Purple Heart Recipients Reportedly Denied Benefits

12734CSP, by Joshua Kraus, April 10, 2015:

The 47 victims of the Fort Hood, Texas massacre have finally been acknowledged by the Obama Administration as casualties in the global jihad. After a long, bureaucratic and controversial battle between public outcry and the Department of Defense, United States Army, and the Obama Administration, public outcry won.

This outcry culminated in a House Homeland Security Committee letter sent by chairman Michael McCaul, which urged his fellow members to view the ABC News report that contained footage of the attack and narratives of the survivors and to ensure the benefits of the Purple Heart were received by the victims. Former police sergeant Kimberly Munley, who was shot three times during the attack, said during an interview that President Obama, “broke the promise he made to her that the victims would be well taken care of.”

The 2015 federal budget named that National Defense Authorization Act, contained language that declared Fort Hood victims eligible for Purple Heart because the attacks originated from a foreign terrorist organization against whom the United States as a legal Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). Now, despite being awarded the medals, victims are apparently being denied the associated benefits of being combat wounded.

There should be no dispute that those targeted in the attack were facing a hardened jihadist, no different from the ones their comrades have faced in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

A Federal Bureau of Investigation probe into the shooting found that Army Major Nidal Hasan had been in constant communication with Al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki, later killed in a U.S. drone attack.  Emails released by the FBI shows how the former Yemeni AQ leader mentored Nidal Hassan, receiving reports, and blessing terrorist action.

To be blunt, the casualties of the attack on Fort Hood deserve the full rights of U.S. military combatants injured or killed during a time of war, because that is the situation we find ourselves in, a war with no front lines, but a global jihad.

Also see:

They Reject your Motivations, and Substitute Their Own

CSP, by Kyle Shideler:

Congress continues to struggle with Obama Administration officials, from all branches, in an effort to force them in matters of oversight, to merely assert facts that are already well known to everyone.  A good example of this was the recent success of Rep. John Cornyn who was able to get recently appointed FBI Director James Comey to admit that Fort Hood Shooter Nidal Hassan was in fact motivated by Al Qaeda.

This should not have been news at all, since Hassan, a self-declared “Soldier of Allah”, was in direct correspondence with Al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a fact known to the U.S. counterterrorism officials prior to his attack. Yet the administration has continued to insist the matter was one of “work place violence”, not Islamic terrorism.

Assistant Secretary Sarah Sewall at House Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Terrorism Nonproliferation and Trade hearing on Boko Haram.

Assistant Secretary Sarah Sewall at House Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Terrorism Nonproliferation and Trade hearing on Boko Haram.

Yet even going on six years of an administration which introduced the world to the phrase “man-caused disasters,” we’ve not seen as tasteless a display of reality rejection as the one put on by Assistant Secretary Sarah Sewall at House Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Terrorism Nonproliferation and Trade hearing on Boko Haram.

Asked by Rep. Jeff Duncan whether Boko Haram discriminates against Christians, Sewall uttered the jaw-dropping reply:

I wish there was such discrimination in Boko Haram attacks. Boko Haram attacks everyone who is Nigerian. Boko Haram is an equal-opportunity threat for all Nigerian citizens.” (Emphasis added)

This statement, which combines a basic falsehood with disturbing callousness, earned rightful derision by the subcommittee, who pressed forward with additional inquiries, citing facts, including the 25:1 ratio in attacks against churches as opposed to mosques. Sewall began to backpedal:

The question that I was asked was whether there was an official State Department position on the motivations of Boko Haram, which I simply don’t have with me.

It seemed Assistant Secretary Sewall had misplaced her copy of the current truth as issued by the State Department, thus explaining her flailing answer.

While less grating than the tone-deaf reply, it is perhaps more appalling from a policy standpoint that Ms. Sewall thinks it appropriate that the State Department even have an “official position on the motivations of Boko Haram.” The only “position on the motivations of Boko Haram” that matters is Boko Haram’s, based on what they say and do. And they have not been shy on making their feelings known.

Boko Haram leader AbuBakr Shekhau has said, “Nobody can stop us and live in peace, except if you accept Islam and live by sharia law.” A simple statement that is pregnant with meaning. Instead, the State Department’s position is that economic deprivation, corruption, and bad governance by the Nigerian government motivate Boko Haram.

Sadly no. That’s what motivates the State Department’s interactions with the Nigerian government. State  has used every new outrage by Boko Haram to rhetorically flog the Nigerian government for their failings on these issues. And they may be issues on which the Nigerian goverment deserves criticism, but they are irrelevant to the current conflict with Boko Haram, which is a jihadist terrorist organization motivated to impose shariah law.

