In spite of the evidence, the President deftly declined to characterize Hasan’s slaughter of 13 soldiers and the maiming of 31 other soldiers as an act of terrorism. Instead, he urged Americans not to jump to the conclusion that Hasan was a terrorist. The President then characterized the slaughter of soldiers, at a military base, the slaughter of soldiers preparing to embark for a war zone as  "an act of violence that would have been heartbreaking had it occurred any place in America…. it's all the more heartbreaking and all the more despicable because of the place where it occurred and the patriots who were its victims."

 However infamously clever at word massage is the President, that he took such meticulous care to excise from his speech the word “terrorist” “soldier” or “military base” reveals perfectly the species of transparency he has given the nation as compared to the transparency he  promised.  Oratorical sleight of hand cannot alter the plain truth that the slaughter or maiming of over forty soldiers embarking from a military base for Afghanistan, soldiers trained for operations in that country, warriors, in fact, set upon war, is not just anywhere— is not just anyone— or any place— or any patriot. The President may not by a tangle of artlessly worked rhetoric rework the truth:  Hasan a traitor and Islamic terrorist, home grown, severely damaged the American war effort, provided aid and comfort to the enemy, to the Taliban as well as other terrorists, and has served up an morbid spectacle of betrayal that will, precisely because it is a betrayal of Americans, be a cause for dancing in the streets wherever Islamic terrorists gather to plot their indiscriminate human slaughter.

 In fact, Hasan, an American soldier, has bestowed upon an implacable American enemy another propaganda victory. Terrorists everywhere will unwind the old refrain of American hatred with new and bloody grist. They will say that America is decadent and weak; that Americans cannot protect their soldiers even in the sanctity of their well-fortified military bases; that American security knew Hasan was a dangerous warrior and  were afraid and so did nothing. Why their very soldiers go about unarmed; and even the American President lacks the fortitude and character to describe what is plain to see. So let it be known to all of Islam that the devout Muslim Hasan, has killed 13 American soldiers and maimed 31.  How can we not prevail against such a nation as this! 

 And so a descent into patent  absurdities, anything, actually, other then to marshal the evidence  and to explore the probability that, in fact, Hasan is a terrorist with as much contempt for innocent human life as the 19 Saudi killers of thousands  who flew jet planes into the Pentagon and the Twin Towers and immolated the lives of thousands of innocent men and women. 

 From the Left not outrage, but  sensitive, drug store psychoanalysis, and an intellectual recital of fairy tales, anything but a discussion of Islamic terrorism. The very word as we all know is forbidden according to the mandate of political correctness. Even to utter it is to be politically incorrect in an Orwellian medium where the President has defined terrorism out of existence by use of the meaningless expression “Overseas Contingency Operation.”  From the Left an evaluation of the evidence is neither necessary nor permitted. Instead, as our President has admonished us, let us look instead to the  root causes of Hasan’s violence, for somewhere in that analysis there must be grounds to blame the murders on American decadence.

 Accordingly, the media’s talking heads inquire in solemn tones, and thoughtful demeanor: could it be that Hasan’s massacre of his unarmed comrades and friends, was the consequence of American racial insensitivity? Is there not  a rumor somewhere that someone, unnamed and unidentified, called Hasan a name offensive to Muslims? Besides which, Hasan could have been suffering from posttraumatic syndrome. After all he probably experienced some frustration when his efforts to buy his way out of his obligations to country and the military came to nothing. Perhaps Americans should conclude as some, throwing up their hands, have irrationally concluded, that  Hasan simply “flipped out,” this a slang expression  used by the  media with all the sounds of gravitas,  an expression that conveys precisely the same quanta of information as the slang term, “Whatever!”

 That the media could seriously suggest that  Hasan’s slaughter of American soldiers was caused by  posttraumatic stress syndrome demonstrates a willful ignorance of the diagnosis and a willingness to work violence on the truth. In fact, there is no evidence whatever to suggest that Hasan was suffering from posttraumatic stress syndrome. The diagnosis, relatively new in Medical literature, requires that the victim be suffering from the A. An actual occurrence of  B. A life threatening event and C. that actually happened in the past. Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) disrupts the functioning of those afflicted by it, interfering with the ability to meet their daily needs and perform the most basic tasks.[1].

