

Ibrahim's interview also told the tale of two CHILDREN targeted by muslims for their family's faith in Jesus Christ.  The stories, as told by Raymond Ibrahim, are as follows:

• Cyril Yusuf Sa'ad: "He was a six-year-old Coptic Christian boy who was abducted and held for ransom. Muslim abductions of Christians is an increasingly common practice, not just in Egypt, but in Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, etc. (as I show in Crucified Again). The boy was eventually killed in late May. According to the Arabic language report, the boy’s “family is in tatters after paying 30,000 pounds to the abductor, who still killed the innocent child and threw his body into the toilet of his home, where the body, swollen and moldy, was exhumed.” 
• Agape Essam Girgis: "She is a 14-year-old Coptic girl who, on her way to school accompanied by a Muslim social worker and two teachers — one of whom was a Salafi [an offshoot of Sunni muslims -- B&G] — never returned. She was drugged and awakened to find herself in a secluded place with an elderly woman and Salafis who tried to convert her to Islam, forced her to wear the full hijab, and beat her. She was eventually released — she’s actually one of the few lucky Coptic girls who made it back home (one recent study states that well over 500 Coptic girls have been abducted, raped, seduced, blackmailed, etc., in the last few years)."

 In the days shortly following the 9/11 attacks on America, citizens of this country were told not to rush to judgment and paint all muslims with a broad brush. Yet, in the years since, some of the most gruesome acts of violence in the world have been committed by those who have declared war on
anyone who doesn't adhere to their strict belief system. Does the name Daniel Pearl (image left) ring a bell?

Westerners (especially Americans) are told that we need to be tolerant of those who practice the muslim faith. Where has that tolerance been reciprocated? Has the sacred city of Mecca been opened up to non-muslims? Last time I heard, no.

The most sickening point in all of this is how our current administration (and, to some degree, past administrations) has backed a group who believes that this behavior is perfectly acceptable. How many people will have to be martyred in the name of Christ before someone realizes that these are crimes against humanity and vow to prosecute the perpetrators? I am ashamed that the leaders of the country I love have chosen to endorse evil.

Please continue to pray for the safety of those who are caught in the crossfire of a very ugly power struggle. May the Copts and the muslims who cry for freedom from oppression under Sharia Law be held safe in God's hands.

[Editor's Note: Grammar Nazis will be quick to point out that I do not capitalize the word "muslim". I do this on purpose as a sign of defiance to a religion whose vast majority would want to see me dead for having male friends -- B & G] 

The Enumerated Powers Act: Has the Time Come?

This week, the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and kicked California's Proposition 8, defining "marriage" as between one man and one woman, back down to the lower courts. Many DOMA opponents have celebrated while some supporters have seen this as a minor setback in their quest to have the word "marriage" ultimately defined.

The most troubling aspect of this ruling for me isn't whether or not SCOTUS ruled correctly in a social sense, but was the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution just tossed out the window?

Amendment Ten of the United States Constitution reads as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (Emphasis added)

In other words, the powers of governance not specifically outlined within the Constitution as being reserved for the federal government are given to individual states and the citizens within the borders of those states.

The Founding Fathers, I believe, could not have seen the massive power-grab in Washington that we have witnessed in recent years. That is why they sought to explicitly outline what matters the federal government has jurisdiction over. Unfortunately, the bastardization of their intentions has resulted in the feds legislating not only from Capitol Hill but giving powers to the federal courts to legislate from the bench.

Thirteen states have legalized same-sex marriage as of 2013, with many states having bans on same-sex marriage based on either state statute or state constitution. Has this week's SCOTUS ruling put those bans in danger in direct violation of the Tenth Amendment? It could be argued that the bans in effect in those states with prohibitions of same-sex marriage are unconsitutional with the precedent being this week's ruling as citation. Would that not take away the rights given to the states and their people to invoke sovereignty under the the Tenth Amendment in matters not related to the federal government?

Legislation has been proposed within the House of Representatives in the past that would require Congress to specify exactly which enumerated power they are invoking when considering enacting any law. The Enumerated Powers Act (EPA) was introduced in January of 2009 by Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) in an effort to keep the feds from overreaching their power concerning states and their citizens. When Congress doesn't agree with a law passed within a state's legislature and approved by the citizens, they wrest control from the states and enact federal legislation overturning the wishes of the states and citizens. How does that NOT violate the Tenth Amendment?

 In the workplace, there are rules specifically outlined to ensure that employees stay within the confines of what the company expects. Violate those rules, and you are asked to explain your actions. Asking Congress to cite what authority they have under the Constitution to pass a certain piece of legislation is not unreasonable. It would leave a lot less ambiguity for SCOTUS to sort out in the court system and keep a lot of matters that should be left to the states out of the federal courts
.

The EPA is an idea whose time is, in my opinion, overdue. Unfortunately, Congress will never require themselves to stay within the specific powers given under the Constitution.

Walmart, Sears Nix Deals With Paula Deen

Anyone looking for cookware on clearance needs only to go as far as their local Walmart or Sears. Both companies announced that they will no longer be carrying Paula Deen cookware over her past use of a racial slur some 30 years ago. Also jumping the Deen ship are Home Depot, JC Penney, Novo Nordisk, and Caesars Entertainment Corporation. This is not looking good for Paula as she, according to CNN Money online, has hired a professional crisis-management firm.