This administration continues to insist on protecting us from the threats they they wished we faced, and solving problems they wish we had, instead of addressing the threats and problems this nation actually faces.

Unfortunately such distortions of reality will always come crashing down, violently, and at great cost.

Terrorist Killed British Soldier to “Make it to Paradise”

article-2520719-19FB211600000578-362_634x484by IPT News:

A British court Monday heard yet another first-hand statement that jihadist terrorist attacks are motivated by radical Islamic religious beliefs.

Michael Adebolajo is one of the two men charged with hacking British soldier Lee Rigby to death in a brutal, daylight attack in London last May. He testified Monday, telling the court he did kill Rigby.

While Islamist groups and even the United States government argue religion should not be part of the conversation when it comes to terrorist attacks, Adebolajo – a convert to Islam – made it clear it was the driving force behind his actions.

“My religion is everything,” he said. “When I came to Islam I realised that… real success is not just what you can acquire, but really is if you make it to paradise, because then you can relax.”

‘To fight Jihad for the sake of Allah, it’s not something that is to be taken lightly, fun or something like this,” Adebolajo said.

That is consistent with what he said moments after Rigby’s murder. “But we are forced by the Qur’an, in Sura At-Tawba, through many ayah in the Qu’ran, we must fight them as they fight us,” he said, still carrying the meat cleaver, his hands covered in Rigby’s blood.

And it is consistent with what other killers and would-be terrorists have said for years.

Faisal Shahzad’s car bomb parked in Times Square in May 2010 turned out to be a dud. But he told his sentencing judge that he had hoped to fire a salvo in “the war against people who believe in the book of Allah and follow the commandments, so this is a war against Allah … which will only give rise to much awaited Muslim caliphate, which is the only true world order.”

Naser Jason Abdo was caught before he could try to bomb a restaurant popular with personnel from Fort Hood, Texas in July 2011. “The reason is religion, Mom,” he later said in a jailhouse visit with his mother.

Farooque Ahmed scouted Washington, D.C. area Metrorail stops, believing he was helping an al-Qaida terrorist plot.

“There’s an incessant message that is delivered by radical followers of Islam,” his own lawyer told the judge at Ahmed’s sentencing, “that one cannot be true to the faith unless they take action, including violent action, most especially violent action … that is a message that can unfortunately take root in individuals who feel like if they don’t do something, that they literally will not find salvation under their faith.”

Too often, the reaction to such brutality is to say it has nothing to do with the terrorist’s interpretation of Islam.

So whose message should we heed – the bureaucrats and activists promoting a politically correct ideal? Or the individuals who attempt to kill, or succeed in killing people because they believe Islam compels it?

Palestinian Nidal Hasan’s Military Pay Went to Charity: Won’t Disclose What Charity or In What Countries

by :

We are told the Military can’t take back Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan’s salary of almost $300,000 accumulated while he awaited trial – or more accurately, while he delayed trial. His money has been given to charity! We won’t be told what charity. Odd isn’t it?

Woman_Furious_1

We can garnishee the wages of a dead-beat dad and put a lien on someone’s house for unpaid debts. Obama has hired multiple-thousands of IRS agents to take your money to pay for ObamaCare, whether you want it or not, but we cannot regain taxpayer money from the monster killer of our own Military personnel. Hasan will never pay his debt to America. Dying by lethal injection won’t come close. If the “charities” are in Palestine, or if the money went to any Muslim country or Muslim interest anywhere in the world, it should be the last groan in bending to the will of this country’s islamization.

Hasan is Palestinian. His brother Anas, is an attorney in Palestine, where other Hasan family members live. Anas spent a lot of time in the U.S. assisting Hasan’s defense team by trying to devise “mitigating circumstances” for his terrorist brother. If the money from American taxpayers went to any Muslim interests, think Hamas, we should be outraged. After all, we’re really talking about jihad, not workplace violence and we should be outraged.

Read more at Maggie’s Notebook

 

Now That Hasan Trial Is Over, Texas Lawmakers Revive Push to Designate Shooting as Terrorism

fort hood presserPJ Media, By Bridget Johnson:

A trio of Texas Republicans announced legislation this week to declare that the Fort Hood shooting was an act of terrorism, award the victims Purple Hearts, and make the victims and families eligible for special benefits similar to those offered to 9/11 victims.

It’s not the first congressional effort to get such recognition for victims of the 2009 attack, but it’s the first since Nidal Hasan was found guilty and sentenced to death for the massacre.

The Obama administration claimed it couldn’t change the designation from “workplace violence” because Hasan’s trial was still ongoing. Now that trial is over.