Hasan,  however, has never heard a shot fired in anger.  The diagnosis offered in the absence of even the remotest proof wrecks violence on the practice of analysis and debate. In fact, the evidence is undisputed that Hasan, a killer of men, was a cheer leader for those terrorists who kill Americans— or as in Israel, who strap massive explosives to their body and heroically  blow themselves apart in the close presence of school children and their parents.   

While people afflicted with severe cases of posttraumatic stress syndrome are unable to manage the most simple of daily tasks Hasan carefully planned the slaughter of American soldiers. Before the killings, Hasan paid a woman to clean his room. He passed out free Korans. He worshiped at his mosque. He planned the murder of his countrymen with intellectual precision and sound military planning. He perfected a strategy calculated to kill as many American soldiers as possible.  He  carried enough ammunition to kill or wound forty soldiers or more. He decided to carry two semi-automatic handguns, a fact that suggests he took pains to insure that he would be able to kill or maim, as he did kill and maim savagely, a great number of American soldiers. 

 He chose a place where he knew that Americans soldiers unconscionably  were prohibited from carrying weapons. He was apparently a good marksman. He aimed carefully and killed with an easy and  practiced precision. Victims at the scene recall that he fired his weapons steadily and with care. He did not panic. On receiving fire from  Officer Kimberly Munley he efficiently  returned fire, shooting her in the legs.  Finally Sergeant Mike Todd delivered the round that brought him down. Still, Hasan’s plan, carefully and intentionally executed probably exceeded his fondest expectations.

  What then are the facts that prove an act of terrorism,  aside from Hasan’s slaughter of American soldiers embarking to war from a military base, facts the President considers to be gratuitous.  Well,

A.   Hasan  characterized suicide bombers as heroes akin to a soldier who might protect fellow soldiers by jumping on a grenade.

B.   As he started the killing he shouted the  phrase Alu Ackbar or “God is Great” an expression made famous by Muslim terrorists and suicide bombers, everywhere.

C.    Hasan confided to Colonel Terry Lee, a fellow worker that Muslims had a right to rise up and kill Americans, indeed, even as Hasan himself killed 13 soldiers.

D.   The FBI opened an investigation of Hasan six months before the incident. The investigation arose from incendiary statements Hasan posted on a radical website among which that suicide bombers, murderers of Americans and others were as virtuous for their murders as was a soldier who might jump on a grenade to save others.

E.   Hasan’s murder of Americans served the cause of the Taliban and all terrorists who see in the existence of America an opportunity for slaughter. 

F.    His fellow students complained to the faculty about Hasan's "anti-American propaganda," but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal complaint.

G.   U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News. By Richard Esposito, Matthew Cold and Brian Ross Nov. 9, 2009

H.  Hasan… attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother's funeral was held there in May that year.The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organizations.

An objective evaluation of the evidence suggests that Hasan, a Muslim killer of Americans, was motivated by a religiously inspired hatred and bigotry toward Americans that is  precisely the same in its feral ugliness as the religious hatred and bigotry that motivated nineteen Muslim fanatics to hijack planes, fly them into the Pentagon, the Twin Towers and immolate the lives of more than three thousand innocent people.

  It is not all Americans who are jumping to conclusions. It is the “politically correct.” The term sounds almost benign. In fact, it originated during the reign of Stalin, a beast who after Mao Se Tung was the most prolific murderer of the twentieth century. To be politically correct the  Russian citizen was compelled to embrace an image of the world and a construction of the truth precisely as Stalin defined it. Failure to embrace the Stalinesque reality meant death, the gulag, or both.  Political correctness is an intellectual disease calculated to compel people, on pain of ostracism, ridicule, defamation, libel, or worse, to an acceptance of lies and propaganda and a repudiation of any search for the truth. There is no honor or dignity in surrendering capacity to reason, to the dictates of the politically correct, a species of fascism that must have no place in a free country.

 Our soldiers died from an act of terrorism and betrayal just as did the American people at the Twin Towers and at the Pentagon. This act of terrorism happened on the President’s watch. And not all the well tailored words in the English language, not all the most finely tempered prose, however well and eloquently said, will alter or erase, now or ever, the truth of the  infamy at Ft. Hood.

