The more we learn about this story the more unbelievable it becomes.  NPR is reporting here that starting in the Spring of 2008 officials held a series of meetings  during which one of the subjects of discussion was whether Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan was psychotic. 

Starting in the spring of 2008, key officials from Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences held a series of meetings and conversations, in part about Maj. Nidal Hasan, the man accused of killing 13 people and wounding dozens of others last week during a shooting spree at Fort Hood. One of the questions they pondered: Was Hasan psychotic?

“Put it this way,” says one official familiar with the conversations that took place. “Everybody felt that if you were deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, you would not want Nidal Hasan in your foxhole.”

NPR lists the participants in the meeting: 

Participants in the spring meeting and in subsequent conversations about Hasan reportedly included John Bradley, chief of psychiatry at Walter Reed; Robert Ursano, chairman of the Psychiatry Department at USUHS; Charles Engel, assistant chair of the Psychiatry Department and director of Hasan’s psychiatry fellowship; Dr. David Benedek, another assistant chairman of psychiatry at USUHS; psychiatrist Carroll J. Diebold; and Scott Moran, director of the psychiatric residency program at Walter Reed, according to colleagues and other sources who monitor the meetings.

NPR tried to contact all these officials and the public affairs officers at the institutions. They either didn’t return phone calls or said they could not comment.

But psychiatrists and officials who are familiar with the conversations, which continued into the spring of 2009, say they took a remarkable turn: Is it possible, some mused, that Hasan was mentally unstable and unfit to be an Army psychiatrist?

Well what did they do?  Nothing.

So why didn’t officials act on their concerns and seek to remove Hasan from his duties, or at least order him to receive a mental health evaluation? Interviews with these officials suggest that a chain of unrelated events and factors deterred them.

For one thing, Walter Reed and most medical institutions have a cumbersome and lengthy process for expelling doctors, involving hearings and potential legal battles. As a result, sources say, key decision-makers decided it would be too difficult, if not unfeasible, to put Hasan on probation and possibly expel him from the program.

Second, some of Hasan’s supervisors and instructors had told colleagues that they repeatedly bent over backward to support and encourage him, because they didn’t have clear evidence that he was unstable, and they worried they might be “discriminating” against Hasan because of his seemingly extremist Islamic beliefs.

Third, the officials involved in deliberations this year reportedly were not aware, as some top Walter Reed officials were, that intelligence analysts had been tracking Hasan’s e-mails with at least one suspected Islamic extremist since December 2008.

And finally, Hasan was about to leave Walter Reed and USUHS for good and transfer to Fort Hood, in Texas. Fort Hood has more psychiatrists and other mental specialists than some other Army bases, so officials figured there would be plenty of co-workers who would support Hasan — and monitor him.

In other words Hasan would be someone else’s problem.

Combine this with the other information that has come to light as to what the Feds knew about Hasan prior to the Fort Hood massacre, and a picture is emerging of criminal negligence in regard to Hasan by Federal officials in and out of the Army.  Quite a few people knew that Hasan was potentially a ticking time bomb, but they were simply unwilling to take action against him.  The reason why is of course obvious.  They were afraid to take action against a Muslim officer for fear that their own careers would have suffered if they were attacked, as doubtless they would have been, on the grounds that they were discriminating against Hasan because of his religion.  Thus political correctness running rampant caused those who could have stopped Hasan to sit on their hands until this tragedy erupted.  Contemptible.

Time is doing what the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese could not do:  vanquishing our World War II generation.  The youngest American veteran of that conflict would now be 82, and in the next two decades or so they will be in eternity.  Time now to express our heartfelt gratitude for what they accomplished for the country.  They have been called the greatest generation.  I am sure that most of them would reject that title, maybe putting in a vote for the generation that won the American Revolution or the generation that fought the Civil War.  Modesty has been a hallmark of their generation.  When I was growing up in the Sixties, most of them were relatively young men in their late thirties or forties.  If you asked them about the war they would talk about it but they would rarely bring it up.  They took their service for granted as a part of their lives and nothing special.   So those of us who knew them often took it for granted too.  Uncle Chuck, he works at the Cereal Mills, and, oh yeah, he fought in the Pacific as a Marine.  Uncle Bill, he has a great sense of humor and I think he was in Tokyo Bay when the Japanese surrendered to MacArthur.  When they talked about the war it was usually some humorous anecdote, often with some self-deprecating point.  They’d talk about some of the sad stuff too, but you could tell that a lot of that was pretty painful for them, so you didn’t press them.  They were just husbands and fathers, uncles and cousins.  The fact that the janitor at the school won a silver star on Saipan, or  the mayor of the town still walked with a limp from being shot on D-Day, was just a normal part of life, like going to school or delivering papers.