“We are a nation at war, and the location in which our men and women in uniform come under hostile fire from a terrorist should not unduly prejudice them and their families from receiving the full honors, recognition and benefits associated with their courageous service,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).  “As a nation, we have a sacred obligation to take care of them.”

“Justice was served when Nidal Hasan was found guilty and handed the death penalty. But justice has not been served for the victims of this horrific shooting. This legislation will ensure the victims of this obvious act of terrorism receive the benefits they not only need, but justly deserve,” Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) said.“We cannot continue allowing the Obama Administration to turn its back on these men and women by failing to admit this was indeed a terrorist attack on American soil. If the administration had properly labeled and managed the Fort Hood shooting from the beginning, this legislation would not be required.”

The third sponsor, Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas), said, “The heinous attack on Fort Hood was a direct attack on the values and ideals our soldiers have sworn to defend. Nidal Hasan, the man who killed 13 and injured 32, said he switched sides in what he called a ‘U.S. war on Islam.’ This was not a disgruntled employee taking his anger out on coworkers, as the Administration would have you believe by labeling this an act of workplace violence. No, this was a terrorist attack meant to harm and kill U.S. soldiers who defend freedom and liberty for all Americans.”

“Because the President has placed more importance on political correctness than upholding his promise to take care of the victims, the victims have been neglected.  This injustice must come to an end, and the Fort Hood Heroes Act is the right thing to do,” Williams continued. “It will restore the benefits, treatment and honor these men and women so rightly deserve.”

The trio announced their bill in Killeen on Monday with shooting survivors in the audience.

The bill also states the U.S. Government has a fundamental duty to our troops to safeguard them against avoidable harm, and the Fort Hood attack could and should have been prevented; the perpetrator, Nidal Hasan, had become radicalized while serving in the U.S. Army and was principally motivated to attack by an ideology of violent Islamist extremism; and Hasan proved himself to be not just a terrorist, but also a traitor and an enemy of the U.S.

Still Nothing to See Here

5422385683_Nidal_Hasan_zpsc697e802

By Mark Steyn:

Earlier today Major Hasan was sentenced to death for the murder of 14 men, women and an unborn baby at Fort Hood. But it remains to be seen whether he will ever actually be put to death, and the unimpressive judge’s decision to ban any evidence relating to motive confirms that the military, like other institutions, retains the same squeamishness about Islamic supremacism that helped enable the attack. What follows is excerpted from my book After America – and remains as valid today as when I wrote it:

Not so long ago I saw a two-panel cartoon: On the left hand panel, “This is your brain”; on the right hand panel, “This is your brain on political correctness” – a small and shriveled thing, but now standard issue.

Here’s a random selection of headlines:

Naval History Web Site Highlights Women’s History Month

Senior Navy Leader Receives Black Engineer of the Year Award

Davede Alexander Receives Diversity Leadership Award

Navy Women in Aviation Show Diversity is Rising

Top Pentagon Official Discovers Model of Diversity at Corona Warfare Center, Says Navy’s Doing Diversity Right

CNRH Seminar Teaches Lessons of Hope And Empowerment

The above were all plucked from the United States Navy newsletter. When the first one showed up in my in-box, I thought it might contain under-reported tales of derring-do off the Horn of Africa battling Somali pirates. But instead it’s one diversity-awareness story after another: “Senior Navy Leader Receives Most Diverse Engineer of the Year Award”; “Appointment Of First Somali Pirate to Joint Chiefs Of Staff Shows Diversity Is Rising, Says Top Pentagon Official”.

Well, you say, look, they’re just doing what they need to do to keep the Congressional oversight crowd off their back; it’s just a bit of window dressing. Hmm. In 2009, thirteen men and women plus an unborn baby were gunned down at Fort Hood by a major in the US Army. Nidal Hasan was the perpetrator, but political correctness was his enabler, every step of the way. Major Hasan couldn’t have been more straightforward about who and what he was. An army psychiatrist, he put “SoA” – ie, “Soldier of Allah” – on his business card. At the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, he was reprimanded for trying to persuade patients to convert to Islam, and fellow pupils objected to his constant “anti-American propaganda”. But, as the Associated Press reported, “a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint.”

This is your brain on political correctness.

As the writer Barry Rubin pointed out, Major Hasan was the first mass murderer in US history to give a PowerPoint presentation outlining the rationale for the crime he was about to commit. And he gave it to a roomful of fellow army psychiatrists and doctors – some of whom glanced queasily at their colleagues, but none of whom actually spoke up. And, when the question of whether then Captain Hasan was, in fact, “psychotic”, the policy committee at Walter Reed Army Medical Center worried “how would it look if we kick out one of the few Muslim residents”.

