Questions Regarding the Fort Hood Massacre

Email Print

By now, virtually everyone has read and reread the copious news
accounts of the terrible shooting a few weeks ago at Fort Hood,
Texas. This column will not attempt to add new details to what is
already a highly scrutinized tragedy. However, I do want to pose
three basic questions that, to me, are extremely glaring and, for
the most part, absent from the discussion.

Question 1: Why were the soldiers not armed?

After all, this is a military base; more than that, it is an Army
base that emphasizes the training and equipping of frontline, combat-ready
soldiers. For the most part, these were not clerks or cooks; these
were combat troops. Fort Hood is home to the 1st Cavalry Division
(the largest Division in the Army). Troops stationed at Fort Hood
have engaged the enemy in virtually every hot theater of war to
which American forces have been deployed. In recent conflicts that
means Somalia, Bosnia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Without a
doubt, these are among America’s bravest and best.

So, how is it that these intensely trained, disciplined, rugged,
highly qualified warriors are not allowed to carry their own weapons
on base? This makes about as much sense as the policy forbidding
airline pilots from carrying their own handguns on board commercial
airliners, or teachers not being allowed to carry their own handguns
in the classroom. After all, judges are granted the authority to
carry their own firearms into the courtroom. If we can trust lawyers,
we should be able to trust soldiers, airline pilots, and teachers.

Question 2: If the federal government – including the Department
of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions
of dollars worth of technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks,
and intelligence gatherers; and myriad Patriot Act-type laws –
could not protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly secured
and heavily guarded military installations in America, how can anyone
in the country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when
politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that
they might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons? Or
is it that, because Hasan was a Muslim, the politically correct
nincompoops in charge gave him a pass?

Consider: we have learned that the shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan,
had attempted to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda;
that numerous classmates of Hasan had reported his anti-American
views, which, according to a column written by Dennis Prager, "included
his giving a presentation that justified suicide bombing and telling
classmates that Islamic law trumped the U.S. Constitution";
and that Hasan had a long history of pro-Islamic, anti-American
activity. All of which begs an answer to the question, How could
such an individual not only be allowed in the US military, but also
be allowed to advance to the rank of Major?

I think most of my readers have the answer to this question figured
out: we have an out-of-control, politically correct federal government
that only senses danger from conservatives, libertarians, Christians,
pro-lifers, Tea Party protesters, and anti-UN, anti-IRS, pro-Second
Amendment activists – and supporters of Ron Paul and Chuck
Baldwin, of course. To this politically correct federal leviathan
today, anti-American jihadists, militant Black Panthers, or illegal
aliens who have committed felonious crimes in Mexico pose no risk
to anyone, and must be "understood."

As Prager quotes NPR’s Tom Gjelten: since Hasan had never been
in combat, he must have suffered from "pre-traumatic stress
disorder." No, I’m not kidding. That’s what he said. (I’ll
pause while you pick yourself up off the floor from laughing.)

To the politically correct crowd running things in Washington,
D.C., anyone coming from a socialistic, Big Government, or anti-American
point of view is harmless, and anyone coming from a conservative,
Christian, constitutional, or pro-American point of view is dangerous.
Can one imagine how the mainstream media, federal police agencies,
and the Southern Poverty Law Center would have reacted had Hasan
shouted "Jesus is greatest!" instead of what he really
said, "Allah is greatest!" right before opening fire?

the rest of the article

24, 2009

Chuck Baldwin [send
him mail
] is a talkshow host and pastor. Here
is his website.

Email Print