Friday, December 9, 2011

Postal Disservice

Obama's Department of Defense (which, apparently, is interested primarily in defending Obama) has now officially declared that the Fort Hood Massacre in which Major Nidal Hassan killed 13 soldiers and wounded 30 more while screaming "Allahu Akbar!" was an incident of "workplace violence" unrelated to terrorism or radical Islam.

Despite the fact that Hassan had been talking openly about his belief that the "infidels" around him should have their heads cut off and boiling oil poured down their throats (as outlined in the Koran), the poor bastard just went postal one day for no reason at all.

Which makes it a bit confusing about why Barack Obama gave the go-ahead to send a hellfire missile up the ass of Hassan's computer pen-pal, American born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. The justification given at the time was that al-Awlaki "
repeatedly called on individuals in the United States and around the globe to kill innocent men, women and children to advance a murderous agenda."

But if he didn't do that when swapping tweets with Nidal Hassan, who did he influence? Or, if his correspondence did cause others to commit acts of terror, how exactly can those acts be differentiated from the Allah-shouting, soldier-murdering "workplace violence" committed by Hassan?

Words mean something - a point which was made quite clearly to al-Awlaki, but which still seems to elude many in Washington who refuse to say things like "terror" or "radical Islam" no matter how high the cost in national security or lives.

And while we're on the subject, honor means something too. And by dismissing the Fort Hood Massacre as nothing more than a bad day at the office, the Obama Administration dishonors not only the dead and fallen of Fort Hood...but every American in uniform who has fought or died in the ongoing, and very real, War on Terror.

Washington would have you believe that this was caused by OSHA violations.


Angry Hoosier Dad said...

Who says Obama can't multitask? He is able to repudiate the existence of murderous Islamo-fascist scum and belittle our military at the same time. You think just anyone could do that?
On the bright side, every time his vile regime spews this kind of crap, more Americans have a WTF moment and begin to see him for the hateful dullard he is. Will that be enough to outvote the Occupy America crowd? We'll see in less than a year.

The Digital Hairshirt said...

Because "Allahu akbar!" is more properly translated as "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

Ricko Tyler, Texas said...

Wow, it just occured to me what BHO and the Boys mean by Shovel Ready. They pass out B/S by the truck load. Thereby providing something that is "shovel ready" and we move it out of the way to get to the truth. Damn, now that's really putting America back to work!

Emmentaler Limburger said...

@Ricko: The undertaker has a "shovel ready" job, too. Ă˜bama (and WDC in general) promote policy that ensure that the undertakers' jobs are secure. As Stilton pointed out in his write up, their politically correct policy bent is costing not only jobs and dignity, but lives as well.

@Stilt: Sorry, though I understand your intent, I find the WTC picture photoshop to be in poor taste. To many, me included, the WTC site is like The Arizona. Let the bastards in and around Washington use it and its imagery as a political football. We can be above that.

Anonymous said...

Calling the Ft. Hood massacre "workplace violence" shouldn't be too surprising considering what happened yesterday during a congressional hearing on Fast & Furious.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner: OK, well, tell me what's the difference between lying and misleading Congress, in this context?

Att. Gen. Eric Holder: Well, if you want to have this legal argu-, conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind...

John the Econ said...

Well, there you have it. There is no such thing as "terrorism", perhaps unless it's perpetrated by conservatives peacefully protesting government overreach and excess. (I learned that from the New York Times)

But I am still confused. After all, didn't Obama recently authorize a missile strike on a "terrorist" who was merely posting Al Qaeda propaganda on the Internet? One wonders exactly what Major Hassan would have had to have done in order to get his crime elevated to qualify as a terrorist act in the eyes of the Obama Administration. Perhaps if he had added in "Long live the Tea Party" that would have made the difference.

Perhaps that explains the new paradigm; to Progressives, words actually are a bigger threat to our well being than actual murder, especially if the victims were mere members of our military.

An aside: Anyone catch Jon Corzine's act in front of the House Agriculture Committee yesterday? (I guess it was in front of the Agriculture Committee instead of some financial oversight committee because they knew there'd be lots of bull$#@! being shoveled about) Where did the $1.2 billion go? "I dunno".

