National Debt Tied with Terrorism as the Greatest Perceived Threat to our Future Well-Being

We found this gem at the bottom of Dr. Coburn's email very telling:

Just The Facts: A 2008 review by the Internal Revenue Service found that an estimated 100,000 federal employees were delinquent on their federal taxes, for a total of nearly $1 billion in back taxes. If you include federal retirees and the military, the amount jumps to $3 billion.

That is a pretty telling paragraph -- people involved with the Federal Government don't worry about their taxes. There has to be a better way than the Tax Code we have today. Just look at how many tax laws are added each year and then changed again. A simplified tax structure would help cut down unnecessary paperwork and would be more fair to everyone.

Great to see the American people waking up to what is happening in Congress and the White House with runaway spending. Every time we turn around Obama is promising more money overseas when we are running such a huge deficit. He doesn't care as he takes on a road to bankruptcy as long as he gets to do what he wants.

We could save a lot if Obama would be grounded and not be able to use Air Force One to take a trip to a state like Ohio where he was on the ground 59 minutes and gave a 12 minute speech at a cost estimate of $500,000 to $1,000,000. Then we learn that his wife and daughters are vacationing in California on our nickle. Who keeps track of the White House budget or did the Democrats in Congress give him unlimited funds to spend what he wants? That is also something not going over well with the American people.

In fact, most people I talk to in person, on the phone, or on line have frankly had it with Obama, Pelosi, and Reid treating the United States Treasury like their piggy bank to spend at will. Pelosi and Hoyer have no intention of even doing a budget resolution this year in defiance of the Budget Law from 1974. Are they afraid the American people will see their runaway spending and what they have added to the deficit before the election?

This email from Dr. Tom Coburn brings good news and as Republicans we need to drive home that the runaway spending and adding to the deficit has to stop as the Federal Government needs to go on a diet from spending money they don't have. We need to support Senators Thune, DeMint, and Coburn in their efforts to reign in federal spending by sending more Republicans to the Senate like Marco Rubio, Sharron Angle, Mike Lee, and other Conservative Republican Senate candidates who are being elected in primaries this summer.

Dear Sharon,

A recent poll indicated that the national debt is tied with terrorism as the greatest perceived threat to our future well-being. In the Gallup poll to survey the concerns of Americans, 79 percent of Americans now rank the national debt as an extremely serious or serious concern.

Twice as many Americans rate government debt as an extremely serious concern as those concerned with the environment and global warming.

View Poll Here

It should not be surprising to see terrorism listed as a major concern for most Americans, as it has been for the past nine years. The threat posed by our enemies is immediate and it must be met with absolute American strength. The fact that concerns over mounting government debt now match concerns regarding terrorism is telling, and frankly, gives me some hope that we can end the spending addiction in Washington before it is too late.

This poll confirms something that you and I already know. When given the facts about the mismanagement of our federal government, our neighbors, friends and family instantly recognize the threat and understand that reckless spending is not just innocent child’s play by our political leaders. It is malpractice that threatens each and every one of us.

This week, Senators Thune, DeMint and I continue to challenge a plan by Senate leaders to pass an “extenders” bill that will add billions more to our deficit. I have offered 20 specific amendments that will ensure that not a single dime is added to our $1.6 trillion budget deficit for 2010.

Frankly, it is unlikely the Senate will accept my cost cutting and government efficiency amendments. True change, the kind that will interrupt our current path to insolvency, will come when the voice of the American people—fully armed with the facts—is heard in Washington. If you would like to see how senators vote on cost cutting amendments as they are debated, you can track them here.

The Gallup poll is proof that we are making a difference that will soon be heard in Washington. The majority of Americans now know the threat posed by reckless spending. Now, it is our job to make sure that our friends and neighbors get to the polls on Election Day.

Thank you for your efforts to inform your friends and neighbors, and as always, keep fighting!

Dr. Tom

P.S. If you’re interested in volunteering for the 2010 election, click here. Your efforts will make a difference on Election Day.