While I'm not familiar with the official stance of Sears, I am familiar with the official stance of Walmart. Giving only a blanket statement that stores will only carry the once must-have item du jour among those who care about having the latest of everything until the product is sold out, everyone knows why Paula and companies have parted ways.

In the past few days, a co-worker of mine who works in that department has had customers say, "You mean you're still going to carry her product after what she said?" The answer was that until told otherwise, yes. Well, otherwise came. Product availability is limited to the current stock and any orders already placed. No future orders will be processed.

Maybe it's just me, but isn't the bottom line in business turning a profit? A lot of people are ready to boycott any store that carries her products, but there are many people who really don't give a rat's behind about the whole debacle and just want quality products at a reasonable price. Do you cave to the boycott crowd or sell the product and make some money? As one who believes in free market capitalism, I know what I would do. But that's just me.

The media didn't get this wound up over Martha Stewart's crimes. She was only convicted of insider trading. Now had she used a racial slur...

No one can predict just how far this train is going to run before FINALLY pulling into the station, but you can rest assured that the vilification is far from over.

Paula Deen, The Left, and the "N" Word

First off, let me premise this post with this caveat: I DO NOT condone the use of the "N" word by anyone regardless of color. I believe that when one is relegated to the use of said word, they have, more often than not, run out of intelligent responses to a debate and fall back on Neanderthal tactics. Just my opinion.

Earlier this week, Paula Deen, the Southern belle with the nasally voice who touted Southern cuisine, was fired from The Food Network for her past use of that ugly word. Reports today are that Smithfield Pork, who had hired Deen as a spokesman, has pooped in Paula's grits and is in the market for someone to take over endorsements.

Deen admitted having used the one word that will bring blood to an instant boil in the past. While I would expect something more from a seemingly intelligent business woman, my question is simple: Why are some past mistakes completely excoriated by the left and put into the "unforgivable" category while others are not?

During the murder trial of O.J. Simpson, Mark Fuhrman, a detective with the LAPD, was severely discredited in his testimony because he had, in the past, used the racial slur. O.J. "I won't stop looking for the real killer." Simpson walked. Evidently, the perpetrator of those crimes was on a golf course somewhere because O.J. played a LOT of golf shortly thereafter. Why was the past use of the "n" word by Fuhrman so relevant to the testimony of the facts of the case at hand?

Those who agree with the liberal template of utopia seem to get a pass. Many rap records have used the same word as have many black youth to each other with no repercussions. Why? I mean, if it's wrong for one person to use it, wouldn't common sense dictate that it's wrong across the board?

Liberals are so quick to ostracize anyone who violates their code of conduct. Former U.S. Senator Trent Lott was pressured to step down due to his remarks of the late Strom Thurmond's failed presidential candidacy. Thurmond, an old Southern Dixiecrat who was elected to Congress during segregation, served 48 years in Congress. Yet, the late Robert Byrd, a senator from West Virginia, was held up as a pillar of the Democratic Party for many years despite Byrd's tenure as a member and high-ranking official within his local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan. I guess when you have a "D" after your name, the libs can forgive anything.

Liberal forgiveness doesn't extend only to matters concerning race. For many years, the liberal mindset has been that child molesters in prison can be rehabilitated and deserve a second chance. They have implored that released sex offenders not have the crimes they were convicted of held against them when reentering society. I submit that the second chance those scumbags get is to do the very thing that landed them in jail to begin with. Yet, those who claim to have everyone's civil rights at heart can't get past someone else's past transgressions when those sins offend the left. Can yinz say "hypocrisy"? I knew ya could.

Forgiveness is a matter left to the transgressor and their higher power, whatever that may be. For many, including myself, the words "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." ring true, and, as long as Paula and God are squared away, that's all that matters.

Hey libs!! The past is gone and it ain't coming back. Examine your own past mistakes and be thankful that someone was willing to forgive you before passing judgment. We all make mistakes and strive to move forward. Can yinz? *crickets*

What About the Madrasas, Mr. President?

Well, there he goes again. Dear Mr. Obama has once again put his metatarsals firmly between his molars during a recent trip to Belfast, Northern Ireland. Who's surprised by this?? Not moi.

According to Newsmax.com, our president called for an end to Catholic schools in a country with a history of religious fighting citing:

 "If towns remain divided, if Catholics have their schools and buildings, and Protestants have theirs, if we can't see ourselves in one another, if fear or resentment are allowed to harden, that encourages division. It discourages cooperation."

In other words, Mr. Obama has concluded that the Catholic Church is "divisive" by maintaining schools for the education of those who choose to send their children for an education within the private sector instead of a public system that has to answer to government. I submit that school vouchers would afford many more people the option, but that is a subject for another day.

While an argument can be made on both sides either for or against the Catholic Church and their educational system, why hasn't he called the many madrasas (islamic schools or seminaries) around the world as divisive? After all, their mission is to provide an education with an emphasis on islam. How is that not divisive under your definition, Mr. President? Is it because you attended a madrasa as a child living in Indonesia? Inquiring minds are curious.

 

Didn't anyone screen this comment before his speech? I mean, common sense dictates that you don't go into Northern Ireland and blame one side for all of the violence that occurred over many years. It is insensitivity at its finest.

 

Mr. President, the only education you seem to approve of is one similar to yours under Frank Marshall Davis and Bill Ayers.