However, what they did should not be taken for granted.  Together with our allies they fought and won a war that may justly be called a crusade against evil.  Nazi Germany and their death camps need no elaboration.  Less well known is that the forces of Imperial Japan slaughtered some 20,000,000 civilians in their attempt to create their Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.  The World would have been a much darker place but for the generation of Americans that fought and won World War II.  I will rely upon the words of Sir Winston Churchill to state what American entry into the War meant:

“No American will think it wrong of me if I proclaim that to have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. I could not foretell the course of events. I do not pretend to have measured accurately the martial might of Japan, but now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all! Yes, after Dunkirk; after the fall of France; after the horrible episode of Oran; after the threat of invasion, when, apart from the Air and the Navy, we were an almost unarmed people; after the deadly struggle of the U-boat war — the first Battle of the Atlantic, gained by a hand’s breadth; after seventeen months of lonely fighting and nineteen months of my responsibility in dire stress, we had won the war. England would live; Britain would live; the Commonwealth of Nations and the Empire would live. How long the war would last or in what fashion it would end, no man could tell, nor did I at this moment care. Once again in our long Island history we should emerge, however mauled or mutilated, safe and victorious. We should not be wiped out. Our history would not come to an end. We might not even have to die as individuals. Hitler’s fate was sealed. Mussolini’s fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder. All the rest was merely the proper application of overwhelming force. The British Empire, the Soviet Union, and now the United States, bound together with every scrap of their life and strength, were, according to my lights, twice or even thrice the force of their antagonists. No doubt it would take a long time. I expected terrible forfeits in the East; but all this would be merely a passing phase. United we could subdue everybody else in the world. Many disasters, immeasurable cost and tribulation lay ahead, but there was no more doubt about the end.

Silly people — and there were many, not only in enemy countries — might discount the force of the United States. Some said they were soft, others that they would never be united. They would fool around at a distance. They would never come to grips. They would never stand blood-letting. Their democracy and system of recurrent elections would paralyze their war effort. They would be just a vague blur on the horizon to friend or foe. Now we should see the weakness of this numerous but remote, wealthy, and talkative people. But I had studied the American Civil War, fought out to the last desperate inch. American blood flowed in my veins. I thought of a remark which Edward Grey had made to me more than thirty years before — that the United States is like “a gigantic boiler. Once the fire is lighted under it there is no limit to the power it can generate.” Being saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful.”

They saved our World, the young men who went off to fight, and the young women who served as nurses and in auxiliary units and who “womaned” the factories that produced seas of war material that sank the Axis.  If you are fortunate to still have a World War II generation member in your family thank them.  You don’t have to be maudlin.  When I have done it I have went about it in a humorous fashion, but in whatever manner it is done, it needs to be done before they all leave us.  Also, get their stories so that future generations may remember them.  Above all, let us remember the approximately 420,000 Americans who had their lives taken away in that conflict.  As the inscription on the memorial to the dead of the British 2nd Division at Kohima says, “When You Go Home, Tell Them Of Us And Say, For Their Tomorrow, We Gave Our Today”.  We must never forget their sacrifice.

I asked God for strength that I might achieve, I was made weak, that I might learn to humbly obey.

I asked God for health, that I might do greater things, I was given infirmity, that I might do better things.

I asked for riches, that I might be happy, I was given poverty, that I might be wise.

I asked for power, that I might have the praise of men, I was given weakness, that I might feel the need of God.

I asked for all things, that I might enjoy life, I was given life, that I might enjoy all things.

I got nothing that I asked for – but everything I had hoped for.

Almost despite myself, my unspoken prayers were answered.

I am among men, most richly blessed.

Found on the body of a Southern soldier 1861–1865

On November 10, 1775 the United States Marine Corps came into being:

“Resolved, That two Battalions of marines be raised, consisting of one Colonel, two Lieutenant Colonels, two Majors, and other officers as usual in other regiments; and that they consist of an equal number of privates with other battalions; that particular care be taken, that no persons be appointed to office, or inlisted into said Battalions, but such as are good seamen, or so acquainted with maritime affairs as to be able to serve to advantage by sea when required: that they be inlisted and commissioned to serve for and during the present war between Great Britain and the colonies, unless dismissed by order of Congress: that they be distinguished by the names of the first and second battalions of American Marines, and that they be considered part of the number which the continental Army before Boston is ordered to consist of.”

You cannot exaggerate about the Marines. They are convinced to the point of arrogance, that they are the most ferocious fighters on earth- and the amusing thing about it is that they are.
Father Kevin Keaney
1st Marine Division Chaplain
Korean War

Hattip to the eagle-eyed Father Z who found this on Facebook from a group called SLAP (Survivors of Liturgical Abuse in Parishes).

Gather Us In [...to the tune of, that is!]

Here in this place, our comfortable parish,
All of the statues carried away,
See in each face a vacuous visage,
Brought here by guilt or by R.C.I.A.

Gather us in, by Beemer or Hummer,
Gather us in, so we can feel good,
Come to us now in this barren Zen temple,
With only a shrub and an altar of wood.