Here's another Democrat making over a billion dollars of other people's money disappear into thin air without a clue. (Notice how the media rarely refers to him as a former Democratic governor? Imagine the uproar if he had been a Republican!) Is he planning on running as the Democrat to replace Obama?

John the Econ said...

As for workplace violence: One thing I'd like to see the GOP candidates take a stand on is a repeal of the 18-year Clinton-era ban on soldiers carrying guns on their own military bases. I can think of several dozen American servicepeople who'd be much better off today without that kind of braindead policy.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Angry Hoosier Dad- I hope incidents like this wake up more Americans, but I doubt that many who aren't already tuned into alternative media will even be aware of it.

@The Digital Hairshirt- I think you may be onto something with that translation.

@Ricko Tyler- Unfortunately, the work (and there's plenty) that the Obama Administration creates by making people dig through BS amounts to unpaid self-employment.

@Emmentaler- Sorry that the picture offends, and you make an excellent point. I'd never use a picture of Ground Zero lightly, nor drag it in as a mere prop in some unrelated argument. But the nature of terror itself is what we're talking about here, and how we label it does make a difference. And to me, the "workplace violence" label didn't only mock the memories of those we lost at Fort Hood, but all victims of terror - including those at Ground Zero. So in my own (admittedly odd) way, it was my intention to honor their memory by showing how wrong it is to be disingenuous about the manner in which they died. So I'm still okay with my decision to run the graphic, but I sincerely apologize to anyone who feels that this crosses a line.

@Anonymous (two above)- "Lying is just a state of mind." Now that "Winning The Future" has been mocked for being reducible to WTF, I think we've found a new campaign slogan for the Obama 2012 campaign.

@John the Econ- It is confusing. Obama authorized a missile strike on the American who was helping do layout on Al-Qaeda's magazine, but we're supposed to ignore the fact that Nidal Hassan shared the same kind of information in a Powerpoint presentation that freaked out his coworkers (who were, therefore, islamaphobes).

Regarding Corzine, it's sort of funny watching the mainstream media trying to deal with the story. A great big banker with a great big problem would usually be raw meat...but he's a prominent democrat who's tight with Obama. Talk about a journalistic dilemma!

My Dog Brewski said...

No dilemma for the media at all. They just have to remember whose zipper they are clutching in their kneeling position and everything becomes clear.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@My Dog Brewski- You've said a mouthful. So to speak.

John the Econ said...


Do not view the following link if you are have just eaten, have no ability to laugh at the absurdity of the age in which we live, or otherwise have a weak constitution. I just saw this on my local tv station following the local news:

"It's a symbol of Liberty, Opportunity, Prosperity, and Hope".

Unless you're one of those Democratic insiders who've directly received "stimulus", on what freekin planet is that the case?

I can think of a good use for these things, but I'm certainly not going to put that in writing.

Emmentaler Limburger said...

@John: I love it! I'm going to get one! I'll bury it up to its neck in the yard and let my dogs see to its watering. Brilliant!

@Stilton: Do you have an admin address through which you can be reached? Ah, hell - I do. Reach me.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@John the Econ- Someday, we can look forward to seeing a 30-foot tall version of this on the national mall.

@Emmentaler- I couldn't find your address when linking through your name. You can reach me at Stilton-at-cutcheese-dot-com (see how I fooled the web spiders there?)

badlarry said...

Re: Obama's "statement"

The last time I saw anybody lay down a line of sh*t that impressive was when my uncle tested out his brand new manure spreader on his farm.

Anonymous said...

I hope this isn't offensive. It is not an opinion. It is a few questions. On that shovel ready jobs thing. Wasn't there a stimulus of 750 billion dollars? What I want to know is; since Obama later said that there were no "shovel ready jobs," "What did he do with the money? Did he put it back?

pryorguy said...

Naw. he gave it to Solyndra!;-)bye bye bucks!!

John the Econ said...

@Anonymous: No, he did not. It was mostly doled out to core Democratic constituencies. For the most part, all we got out of it was interest payments on the better part of a billion dollars.

pryorguy said...

Happy Saturday, fellow an excellent email today, maybe you got it, case you didnt, please go to my site, you'll love it.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@badlarry- Given the chance, I'd vote for your uncle's manure spreader over Obama next year.

