Questions Regarding The Fort Hood Massacre
By Chuck Baldwin
By now, virtually everyone has read and reread the copious news accounts of
the terrible shooting a few weeks ago at Fort Hood, Texas. This column will
not attempt to add new details to what is already a highly scrutinized
tragedy. However, I do want to pose three basic questions that, to me, are
extremely glaring and, for the most part, absent from the discussion.
Question 1: Why were the soldiers not armed?
After all, this is a military base; more than that, it is an Army base that
emphasizes the training and equipping of frontline, combat-ready soldiers.
For the most part, these were not clerks or cooks; these were combat troops.
Fort Hood is home to the 1st Cavalry Division (the largest Division in the
Army). Troops stationed at Fort Hood have engaged the enemy in virtually
every hot theater of war to which American forces have been deployed. In
recent conflicts that means Somalia, Bosnia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
Without a doubt, these are among America's bravest and best.
So, how is it that these intensely trained, disciplined, rugged, highly
qualified warriors are not allowed to carry their own weapons on base? This
makes about as much sense as the policy forbidding airline pilots from
carrying their own handguns on board commercial airliners, or teachers not
being allowed to carry their own handguns in the classroom. After all,
judges are granted the authority to carry their own firearms into the
courtroom. If we can trust lawyers, we should be able to trust soldiers,
airline pilots, and teachers.
Question 2: If the federal government--including the Department of Homeland
Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of dollars worth of
technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and intelligence gatherers;
and myriad Patriot Act-type laws--could not protect US soldiers on one of
the most tightly secured and heavily guarded military installations in
America, how can anyone in the country possibly not break out in cacophonous
laughter when politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so
that they might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons? Or is it
that, because Hasan was a Muslim, the politically correct nincompoops in
charge gave him a pass?
Consider: we have learned that the shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, had
attempted to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda; that
numerous classmates of Hasan had reported his anti-American views, which,
according to a column written by Dennis Prager, "included his giving a
presentation that justified suicide bombing and telling classmates that
Islamic law trumped the U.S. Constitution"; and that Hasan had a long
history of pro-Islamic, anti-American activity. All of which begs an answer
to the question, How could such an individual not only be allowed in the US
military, but also be allowed to advance to the rank of Major?
I think most of my readers have the answer to this question figured out: we
have an out-of-control, politically correct federal government that only
senses danger from conservatives, libertarians, Christians, pro-lifers, Tea
Party protesters, and anti-UN, anti-IRS, pro-Second Amendment activists--and
supporters of Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin, of course. To this politically
correct federal leviathan today, anti-American jihadists, militant Black
Panthers, or illegal aliens who have committed felonious crimes in Mexico
pose no risk to anyone, and must be "understood."
As Prager quotes NPR's Tom Gjelten: since Hasan had never been in combat, he
must have suffered from "pre-traumatic stress disorder." No, I'm not
kidding. That's what he said. (I'll pause while you pick yourself up off the
floor from laughing.)
To the politically correct crowd running things in Washington, D.C., anyone
coming from a socialistic, Big Government, or anti-American point of view is
harmless, and anyone coming from a conservative, Christian, constitutional,
or pro-American point of view is dangerous. Can one imagine how the
mainstream media, federal police agencies, and the Southern Poverty Law
Center would have reacted had Hasan shouted "Jesus is greatest!" instead of
what he really said, "Allah is greatest!" right before opening fire?
If one rejects the notion that political correctness favoring Muslims (and
every other minority in the United States) had anything to do with the Fort
Hood shooting, then we are back to the original question: If the federal
government--including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of
Defense, etc., with billions of dollars worth of technology; tens of
thousands of snoops, spooks, and intelligence gatherers; and myriad Patriot
Act-type laws--could not protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly
secured and heavily guarded military installations in America, how can
anyone in the country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when
politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that they might
pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons?
Are we now really supposed to believe that all these Patriot Act-type laws,
which allow the federal government to trash the Constitution and Bill of
Rights--and poke its ubiquitous and meddlesome nose into every corner and
crevice of our lives--are actually doing anything to make us safer? You've
got to be kidding! The only thing they are doing is stealing our liberties.
If the Fort Hood massacre proves anything, it proves that.
Question 3: How could one man (with no combat experience) armed with only
two handguns fire over 100 rounds (demanding he reload at least 3 times)
into a crowd of scores and hundreds of fearless combat-trained warriors? I
must confess: this is the question that bothers me the most.
According to the official story, Hasan was the only shooter, and he was
allowed to fire at will into a crowd of America's finest warriors for at
least 4 minutes, reloading at least 3 times, firing over 100 rounds of
ammunition, killing 13 people, and wounding over 30--and was finally taken
out by civilian police officers AFTER EXITING THE BUILDING. I've got to tell
you: I cannot get my brain around this one.
Again, these soldiers are warriors. They not only know how to fight, they
know how to fight unarmed. They are trained to risk their lives. They are
trained to do whatever is necessary to take out the enemy. Had even a small
group of soldiers rushed the shooter (especially if they came at him from
multiple directions) there is no way that Hasan would not have been
subdued--and most likely killed. Yes, a few of the on-rushers would have
been hit, but Hasan could not have gotten them all. That is a fact! And yet,
we are supposed to believe that Hasan was not only unmolested by soldiers
inside the building, but he was allowed to leave the building entirely, and
then get shot by civilian policemen? Again, this explanation makes
absolutely no sense to me. None.
Initial reports said there were multiple shooters. If that was the case, the
scenario is much more plausible. If multiple shooters had opened fire from
various vantage points--especially if they had rifles--it would have made
unarmed resistance extremely difficult. That scenario would make sense. The
"one shooter with two handguns" explanation makes no sense.
I realize that no unarmed man wants to rush an armed attacker. Of course,
some who would do so would probably die, but again, these are trained
warriors. Furthermore, this was an all-or-nothing, kill-or-be-killed
environment: something these men are trained for. If untrained civilian
passengers on flight 93 on 9/11 could rush and thwart armed attackers on
board a commercial airliner from a narrow aisle way and stop a hijacking--a
task infinitely more difficult than for a group of highly trained
professional soldiers outnumbering an attacker by scores or hundreds in a
large building--tell me again how Hasan was able to open fire with only two
handguns, kill and wound scores of people, and calmly walk out of the
building unscathed? Again, this makes no sense.
Of course, all of the above is predicated upon the public accounts of the
events being a truthful representation of what actually occurred. Which,
after trying to comprehend the plausibility of what we are being told, is
becoming increasingly difficult to believe. But then again, I haven't
believed much that the federal government or major news media has told me
since John F. Kennedy was assassinated. And I must say, this story serves
only to further fuel my skepticism.
P.S. And one more time: we are shipping THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS now: 50 of
America's great historical documents in one volume. Our supply will last
only a couple of weeks. These make terrific Christmas gifts and can be found
Or, to read my initial column that describes THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS, go to:http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20091113.html
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php
(c) Chuck Baldwin