In The News “If You Can't Budget, You Can't Govern”"...the House is likely to pass a "functional equivalent" measure that leaves out inconvenient budget numbers - most notably an annual operating deficit averaging around $1 trillion over the next five to 10 years." Read more.

GOP fires back: White House did not tell us about reading Abdulmutallab his rights

Where did Obama find such intept people to place in his Administration? For John Brennen to say Republicans knew was stretching it a lot. Guess Republicans now have to become mind readers as well when dealing with this Administration so they know what they meant to say.

Brennan calls the Ranking Republican on Intelligence and doesn't tell him about mirandizing Abdulmulttallab which might lead to the assumption he didn't tell the Democrat Chairman of House Intelligence either. Did he?

We live in dangerous times that seem to be getting more dangerous by the day with the inept group of people in the White House on intelligence. First they cannot connect the dots and then Brennan comes out with his weasel worded statement that you are left with asking what is he saying. Making intelligence calls on an unsecure cell phone on this important breach of security brings more worry they don't have a clue.

GOP fires back: White House did not tell us about reading Abdulmutallab his rights
By: Byron YorkChief Political Correspondent02/07/10 2:24 PM EST

Republican lawmakers are denying a charge made by top White House counterterrorism official John Brennan that they were briefed about -- and did not object to -- the decision to offer full American constitutional rights to accused Detroit bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

On "Meet the Press," Brennan said that on Christmas night, just hours after Abdulmutallab tried to blow up Northwest Airlines flight 253, Brennan called GOP Senators Mitch McConnell and Christopher Bond, as well as Republican Representatives John Boehner and Peter Hoekstra, and told them that Abdulmutallab was in FBI custody. "None of those individuals raised any concerns with me at that point," Brennan said. "They didn't say, Is he going into military custody? Is he going to be Mirandized?"

Each of the lawmakers strongly denies Brennan's account. A spokesman for McConnell says, "During a brief call from the White House, Sen. McConnell was given a heads up that Abdulmutallab was in custody, but little else. He wasn’t told of the decision to Mirandize Abdulmutallab."

A spokesman for Boehner says, "On an unclassified/non-secure call to Boehner's cell phone that was very short, John Brennan informed Boehner that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was in custody. The call imparted no other substantive information and Brennan did not inform Boehner that the administration had read Abdulmutallab his Miranda rights." And Bond released a statement saying that Brennan "never told me any of plans to Mirandize the Christmas Day bomber -- if he had I would told him the administration was making a mistake."

In a conversation Sunday afternoon, Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, angrily denied Brennan's statement. The possibility of Mirandizing Abdulmutallab "never came up" in a call that Hoekstra describes as a "quick update." Hoekstra recalls Brennan calling between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Christmas, which would have been before Abdulmutallab was informed of his rights. "I think I talked to Brennan before they did it," Hoekstra says. "He could have told me that, and asked me what I felt about it -- but he didn't."

Hoekstra says if Brennan had brought up the subject of Miranda rights, then he, Hoekstra, would have discussed the issue with legal counsel from the Intelligence Committee. "If Brennan had called and said, 'Congressman, we're contemplating a legal strategy here,'" Hoekstra says, "the first thing I would have done is call up…my legal counsel and some other people and said, 'Hey, is this a sound strategy or not?' It never came up."

All the lawmakers describe Brennan's call as being very short; one recalls it as less than a minute. And all describe it as a heads-up, and not a briefing or an exchange of views.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: Washington Examiner

Obama Failures on National Security and Terrorism

Do you feel safer today from terrorists then you did in 2008? Any person who answers 'yes' to that question is not facing reality.

It should be abundently clear by now that Obama and his Administration do not want to deal with terrorists and prefer to call them 'enemy combatants' as well as trying them in Federal Court instead of by a military tribunal. What is an 'enemy combatant' compared to a terrorist? Nicer name for 'Islamic terrorists' is one answer. Getting more obvious that Obama does not want to admit that the terrorism threat against Americans in this Country is real and increasing.