What do you think? 

  In spite of the evidence, the President deftly declined to characterize Hasan’s slaughter of 13 soldiers and the maiming of 31 other soldiers as an act of terrorism. Instead, he urged Americans not to jump to the conclusion that Hasan was a terrorist. The President then characterized the slaughter of soldiers, at a military base, the slaughter of soldiers preparing to embark for a war zone as  "an act of violence that would have been heartbreaking had it occurred any place in America…. it's all the more heartbreaking and all the more despicable because of the place where it occurred and the patriots who were its victims."

 However infamously clever at word massage is the President, that he took such meticulous care to excise from his speech the word “terrorist” “soldier” or “military base” reveals perfectly the species of transparency he has given the nation as compared to the transparency he  promised.  Oratorical sleight of hand cannot alter the plain truth that the slaughter or maiming of over forty soldiers embarking from a military base for Afghanistan, soldiers trained for operations in that country, warriors, in fact, set upon war, is not just anywhere— is not just anyone— or any place— or any patriot. The President may not by a tangle of artlessly worked rhetoric rework the truth:  Hasan a traitor and Islamic terrorist, home grown, severely damaged the American war effort, provided aid and comfort to the enemy, to the Taliban as well as other terrorists, and has served up an morbid spectacle of betrayal that will, precisely because it is a betrayal of Americans, be a cause for dancing in the streets wherever Islamic terrorists gather to plot their indiscriminate human slaughter.

 In fact, Hasan, an American soldier, has bestowed upon an implacable American enemy another propaganda victory. Terrorists everywhere will unwind the old refrain of American hatred with new and bloody grist. They will say that America is decadent and weak; that Americans cannot protect their soldiers even in the sanctity of their well-fortified military bases; that American security knew Hasan was a dangerous warrior and  were afraid and so did nothing. Why their very soldiers go about unarmed; and even the American President lacks the fortitude and character to describe what is plain to see. So let it be known to all of Islam that the devout Muslim Hasan, has killed 13 American soldiers and maimed 31.  How can we not prevail against such a nation as this! 

 And so a descent into patent  absurdities, anything, actually, other then to marshal the evidence  and to explore the probability that, in fact, Hasan is a terrorist with as much contempt for innocent human life as the 19 Saudi killers of thousands  who flew jet planes into the Pentagon and the Twin Towers and immolated the lives of thousands of innocent men and women. 

 From the Left not outrage, but  sensitive, drug store psychoanalysis, and an intellectual recital of fairy tales, anything but a discussion of Islamic terrorism. The very word as we all know is forbidden according to the mandate of political correctness. Even to utter it is to be politically incorrect in an Orwellian medium where the President has defined terrorism out of existence by use of the meaningless expression “Overseas Contingency Operation.”  From the Left an evaluation of the evidence is neither necessary nor permitted. Instead, as our President has admonished us, let us look instead to the  root causes of Hasan’s violence, for somewhere in that analysis there must be grounds to blame the murders on American decadence.

 Accordingly, the media’s talking heads inquire in solemn tones, and thoughtful demeanor: could it be that Hasan’s massacre of his unarmed comrades and friends, was the consequence of American racial insensitivity? Is there not  a rumor somewhere that someone, unnamed and unidentified, called Hasan a name offensive to Muslims? Besides which, Hasan could have been suffering from posttraumatic syndrome. After all he probably experienced some frustration when his efforts to buy his way out of his obligations to country and the military came to nothing. Perhaps Americans should conclude as some, throwing up their hands, have irrationally concluded, that  Hasan simply “flipped out,” this a slang expression  used by the  media with all the sounds of gravitas,  an expression that conveys precisely the same quanta of information as the slang term, “Whatever!”

 That the media could seriously suggest that  Hasan’s slaughter of American soldiers was caused by  posttraumatic stress syndrome demonstrates a willful ignorance of the diagnosis and a willingness to work violence on the truth. In fact, there is no evidence whatever to suggest that Hasan was suffering from posttraumatic stress syndrome. The diagnosis, relatively new in Medical literature, requires that the victim be suffering from the A. An actual occurrence of  B. A life threatening event and C. that actually happened in the past. Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) disrupts the functioning of those afflicted by it, interfering with the ability to meet their daily needs and perform the most basic tasks.[1].

