~ Foreword ~
I have to mention again – if that woman principal had been ARMED with a gun – she could have stopped the carnage with one shot – at the front door – before the kids were killed. Instead, she was UNarmed and she used her body to try to stop the shooter – the shooter who had a gun and was using it. I don’t call that heroism – I call it stupidty.
This is why we should have armed CCH’s in every school and public place. An ARMED citizen can stop a killer who is using a gun or some other weapon. The *killers* seek out places that are NO GUN ZONES as they KNOW they can kill for at least 10 minutes before cops will arrive and even then they can go on for a short time.
As to the question below – we all KNOW why the FRAUD didn’t mention Ft. Hood – the killer in that case was a MUSLIM who is still awaiting trial because of his BEARD – to shave it is against his religious beliefs. He had NO problem being clean shaven when he was killing Americans.
OVER the weekend, the president was speaking and, really, when he got to his politics it was just stomach turning. There he is, in the middle of that little town and he named four instances in where there were, what, massacres? But he left one out. I immediately realized — and my brother emailed me too — what happened to Fort Hood? How come he didn’t mention Fort Hood? How come Obama did not mention Fort Hood where 13 human beings were slaughtered and there were several survivors. Because, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, Fort Hood is a military enclave, it’s a base. You can’t have more control than that.
Number two, they had all kinds of rules of who can carry weapons and who can’t there. And fortunately, a lot of men and women in uniform aren’t allowed to carry weapons unless they’re on duty. All kinds of gun control on that base.
But, number three, it had nothing to do with gun control. It had everything to do with political correctness run amok, costing the lives of 13 human beings. CBS News, July 19, 2012 (Levin quotes):
The FBI was too concerned about political correctness and did not launch an investigation into a man who was later charged with killing 13 people in the 2009 attack in Fort Hood, Texas, despite significant warning signs that he was an Islamic extremist bent on killing civilians, according to a lawmaker briefed on the new report.
In emails to a known terrorist, Army Maj. Nidal Hasan expressed his support for suicide bombings and killing civilians, while the terrorist, Anwar al-Awlaki, encouraged Hasan to stay in touch.
In total, Hasan wrote 18 e-mails – only two of which Awlaki replied. Most of the other e-mails were more benign.
The review was done by former FBI Director William Webster and was more than two years in the making.
The case has drawn attention to U.S. intelligence lapses. Less than a month after the Fort Hood rampage, the Pentagon’s top intelligence officer sent the White House a report detailing an earlier failure to connect the dots, CBS News correspondent David Martin reported in 2010.
And it goes on and on. They knew this guy was trouble. They knew he was a potential threat, but they didn’t want to touch him. You know why? You want to know the God’s honest truth, is that why you’re listening to this program? Because they didn’t want to be accused of discriminating a Muslim gentleman, that’s why. That’s why Obama didn’t mention it yesterday, when he was ticking off the killings that happened under his watch.
Now, he went to Fort Hood, but he left it off his list. Am I the only one to notice this? Because Fort Hood doesn’t really explain things all the ways these politicians and Obama want to have them explained, now do they? And it gets even worse. Obama goes to these places, he speaks to the people there, as a President should. He gives these national speeches and comments and then, for the most part, they never hear from him again.
But in the case of Fort Hood, it’s even worse.
Written by Mark Levin, and published at Real Clear Politics, December 18, 2012.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www. law. cornell. edu/uscode/17/107. shtml