This is your brain on political correctness.

So instead he got promoted to major and shipped to Fort Hood. And barely had he got to Texas when he started making idle chit-chat praising the jihadist murderer of two soldiers outside a recruitment centre in Little Rock. “This is what Muslims should do, stand up to the aggressors,” Major Hasan told his superior officer, Colonel Terry Lee. “People should strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square.”

In less enlightened times, Colonel Lee would have concluded that, being in favor of the murder of his comrades, Major Hasan was objectively on the side of the enemy. But instead he merely cautioned the major against saying things that might give people the wrong impression. Which is to say, the right impression.

This is your brain on political correctness.

“You need to lock it up, major,” advised the colonel.

But, of course, he didn’t. He could say what he wanted—infidels should have their throats cut, for example. Meanwhile, the only ones who felt any need to “lock it up” were his fellow psychiatrists, his patients, his teachers at the Uniformed Services University, officials at Walter Reed, and the brass at Fort Hood. So they locked it up for years, and 14 people died.

And even when the slaughter had happened, much of the media found it easier to slander both the US military and the general populace than to confront the evidence. Like Nanny Bloomberg, the Homeland Security Secretary Janet Incompetano professed to be most worried about an “anti-Muslim backlash” from the bozo citizenry she had the forlorn task of attempting to hold in check.

As for the army, well, obviously, they’re a bunch of Bush-scarred psychos who could snap at any moment. Newsweek called the mass murder “A Symptom Of A Military On The Brink”:

Read more at Steyn Online

Nidal Hasan Sentenced to Death for Fort Hood Massacre

hasan022way_wide-88df90283234287e998669b18c7529c9884fc8ac-412x350Front Page, By Daniel Greenfield:

That headline looks good, the reality less so. The death penalty in the United States means automatic appeals and infinite appeals. Even if Hasan at some point doesn’t decide that he wants to live at any cost and start helping his lawyers out, the long case won’t be over any time soon.

To their credit, the jurors did their job quickly

The jury deliberated for a little more than two hours.

The system however will drag it out

Hasan could become the first American soldier executed in more than half a century. But because the military justice system requires a lengthy appeals process, years or even decades could pass before he is put to death.

The lead prosecutor assured jurors that Hasan would “never be a martyr” despite his attempt to tie the attack to religion.

“He is a criminal. He is a cold-blooded murderer,” Col. Mike Mulligan said Wednesday in his final plea for a rare military death sentence. “This is not his gift to God. This is his debt to society. This is the cost of his murderous rampage.”

When Hasan began shooting, the troops were standing in long lines to receive immunizations and doctors’ clearance. Thirteen people were killed and more than were 30 wounded. All but one of the dead were soldiers, including a pregnant private who curled on the floor and pleaded for her baby’s life.

So decades. Possibly. Hasan is already 43. He could still very well die in prison. Certainly if he really doesn’t want to live, it’s entirely possible that with his level of disability, he might.

Hasan Akbar, another Hasan, and another Muslim terrorist in the military, was sentenced to death in 2005. Here’s how that  case has been going.

On November 20, 2006, Lieutenant General John Vines, commander of the 18th Airborne Corps, affirmed the death sentence against Akbar. Under an automatic appeal because of the sentence, the case was forwarded to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, which upheld the sentence on July 13, 2012. Afterwards, the case was automatically appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, with a final right of appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Once Akbar’s appeals are exhausted and if his sentence stands, the President of the United States in his role as Commander in Chief would order the execution to take place, which is currently done by lethal injection. Akbar continues to be confined at the United States Disciplinary Barracks awaiting disposition of his sentence.

Good luck getting that order from Obama. It’s misleading to say that Nidal Hasan could be the first soldier executed in some time, because there’s actually a line.

Ronald Gray, a former Army specialist who was sentenced in 1988 after being charged with abducting, raping, sodomizing and murdering an 18-year-old female soldier and a 23-year-old civilian woman, as well as attempting to rape and murder another fellow soldier.

Dwight Loving, a former Army private who, like Hasan, was stationed at Fort Hood when he was sentenced to death in 1989 for the murders of two taxi drivers. He is currently awaiting an appeal despite giving a full confession for the killings on videotape.

How would the country that won WW2 handle this?

On August 8, 1942,  Herbert Hans Haupt was sent to the electric chair. Haupt, a United States citizen, had joined a German raiding party into the United States. The trial of Haupt and his fellow conspirators lasted a month. It was over two months after their capture. Haupt was put to death seven days after the conclusion of his trial.

Too bad that country isn’t around.