Hasan,  however, has never heard a shot fired in anger.  The diagnosis offered in the absence of even the remotest proof wrecks violence on the practice of analysis and debate. In fact, the evidence is undisputed that Hasan, a killer of men, was a cheer leader for those terrorists who kill Americans— or as in Israel, who strap massive explosives to their body and heroically  blow themselves apart in the close presence of school children and their parents.   

While people afflicted with severe cases of posttraumatic stress syndrome are unable to manage the most simple of daily tasks Hasan carefully planned the slaughter of American soldiers. Before the killings, Hasan paid a woman to clean his room. He passed out free Korans. He worshiped at his mosque. He planned the murder of his countrymen with intellectual precision and sound military planning. He perfected a strategy calculated to kill as many American soldiers as possible.  He  carried enough ammunition to kill or wound forty soldiers or more. He decided to carry two semi-automatic handguns, a fact that suggests he took pains to insure that he would be able to kill or maim, as he did kill and maim savagely, a great number of American soldiers. 

 He chose a place where he knew that Americans soldiers unconscionably  were prohibited from carrying weapons. He was apparently a good marksman. He aimed carefully and killed with an easy and  practiced precision. Victims at the scene recall that he fired his weapons steadily and with care. He did not panic. On receiving fire from  Officer Kimberly Munley he efficiently  returned fire, shooting her in the legs.  Finally Sergeant Mike Todd delivered the round that brought him down. Still, Hasan’s plan, carefully and intentionally executed probably exceeded his fondest expectations.

  What then are the facts that prove an act of terrorism,  aside from Hasan’s slaughter of American soldiers embarking to war from a military base, facts the President considers to be gratuitous.  Well,

A.   Hasan  characterized suicide bombers as heroes akin to a soldier who might protect fellow soldiers by jumping on a grenade.

B.   As he started the killing he shouted the  phrase Alu Ackbar or “God is Great” an expression made famous by Muslim terrorists and suicide bombers, everywhere.

C.    Hasan confided to Colonel Terry Lee, a fellow worker that Muslims had a right to rise up and kill Americans, indeed, even as Hasan himself killed 13 soldiers.

D.   The FBI opened an investigation of Hasan six months before the incident. The investigation arose from incendiary statements Hasan posted on a radical website among which that suicide bombers, murderers of Americans and others were as virtuous for their murders as was a soldier who might jump on a grenade to save others.

E.   Hasan’s murder of Americans served the cause of the Taliban and all terrorists who see in the existence of America an opportunity for slaughter. 

F.    His fellow students complained to the faculty about Hasan's "anti-American propaganda," but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal complaint.

G.   U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News. By Richard Esposito, Matthew Cold and Brian Ross Nov. 9, 2009

H.  Hasan… attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother's funeral was held there in May that year.The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organizations.

An objective evaluation of the evidence suggests that Hasan, a Muslim killer of Americans, was motivated by a religiously inspired hatred and bigotry toward Americans that is  precisely the same in its feral ugliness as the religious hatred and bigotry that motivated nineteen Muslim fanatics to hijack planes, fly them into the Pentagon, the Twin Towers and immolate the lives of more than three thousand innocent people.

  It is not all Americans who are jumping to conclusions. It is the “politically correct.” The term sounds almost benign. In fact, it originated during the reign of Stalin, a beast who after Mao Se Tung was the most prolific murderer of the twentieth century. To be politically correct the  Russian citizen was compelled to embrace an image of the world and a construction of the truth precisely as Stalin defined it. Failure to embrace the Stalinesque reality meant death, the gulag, or both.  Political correctness is an intellectual disease calculated to compel people, on pain of ostracism, ridicule, defamation, libel, or worse, to an acceptance of lies and propaganda and a repudiation of any search for the truth. There is no honor or dignity in surrendering capacity to reason, to the dictates of the politically correct, a species of fascism that must have no place in a free country.