@Anonymous (four above)- See John's reply. But of course, no Democrat ever puts money back.

@John the Econ- Think of the money going to Democratic constituencies as a longterm investment: from tiny ACORNs grow mighty socialists.

@pryorguy- I clicked on your name to go to your site, and enjoyed reading about the grey-haired brigade. Good stuff!

Emmentaler Limburger said...

@pryorguy: love the letter - but I must point out that a huge lot of grey-hairs are devout democrats and voted (and likely will continue to vote) for the (D) rather than the "man". Yeah, the young pushed us over the precipice to what became this Ă˜bamanation, but they had a lot of help from all points on the grayscale. And that education for the young we all paid for? It was tax-funded indoctrination from the left, as far as that goes. How could anyone expect any different outcome?

@Stilton: Son-o-ma-gun! My wordpress upgrade done et my "About" page, and with it, my admin address reference! Poop. I'll be in touch through the address you've provided.

Angry Hoosier Dad said...

Don't count out the "young" just yet. Yes, many of them are part of the crowd that elected Turdboy and occupied Wall Street, but many are just like us, even better, as they spend part of their lives (sometimes all of it) defending freedom on distant shores. They do so for the same reasons prior generations did so; because they love this country and recognize that her continued existence must be bought with vigilance, toil, sweat and blood. So many of them look like children to me...some are younger than my daughter. And when I see them I am filled with pride as an American, hope for a better future and prayers that a loving God will help keep them safe.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Emmentaler & pryorguy- Regarding the grey-hairs, there are quite a few who vote Democrat, some of whom do so in the belief that they're protecting their entitlements (which, unlike the young, they've paid for over decades). Last week I got the AARP newsletter ( grandfather! Yeah, that's the ticket!) and there was a big article about Social Security being 100% solvent. They pretended to give the pros and cons of whether or not it's a ponzi scheme, but dismissed the notion because everything is "fully funded until 2036." Really?! Then why did Obama say that the checks wouldn't go out unless the debt ceiling was raised so we could borrow more money? The answer - as AARP knows, but isn't telling its membership - is that Social Security is "fully funded" with IOUs that have no intrinsic value at all. And like everyone else, seniors are going to make bad decisions at the ballot box if they're given distorted and inaccurate information from "trusted" sources.

@Emmentaler- I'll see your son-o-ma-gun and raise you a "WTF?" When I didn't get an email from you, I checked MY account and found out my contact address was forwarding all of my mail into some account that I never check. I found a cache of over 200 old messages that I've had to dig my way out of. The problem is corrected now, and I'll look forward to hearing from you!

@Angry Hoosier Dad- You make a great point. Although I agree with much of what was written in the grey-haired piece, there's a growing resurgence of conservatism in some of the young that I find encouraging. In part it's because the government has run out of time to get away with lies, and we've now got a generation that's being told "you're going to get less and pay more because we decided to steal your money before you were even born" and they don't like it. And they can see for themselves that the benefits promised to their elders were lies told for political gain. So quite a few of them are developing that sense of "rugged individualism and a healthy skepticism about government" that Barack Obama says "doesn't work and has never worked" in the United States or anywhere else.

Hmm, I shouldn't have mentioned that last quote. Now I'm all pissed off again.

pryorguy said...

It is kinda disheartening when almost half of the folks don't pay income taxes, and many many are on the govt dole or are connected to the guv through a union or business...well, we know how they will vote! Sometimes I think something VERY dramatic and drastic must happen before things change in this country..hope I'm wrong. But, human nature being what it is, it's hard to get the candy back from the baby...know what I mean?

John the Econ said...

@pryorguy, that's why I think we need the "Fair Tax". At least then "poor" people will be made to pay taxes will start caring about government excess as we do.

Alternatively, I think your vote should equal what you put on line 60 of your 1040 form. If you aren't paying taxes, you shouldn't get to vote.

pryorguy said...

I'm with ya there, buddy!

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@John the Econ & Pryorguy- I agree. Maybe we could talk the Dems into this by pointing out that "millionaires and billionaires" who want voting power wouldn't be able to claim $0 in taxes anymore (not that I believe there are many who get away with it - but the Dems don't know that).