We would have lost over 300 people on Christmas Day if the bomber had been able to activate his bomb, but would the Obama administration have called it a fuel tank catastrophic event that brought down the plane instead of terrorism? It was an act of terrorism which Obama couldn't hide but the DOJ rushed in to shut down questioning after ONLY 50 minutes and read Farouk Abdulmutallab his Miranda Rights. He was treated like an American citizen who broke criminal laws not as a terrorist who was set on killing over 300 people in an airplane bombing.

There is something wrong with this picture and other events in this Country that make no sense when dealing with obvious terrorist. What are Obama and Attorney General Holder trying to cover up? Is there a connection they don't want uncovered? These kind of questions would not be asked if this Administration was the least bit open and above board.

Trying the mastermind of 9/11 in the United States in Federal Court makes just as little sense and glad to see the new Governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, saying to the Obama Administration that they are not having the trials in Virginia.

Why won't Obama connect terror dots? Today's Washington Times Editorial wants to know the answer the same as most Americans.

Monday, February 1, 2010
EDITORIAL: Obama won't connect terror dots
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

When a man is apprehended with a cache of weapons, body armor, a map of a military installation and jihadist personal effects, the natural response of most Americans is to assume the situation is terrorist-related. The Obama administration says otherwise.

Lloyd R. Woodson was arrested Jan. 25 in rural New Jersey. He had been observed behaving strangely, wearing military-style fatigues and a bulletproof vest. He had a weapon modified to fire .50-caliber rounds from beneath his jacket. He had a hotel room full of weapons and ammunition. Despite all these warning signs, the immediate response from the government was that this was "not a terrorism thing."
Bureaucratic lack of concern raises a critical question: If this is not the behavior of a terrorist, what is?

It's not clear what the Obama administration thinks terrorism is, if it thinks it exists at all. The administration doggedly maintains that political, especially jihadist, violence by individuals with no international linkage is not terrorism. This definition might come as a surprise to the Unabomber, who for years was the most sought-after terrorist in America.

President Obama's knee-jerk response that the Christmas Day bombing plot was not terror-related was probably one of the factors that led Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to be Mirandized quickly and treated as a criminal suspect. It shouldn't matter that this was a domestic incident; he is a jihadist warrior, and the aircraft was his battlefield.

The same was the case with Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, charged with killing 14 persons and wounding 31 in the Fort Hood massacre. America was assured that Maj. Hasan had no foreign terrorist links, and he was not charged with committing an act of terrorism. The Obama administration's report on the shooting, released three weeks ago, avoids mentioning radical Islam as a motivating factor in his rampage. However, both Maj. Hasan and Mr. Abdulmutallab had relationships with Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is a leading member of al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula ...

Excerpt: Read More at Washington Times

Will someone explain to us why Obama refuses to acknowledge terrorists exist in this Country. Since he doesn't believe in domestic terrorist, what does he call the people who bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and killed all those people. Even Clinton tabbed McVeigh and Nichols as domestic terrorists.

Why won't Obama use the word 'terrorist' to describe obvious terrorists acts against Americans? Something is wrong, very wrong and we are guessing it has to do with Obama's hidden background. Was it the way he was raised? Was he raised Muslim as he can site their prayer in their dialect with no problem? All questions that deserve answers. The man is a closed book and even his biographies have turned out to be ghost written with some facts that don't exist.

The hearings in the Senate did not go well for the Obama Administration on the Christmas Day bomber as questions were not answered to any one's satisfaction as to why Farouk was read his Miranda Rights 50 minutes after he was captured.

Yesterday Axelrod, White House aide from Chicago stated "We Have Not Lost Anything" by Giving Abdulmutallab Miranda Rights. What? That is a stupid statement to make and with no facts to back him up.