 Our soldiers died from an act of terrorism and betrayal just as did the American people at the Twin Towers and at the Pentagon. This act of terrorism happened on the President’s watch. And not all the well tailored words in the English language, not all the most finely tempered prose, however well and eloquently said, will alter or erase, now or ever, the truth of the  infamy at Ft. Hood.

What do you think? 

  In spite of the evidence, the President deftly declined to characterize Hasan’s slaughter of 13 soldiers and the maiming of 31 other soldiers as an act of terrorism. Instead, he urged Americans not to jump to the conclusion that Hasan was a terrorist. The President then characterized the slaughter of soldiers, at a military base, the slaughter of soldiers preparing to embark for a war zone as  "an act of violence that would have been heartbreaking had it occurred any place in America…. it's all the more heartbreaking and all the more despicable because of the place where it occurred and the patriots who were its victims."

 However infamously clever at word massage is the President, that he took such meticulous care to excise from his speech the word “terrorist” “soldier” or “military base” reveals perfectly the species of transparency he has given the nation as compared to the transparency he  promised.  Oratorical sleight of hand cannot alter the plain truth that the slaughter or maiming of over forty soldiers embarking from a military base for Afghanistan, soldiers trained for operations in that country, warriors, in fact, set upon war, is not just anywhere— is not just anyone— or any place— or any patriot. The President may not by a tangle of artlessly worked rhetoric rework the truth:  Hasan a traitor and Islamic terrorist, home grown, severely damaged the American war effort, provided aid and comfort to the enemy, to the Taliban as well as other terrorists, and has served up an morbid spectacle of betrayal that will, precisely because it is a betrayal of Americans, be a cause for dancing in the streets wherever Islamic terrorists gather to plot their indiscriminate human slaughter.

 In fact, Hasan, an American soldier, has bestowed upon an implacable American enemy another propaganda victory. Terrorists everywhere will unwind the old refrain of American hatred with new and bloody grist. They will say that America is decadent and weak; that Americans cannot protect their soldiers even in the sanctity of their well-fortified military bases; that American security knew Hasan was a dangerous warrior and  were afraid and so did nothing. Why their very soldiers go about unarmed; and even the American President lacks the fortitude and character to describe what is plain to see. So let it be known to all of Islam that the devout Muslim Hasan, has killed 13 American soldiers and maimed 31.  How can we not prevail against such a nation as this! 

 And so a descent into patent  absurdities, anything, actually, other then to marshal the evidence  and to explore the probability that, in fact, Hasan is a terrorist with as much contempt for innocent human life as the 19 Saudi killers of thousands  who flew jet planes into the Pentagon and the Twin Towers and immolated the lives of thousands of innocent men and women. 

 From the Left not outrage, but  sensitive, drug store psychoanalysis, and an intellectual recital of fairy tales, anything but a discussion of Islamic terrorism. The very word as we all know is forbidden according to the mandate of political correctness. Even to utter it is to be politically incorrect in an Orwellian medium where the President has defined terrorism out of existence by use of the meaningless expression “Overseas Contingency Operation.”  From the Left an evaluation of the evidence is neither necessary nor permitted. Instead, as our President has admonished us, let us look instead to the  root causes of Hasan’s violence, for somewhere in that analysis there must be grounds to blame the murders on American decadence.

 Accordingly, the media’s talking heads inquire in solemn tones, and thoughtful demeanor: could it be that Hasan’s massacre of his unarmed comrades and friends, was the consequence of American racial insensitivity? Is there not  a rumor somewhere that someone, unnamed and unidentified, called Hasan a name offensive to Muslims? Besides which, Hasan could have been suffering from posttraumatic syndrome. After all he probably experienced some frustration when his efforts to buy his way out of his obligations to country and the military came to nothing. Perhaps Americans should conclude as some, throwing up their hands, have irrationally concluded, that  Hasan simply “flipped out,” this a slang expression  used by the  media with all the sounds of gravitas,  an expression that conveys precisely the same quanta of information as the slang term, “Whatever!”