Interrogators were getting further terrorist information out of Farouk but were stopped in their tracks when the DOJ comes running in to Mirandize him. Excuse us, but we believe the information the Intelligence community was getting outweighed anything else. Farouk is a terrorist who tried to bomb a Northwest plane enroute to Detroit and kill over 300 people on board, but he is treated like a common criminal by Obama and his Administration. We ask once again "WHY?"

Axelrod: "We Have Not Lost Anything" by Giving Abdulmutallab Miranda Rights
Another White House official says a 50-minute interrogation of the Christmas Day bomber was good enough.

BY Stephen F. Hayes
January 31, 2010 11:33 AM

Top White House adviser David Axelrod believes the U.S. government properly handled the Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, despite the fact that Abdulmutallab stopped talking to interrogators after having had Miranda rights read to him. In an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, Axelrod was asked about the decision to read Abdulmutallab his rights after just 50 minutes of interrogation. "We have not lost anything as a result of how this case has been handled," Axelrod said. It was an updated version of the claim that Robert Gibbs made last week, when he said that FBI interrogators had gotten "all they could get" from Abdulmutallab in their brief session.

If the White House political and spin teams believe this is true, the actions of the FBI officers themselves suggest that the claim is not true. After a five-hour break following the first interrogation session, the FBI sent a second team to interrogate Abdulmutallab on Christmas Day -- something that would have been unnecessary if the FBI had, in fact, gotten everything it could from him.

And on Friday the Washington Post reported that Justice Department officials are still trying to get more from Abdulmutallab. The Post reported that U.S. government officials are now working on a plea bargain with Abdulmutallab's lawyers -- a deal that would allow interrogators access once again to Abdulmutallab. That wouldn't be necessary if we had gotten everything we could have gotten from him.Intelligence collection is an ongoing process.

It doesn't stop after just one interview with a terrorist. The best information often comes after a series of back-and-forth sessions with the subject that last days, even weeks. Interrogators take bits of information provided by the subject and test it against information collected from other sources -- intercepts, human collection, open source material, and other detainees -- to learn more and to fill in the intelligence picture on a particular subject or group or operation.

By allowing Abdulmutallab to remain silent, the Obama administration has chosen -- and it is a choice -- to collect less information and ultimately to know less about the al Qaeda operatives trying to kill Americans.

We have yet another example of this short-sighted approach today. According to the Associated Press, Malaysian authorities detained 10 suspected terrorists who are believed to have ties to Abdulmutallab.

Excerpt: Read More at Weekly Standard

None of us should be shocked at the lack of insight into how Islamic terrorists want to kill us by this Administration after the way they started going after the CIA immediately upon taking office.

We also believe the 9/11 Commission was wrong to suggest all these agencies like the CIA be put under control of Homeland Security. The CIA should have remained a separate entity reporting directly to the White House. The Department of Homeland Security is too large and diverse to be handled effectively. It would be hard when you have qualified people in charge of Homeland Security but the Obama appointee Napolitono doesn't fit the word qualified. When she was the Arizona Governor, she promised a lot on border security but NEVER delivered. That seems to be a qualification for this Administration -- little to no accomplishments.

How the mainstream media can continue to support and spin for the Obama Administration on national security is beyond comprehension. It is right before your eyes that this Administration from Day One and even on the campaign trail refused to acknowledge that Islamic terrorist want to kill Americans. Bad enough that Obama and his appointees don't want to acknowledge terrorists exist in this Country or come from overseas to kill us, but the media has abdicated their role in providing the facts not spin as they continue to cover for Obama on national security. Why do some members of the White House Press Corp continue to allow themselves to be spun by Press Secretary Gibbs?

Obama admnistration takes several wrong paths in dealing with terrorism
By Michael V. Hayden
Sunday, January 31, 2010

In the war on terrorism, this country faces an enemy whose theory of warfare ends the hard-won distinction in modern thought between combatant and noncombatant.


In doing that for which we have created government -- ensuring life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- how can we be adequately aggressive to ensure the first value, without unduly threatening the other two? This is hard. And people don't have to be lazy or stupid to get it wrong.