 That the media could seriously suggest that  Hasan’s slaughter of American soldiers was caused by  posttraumatic stress syndrome demonstrates a willful ignorance of the diagnosis and a willingness to work violence on the truth. In fact, there is no evidence whatever to suggest that Hasan was suffering from posttraumatic stress syndrome. The diagnosis, relatively new in Medical literature, requires that the victim be suffering from the A. An actual occurrence of  B. A life threatening event and C. that actually happened in the past. Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) disrupts the functioning of those afflicted by it, interfering with the ability to meet their daily needs and perform the most basic tasks.[1].

Hasan,  however, has never heard a shot fired in anger.  The diagnosis offered in the absence of even the remotest proof wrecks violence on the practice of analysis and debate. In fact, the evidence is undisputed that Hasan, a killer of men, was a cheer leader for those terrorists who kill Americans— or as in Israel, who strap massive explosives to their body and heroically  blow themselves apart in the close presence of school children and their parents.   

While people afflicted with severe cases of posttraumatic stress syndrome are unable to manage the most simple of daily tasks Hasan carefully planned the slaughter of American soldiers. Before the killings, Hasan paid a woman to clean his room. He passed out free Korans. He worshiped at his mosque. He planned the murder of his countrymen with intellectual precision and sound military planning. He perfected a strategy calculated to kill as many American soldiers as possible.  He  carried enough ammunition to kill or wound forty soldiers or more. He decided to carry two semi-automatic handguns, a fact that suggests he took pains to insure that he would be able to kill or maim, as he did kill and maim savagely, a great number of American soldiers. 

 He chose a place where he knew that Americans soldiers unconscionably  were prohibited from carrying weapons. He was apparently a good marksman. He aimed carefully and killed with an easy and  practiced precision. Victims at the scene recall that he fired his weapons steadily and with care. He did not panic. On receiving fire from  Officer Kimberly Munley he efficiently  returned fire, shooting her in the legs.  Finally Sergeant Mike Todd delivered the round that brought him down. Still, Hasan’s plan, carefully and intentionally executed probably exceeded his fondest expectations.

  What then are the facts that prove an act of terrorism,  aside from Hasan’s slaughter of American soldiers embarking to war from a military base, facts the President considers to be gratuitous.  Well,

A.   Hasan  characterized suicide bombers as heroes akin to a soldier who might protect fellow soldiers by jumping on a grenade.

B.   As he started the killing he shouted the  phrase Alu Ackbar or “God is Great” an expression made famous by Muslim terrorists and suicide bombers, everywhere.

C.    Hasan confided to Colonel Terry Lee, a fellow worker that Muslims had a right to rise up and kill Americans, indeed, even as Hasan himself killed 13 soldiers.

D.   The FBI opened an investigation of Hasan six months before the incident. The investigation arose from incendiary statements Hasan posted on a radical website among which that suicide bombers, murderers of Americans and others were as virtuous for their murders as was a soldier who might jump on a grenade to save others.

E.   Hasan’s murder of Americans served the cause of the Taliban and all terrorists who see in the existence of America an opportunity for slaughter. 

F.    His fellow students complained to the faculty about Hasan's "anti-American propaganda," but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal complaint.

G.   U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News. By Richard Esposito, Matthew Cold and Brian Ross Nov. 9, 2009

H.  Hasan… attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother's funeral was held there in May that year.The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organizations.

An objective evaluation of the evidence suggests that Hasan, a Muslim killer of Americans, was motivated by a religiously inspired hatred and bigotry toward Americans that is  precisely the same in its feral ugliness as the religious hatred and bigotry that motivated nineteen Muslim fanatics to hijack planes, fly them into the Pentagon, the Twin Towers and immolate the lives of more than three thousand innocent people.

  It is not all Americans who are jumping to conclusions. It is the “politically correct.” The term sounds almost benign. In fact, it originated during the reign of Stalin, a beast who after Mao Se Tung was the most prolific murderer of the twentieth century. To be politically correct the  Russian citizen was compelled to embrace an image of the world and a construction of the truth precisely as Stalin defined it. Failure to embrace the Stalinesque reality meant death, the gulag, or both.  Political correctness is an intellectual disease calculated to compel people, on pain of ostracism, ridicule, defamation, libel, or worse, to an acceptance of lies and propaganda and a repudiation of any search for the truth. There is no honor or dignity in surrendering capacity to reason, to the dictates of the politically correct, a species of fascism that must have no place in a free country.