We got it wrong in Detroit on Christmas Day. We allowed an enemy combatant the protections of our Constitution before we had adequately interrogated him. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is not "an isolated extremist." He is the tip of the spear of a complex al-Qaeda plot to kill Americans in our homeland.

In the 50 minutes the FBI had to question him, agents reportedly got actionable intelligence. Good. But were there any experts on al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in the room (other than Abdulmutallab)? Was there anyone intimately familiar with any National Security Agency raw traffic to, from or about the captured terrorist? Did they have a list or photos of suspected recruits?

When questioning its detainees, the CIA routinely turns the information provided over to its experts for verification and recommendations for follow-up. The responses of these experts -- "Press him more on this, he knows the details" or "First time we've heard that" -- helps set up more detailed questioning.

None of that happened in Detroit. In fact, we ensured that it wouldn't. After the first session, the FBI Mirandized Abdulmutallab and -- to preserve a potential prosecution -- sent in a "clean team" of agents who could have no knowledge of what Abdulmutallab had provided before he was given his constitutional warnings. As has been widely reported, Abdulmutallab then exercised his right to remain silent.

In retrospect, the inadvisability of this approach seems self-evident. Perhaps it didn't appear that way on Dec. 25 because we have, over the past year, become acclimated to certain patterns of thought.

Two days after his inauguration, President Obama issued an executive order that limited all interrogations by the U.S. government to the techniques authorized in the Army Field Manual. The CIA had not seen the final draft of the order, let alone been allowed to comment, before it was issued. I thought that odd since the order was less a legal document -- there was no claim that the manual exhausted the universe of lawful techniques -- than a policy one: These particular lawful techniques would be all that the country would need, at least for now.

A similar drama unfolded in April over the release of Justice Department memos that had authorized the CIA interrogation program. CIA Director Leon Panetta and several of his predecessors opposed public release of the memos in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit on the only legitimate grounds for such a stand: that the documents were legitimately still classified and their release would gravely harm national security. On this policy -- not legal -- question, the president sided with his attorney general rather than his CIA chief.

(snip)

In November, Justice announced that it intended to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and several others in civilian courts for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The White House made clear that this was a Justice Department decision, which is odd because the decision was not legally compelled (other detainees are to be tried by military commissions) and the reasons given for making it (military trials could serve as a recruitment tool for al-Qaeda, harm relations with allies, etc.) were not legal but political.

Even tough government organizations, such as those in the intelligence community, figure out pretty quickly what their political masters think is not acceptable behavior.

(snip)

Some may celebrate that the current Justice Department's perspective on the war on terrorism has become markedly more dominant in the past year. We should probably understand the implications of that before we break out the champagne. That apparently no one recommended on Christmas Day that Abdulmutallab be handled, at least for a time, as an enemy combatant should be concerning. That our director of national intelligence, Denny Blair, bravely said as much during congressional testimony this month is cause for hope.

Actually, Blair suggested that the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), announced by the administration in August, should have been called in. A government spokesman later pointed out that the group does not yet exist.

There's a final oddity. In August, the government unveiled the HIG for questioning al-Qaeda and announced that the FBI would begin questioning CIA officers about the alleged abuses in the 2004 inspector general's report. They are apparently still getting organized for the al-Qaeda interrogations. But the interrogations of CIA personnel are well underway.

The writer was director of the CIA from 2006 to 2009.

Excerpt: Read More at Washington Post

What can you say when an Obama appointee briefing the Senate says the HIG should have been called when that group does not exist? The word 'incompetence' for this Administration on national security and terrorism comes to mind.

Wish there was an answer as to why Obama and his Administration do not want to acknowledge Islamic Terrorist want to kill Americans. If we had the answer, the dots could be put together to make sense, but then some people in this Country might have to admit that we have the weakest President ever when it comes to National Security.