 Our soldiers died from an act of terrorism and betrayal just as did the American people at the Twin Towers and at the Pentagon. This act of terrorism happened on the President’s watch. And not all the well tailored words in the English language, not all the most finely tempered prose, however well and eloquently said, will alter or erase, now or ever, the truth of the  infamy at Ft. Hood.

What do you think? 

THE DEFICIT PIT

By Robert Harkins

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Ecclesiastes 1:9 

In 400 B.C., Aristophanes, in a mockery of Athens’ ruination of its currency, wrote this poem in his play, The Frogs.

    I’ll tell you what I think about the way

This city treats her soundest men today

By a coincidence more sad than funny,

Its more the way we treat our money.

The noble silver drachma

That of old we were so proud of

And the recent gold coins that rang true

Clean-stamped

And worth their weight throughout the world

Have ceased to circulate

Instead the purses of Athenian shoppers

Are full of shoddy silver-plated copper

In 70 A.D. Flavius Vespasianus, continued the debasement of the Roman dinarius. The Empire was broke and as Vespasianus could not safely squeeze more tribute from vassals or taxes from Roman citizens he embarked upon other means, as old as civilization itself, the debasement of Rome’s currency, or to say it plainly, imperial theft. Rome paid its obligations to the citizen and soldier with silver Dinarius, once worth its weight in silver. When profligate consumption, and the cost of welfare (bread and circuses), bellicosity and war exceeded Vespasianus’ take in tribute and taxes, Rome paid its debts to citizen and soldier with a silver dinarius insidiously alloyed with copper. Because the Romans were not nearly as ignorant as the Emperor thought them to be, the price of all goods and services rose inversely to the quantity of copper worked into the Dinarius.

From the onset of the Caesars, from Caesar Augustus in the first century to Diocletion in the third century, the denarius lost 95% of its value through debasement. Ultimately, the continuous debasement of the Dinarius impoverished the Roman people, fatally compromised Rome’s national security, created despair and cynicism among its citizens, and contributed to the fall of Rome in the fifth century.  Rome did not simply fall; first, its emperors drove it broke. Byzantium, the last citadel of ancient Rome survived. However, Byzantium too debased its coin, the Solidus by thinning extremely the once hefty gold coin. In the years before Byzantium’s collapse, the solidus was minted so thin that it could be bent in half in the fingers of one hand.  

Today, the members of the Federal Reserve decree—with an authority as potent and unchallenged as the imperial authority of a Vespassian, or a Caligula— that the dollar shall be worth precisely what they say it is worth, no more and no less. Anne Nelson, in her new book, Red Orchestra, describes the consequence of Germany’s intentional debasement of its mark, a practice identical to Federal Reserve policy today in its technological debasement of the dollar. 

By 1923, Germany had entered its infamous phase of hyperinflation. The government’s presses ran overtime printing worthless bills, and the value of German currency sank to over four trillions marks. Millions of citizens lost their life savings. Pensions accumulated by workers through decades of struggle, vanished overnight, along with their trust in middle-class values of diligence and thrift.

The German government’s printing of worthless marks worked an even greater tragedy than middle class impoverishment. Hyperinflation created a feeling of hopelessness,  desperation and fear, a sense of betrayal and cynicism, and in too many  an anger that would make them susceptible to the tortuous National Socialist propaganda that Germany’s defeat in World War I, was caused by Jews who “stabbed Germany in the back”.

Still, the idea that the economic destruction of the middle-class was caused by the German government’s plan to pay off an unconscionable war debt by the printing of worthless marks was nearly unthinkable.  After all, Germany, notwithstanding the war, existed at the very pinnacle of modern European civilization. Germany was a leader in the sciences, in music, poetry, literature and philosophy. Germany was civilized.  It simply could not be that the German leadership would betray and sacrifice its middle class by a means so sordid as the theft of its citizens’ life savings, retirements earned over decades of faithful service, and the purchasing power of its remaining marks, all this, by running the presses until the mark was worthless.

In his book End The Fed, Congressman Ron Paul marshals irrefutable evidence that past administrations and in particular, the current Administration, have used the Federal Reserve to cast Americans into a pit of national debt so deep that now, the insidious confiscation of American wealth— by oppressive taxation and the imposition of incalculable deficits including billions upon billions in payment of deficit interest— may well make of the national debt, a permanent, exhausting and obscene fixture of the American economy.

While it would be unfair to place the blame entirely on the present Administration, it is also true that in his first ten months of office the President and his party have incurred a debt that dwarfs the total of national debt incurred since the Founders met in Philadelphia in 1787  to draft an American Constitution. Included in this count are debts incurred from two world wars, a Korean and Vietnam war and a burgeoning welfare state that exists because there is a Federal Reserve to debase the dollar and a “progressive” ideology willing to use the police power to confiscate against their will the wealth of American citizens.

Today, however precarious is the existence of middle class wealth, the Administration nevertheless has pledged itself to a new and perilous path to social utopia. The Federal Reserve need not debase the currency with base metals. Now, simply by the stroking of a computer, the Federal Reserve, unchecked by congressional authority, may increase the money supply, immediately diminish the worth of every dollar, eliminate payment of interest on middle class savings, buy time to service the debt, put in place another bubble, and finally, avoid for a little while America’s day of reckoning.

Americans, therefore, have reached the precipice. The question is whether the President’s proposed cure for a recession caused by bald political and ideological corruption, a consequent housing bubble, bloated, blue-sky securities and financial collapse is worse than the disease.  The critical question, of course, is what measures must be immediately taken to reduce the conflagration of national debt? But the question is not asked. The issue is not debated. Steps have not been and  will not be taken. There is no plan whatever to slow or stop the American citizens’ descent into the pit.  Instead, Americans are told by an Administration that has promised transcendent and purifying change, that trillion dollar deficits will and must continue for decades, or in other words, to a time long after this Administration has strut its bleak hour upon the stage of American government, and passed mercifully into a well deserved obscurity. 

Americans are told that if the deficit is to be reduced, they must dig themselves deeper into the pit. They are told that the only means to deal with the debt is to spend trillions of newly minted dollars on a “stimulus package” and perhaps a second “stimulus package”, that they must pay hard cash so that others may purchase new automobiles, all this,  so that unemployment will not exceed 8 percent, and  to guarantee that the government  will “create or save” three and a half million jobs. 

Well, Americans have heard the promises and seen the results. It is this same Administration that promises solvency in return for a decade of trillion dollar deficits. Of course, the Administration will also raise income taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes, fines, penalties, a Health Care Mandate, and by its imposition of additional Medicaid costs upon the states, insure that the states will also impose punitive income taxes on Americans. 

Americans are assured that while every government scheme to provide free medical care to the masses, Medicare, the Medicare Supplement Plan, Medicaid and the Massachusetts Plan, are now pitifully bankrupt, and rife with fraud and waste in the billions, Americans are once again assured— that by the infusion of trillions of debased dollars into the economy over the course of a decade or more— Americans will at last ascend from the deficit pit.  They will— by the mindless embracement of repetitious oratorical platitudes and the addition of base metals to the American coin— become again an affluent society.

The question should be asked: how will these trillions in debt be paid? What federal programs will be trashed? What sacrifice  and austerities will government impose on itself? What taxes will it forgo? Will it substantially reduce federal salaries so that they are equal to the salaries that taxpayers earn? Will it abolish the yearly $350 billion dollars in taxes it will squeeze out of the private sector in the name of Cap and Trade? To these questions alas, elegance fails and only crude words are capable of telling the raw truth. Here finally and at last, as it is revealed to Americans, in deficits and sophistry, in plain and transparent mendacity,  is the change promised in 2008.

Still it is good that we Americans will finally learn something about imperial theft: as did Athens during the life of Aristophanes when they discovered their drachmas were “…full of shoddy silver-plated copper;” as did the Romans when they too discovered that their pure silver dinarius was corrupt with worthless copper; as did the citizens of Byzantium when paid in a solidus minted so thin they could bend it in the fingers of one hand; and finally as did the German people when confronted with the truth that the national impoverishment of the German people was a cornerstone of German government policy.

Well Americans, whither the dollar?

And what is to be done?

This Administration has promised Americans something new.

But there is nothing new under the sun.

What do you think?