Seems Obama would rather intefer with the College football BCS then handle National Security. Frightening!

Fort Hood attack likely Islamist terrorism, Cornyn and Lieberman say

How much play will this article from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram get with the national media or will continue to ignore the connections to carry Obama's water?

Secretary of Defense Gates wants an investigation in how DoD keeps an eye on potential problems(Pentagon to review tactics after Fort Hood shooting)with recommendations on what can be done. We would recommend someone other then the Army Chief of Staff who is afraid that diversity could be a casualty more then the soldiers who were killed. In fact Secretary of Defense Gates could do the Army a favor and find a new Chief of Staff that puts soldiers ahead of diversity.

Fort Hood attack likely Islamist terrorism, Cornyn and Lieberman say

View photos
Fort Hood slayings prompt full Pentagon review
More evidence that Fort Hood gunman held radical beliefs
Within hours, Obama ordered intelligence review of Fort Hood shootings
Texas congressman confirms Fort Hood suspect's link to Pakistan

By John Gravois

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas is joining Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., in publicly declaring that the attack on Fort Hood is likely an act of Islamist terrorism.

Cornyn wrote a letter to President Barack Obama today urging the White House not to let "political correctness" get in the way of investigating the Nov. 5 massacre that left 13 people dead and more than 30 wounded.

"As more and more facts surrounding the Fort Hood attack surface, it looks increasingly probable that the alleged attacker, Major Nidal Hasan, heeded these terrorist calls to violence, compelled by a fanatical religious ideology. If Islamist terrorism was the driving force behind the senseless violence at Fort Hood, as it seems to be, this attack must serve as a call to action for the federal government," Cornyn wrote.

"Evidence indicating that terrorist activity may be in the offing must always be run to ground; federal agencies must follow every lead and look into every possible threat, regardless of whose particular sensitivities might be offended in the process," he continued.

Excerpt: Read More at Fort Worth Star Telegram

Is Political Correctness and a Return to Pre-911 Responsible for Islamic Major Hasan's Terrorist Act at Fort Hood

Our elected officials and media are quick to label a lone suicide bomber who blows himself up in the middle of a group of people an act of terrorism, but we are told by the President not jump to conclusions on this obvious act of terrorism. What's the difference -- Hasan used a gun instead of a backpack to slaughter people?

Three days after we are told not to jump to conclusions, we wake up to this story from ABC that Major Hasan tired to contact al Qaeda. The conclusions that almost everyone jumped are readily becoming confirmed -- he was an Islamic Jihadist even if he was working alone. Hasan had been reported numerous times by his peers about his comments that were anti-American to senior officers but nothing was done. FBI knew about him six months ago and nothing was done. Now we discover he tried to contact al Qaeda -- was he successful?

We have said all along that this was a act of terrorism. When a psychiatrist hands out the Koran and tries to get patients to join Islam while making comments supporting the terrorists against US Troops, then officials should have taken action instead of counseling him. Hasan should have been dishonorably discharged from the Army but we are back to the pre 9/11 mindset it looks like which is dangerous.

Senator Joe Lieberman is correct in calling for an investigation into this act of terrorism. We are so grateful he is heading the Homeland Security Committee which has an investigative unit, and he has the authority to launch an investigation. On this Committee sits Senators John McCain and Tom Coburn so we have complete faith we will learn the truth.

This coddling of people who want to kill us by this Administration needs to stop. Obama reaches out to our enemies and disses our allies. Now we have troops killed and wounded at the hands of an Islamic Jihadist on American soil, and we hear don't jump to conclusions from this President who didn't think anything of jumping to conclusion when his friend, Gates, was arrested. He called the cops stupid.

Hasan complained about Obama because he had said during the campaign he would bring American troops home and why he supported him. When Obama didn't follow through, Hasan got angrier. Maybe on the campaign trail candidates should tell the truth instead of spinning so the American people know where they stand and then let us make a decision.

Officials: U.S. Aware of Hasan Efforts to Contact al Qaeda

By RICHARD ESPOSITO, MATTHEW COLE and BRIAN ROSS
Today (9 Nov 09), 7:53 AM EST

Army Major in Fort Hood killing used 'electronic means' to connect w/ terrorists

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.

(snip)

On Sunday, Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) called for an investigation into whether the Army missed signs as to whether Hasan was an Islamic extremist.

"If Hasan was showing signs, saying to people that he had become an Islamist extremist, the U.S. Army has to have a zero tolerance," Lieberman told Fox News Sunday.

Investigators want to know if Hasan maintained contact with a radical mosque leader from Virginia, Anwar al Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen and runs a web site that promotes jihad around the world against the U.S.

In a blog posting early Monday titled "Nidal Hassan Did the Right Thing," Awlaki calls Hassan a "hero" and 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."

According to his site, Awlaki served as an imam in Denver, San Diego and Falls Church, Virginia.

The Associated Press reported Sunday that Major Hasan attended the Falls Church mosque when Awlaki was there.

Excerpt: Read More at ABC News

The worst part of this ABC article comes from the politically correct Army Chief of Staff who is following in the steps of the President.

In listening to the military analyst on the news after this tragedy, it became clear that political correctness has become the norm in the US Army. Officers complained about Hasan and his support of Islamic terrorist. One person interviewed had actually been in a meeting with Hasan when he spouted his Islamic rantings and reported him but nothing was done. That seems to be normal response by the Army to complaints on Hasan except to counsel him he shouldn't try to convert patients. They promoted him to Major, gave him a low rating, and then shipped him off to Fort Hood to be deployed.

The blood of these men and women who were killed is on the hands of the superior officers that were told about his Islamic rantings beginn with his medical schooling, internship, residency, and career who no action. They received complaints from patients on his trying to convert them to Islam but their reaction was more counseling for Hasan. Was it because he was Muslim they wouldn't take action? Pretty poor excuse to tell the friends and families of the people killed and wounded.

Army Chief of Staff

A fellow doctor who studied with Hasan, Val Finell, told ABC News, "We would frequently say he was a Muslim first and an American second. And that came out in just about everything he did at the University.

Finell said he and other Army doctors complained to superiors about Hasan's statements.

"And we questioned how somebody could take an oath of office…be an officer in the military and swear allegiance to the constitution and to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic and have that type of conflict," Finell told ABC News.

The Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey, raised concerns over the weekend that innocent Muslim soldiers could suffer as a result of the shooting at Fort Hood.

"I think the speculation (on Hasan's Islamic roots) could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers," he said on ABC's "This Week."

Words almost fail me at this moment after reading what the Army Chief of Staff said. Our men and woman in the Army are a lot smarter then he gives them credit as they are not about to attack someone based on the religion. This Major gave signs for years and actually stated that he put Islamic Law ahead of the United States Constitution but his superiors did nothing except finally send him to Fort Hood for deployment. He was never physically attacked even with spouting his Islamic nonsense of choosing Islam over America. What bothers us is the Army wanted to deploy an obvious Islamic radical into the Middle East which makes no sense.

Some of the media have tried to say post traumatic stress syndrom (PTSD) was the cause of his snapping -- was that the White House spin they were reporting? One small problem, actually more then one, as Hasan was never in combat and held these same beliefs while he was still in medical school and they only got worse. Fellow officers reported his statements to superior officers who seemed to file it away with action or just counseling.

He knew exactly what he was doing from all accounts. But yet we are told "Don't Jump to Conclusions." Excuse us, but we will continue to believe whether he did this on his own or at the request of a terrorist organization, he was still a Islamic Jihadist that wanted to kill as many American soldiers as he could in a short period of time. In our opinion this was his way of carrying out Islamic Law over the U.S. Constitution.

Hasan needs to receive the death penality but will this politically correct Administration and Army have the nerve to give him that or will they come up with lame excuses why he shouldn't be excuted. Time will tell!