We are the young, our morals a mystery,
We are the old, who couldn’t care less,
We have been warned throughout all of history,
But we enjoy this liturgical mess.

Gather us in, our radical pastor,
Gather us in, our unveiled nun,
Call to us now, with guitars and bongos,
Hang up your cellphones and join in the fun!

 

Update:  Some more lyrics from the commenters at Father Z’ s blog:

Here we will take some wine and some water,
Whether it changes, we really don’t care.
But when the Sign of Peace comes, our pastor,
Jumps from the altar and hugs like a bear.

Gather us in, uncatechized masses,
Gather us in, the liberal elite,
Help us to form our personal Credo,
Give us a choice between white bread and wheat.

One of our teens, she serves on the altar,
Our only other, he plays bass guitar.
Sister preaches in Crocs and a pantsuit,
She reads it straight to us from NCR.

Gather us in, the truly enlightened,
Texts and rubrics are too much a fuss.
We all eschew outdated religion,
Our god is our bellies, our worship is Us.

Here in this place, a bad song is starting,
Now will the altar turn into a stage.
All that is holy is slowly departing,
Making a way for the coming New Age.

Gather us in, though we are like captives.
But to miss Mass on Sunday, that would be wrong.
But Lord hear our plea, regarding M. Haugen:
Give him the courage to put down that bong.

Dear Father Smith make a beeline procession,
Run if you have to, make it real terse.
If you can start this Mass very quickly,
Maybe we’ll only have to sing but one verse.

O Dear Lord Jesus, You are the Savior
We’ve promised to follow, whatever the cost.
But we didn’t know this song had been written:
Would you terribly mind if we came off our cross?

I am sure some of our talented commenters could add some stanzas if they put their minds to it!

“Progressives” all over the Internet are absolutely dismayed over the Stupak amendment, but they way in which they are expressing it is rather curious. Rather than standing up and proudly defending a woman’s right to murder her unborn child – or even to, in the more clinical and dehumanizing language, “terminate her pregnancy” – they are chiefly complaining about the class discrimination they believe is inherent in the amendment. Allegedly the Stupak amendment will only make it harder for poor and middle class women to get abortions, while rich women will continue to have access to them.

This distraction is as old as it is absurd. No one objects to abortions for the poor while supporting abortions for the rich. It’s easier for a rich person to buy drugs, to hire hit-men to take out an annoying spouse, or to commit any number of crimes against individuals and society. This has never been an argument for legalizing objectionable or violent behavior.

While the moral point the progressives wish to make is bankrupt, their concerns are based on recent and objective analysis of the larger implications of the Stupak amendment. If Stupak remains in the health care bill, it will actually have the effect of significantly reducing the abortion rate.

I can’t believe that I didn’t see it before – or that no one else did (that I know of, until now). So caught up have some of us been either with simply winning the battle to stop government funding of abortion, or to stop government health care altogether, that we failed to see the far-ranging implications of the Stupak amendment. This is more of a moment-of-truth for pro-lifers than previously imagined. This is from The Wonk Room’s analysis of Stupak:

Pro-life proponents may claim that Stupak simply preserves current policy but if they bother to examine the implications of their amendment they would discover that it actually accomplishes their goal of significantly restricting access to abortion.

The finer points demonstrate how, in one way or another, anyone whose health insurance depends in any way on the government, will not have abortion coverage at all. As another worried progressive blog puts it,

The Stupak amendment would not just stop the insurance plans for the roughly 30 million people on the exchange from covering abortion. (That assumes the exchange is not expanded like some hope it will be.) There are many parts of the bill that provide some direct money to many employer-provided insurance plans. There is the retiree reinsurance plan, the small business tax credits, and the wellness program. A literal interpretation of the Stupak amendment could force employer-provided insurance plans to stop covering abortion for tens of millions of Americans. The long reach of the Stupak amendment could have huge ramifications on the current aviability of insurance coverage for abortion services.

The passage of the health care bill with the Stupak amendment in-tact could have a domino effect, in other words, and effectively cut off abortion services for the majority of Americans. It goes far beyond, I believe, what its creators and supporters have yet realized. Abortion rates would plummet by necessity. Millions of lives could be saved. Thus, in an ironic twist, a massive expansion of government control over health care with pro-life provisions attached means a massive expansion of government control over access to abortion, for the better.

There are some aspects of the current health care legislation that I really dislike – especially the notion of fining or imprisoning people who do not wish to participate. I am not convinced that the basic Democratic Party model is better than the basic models used in other countries that the US might look to, such as the Netherlands.  And my first preference is for the federal government to help local governments work more efficiently rather than making them redundant. But the prospect of putting a stop to what could amount to tens of millions of abortions is something I can’t turn away from, and neither can you.

So what do we do? It seems to me that the USCCB position was right after all – support universal health care, as long as abortion is not covered. If that is what we get in the end, then we will have gotten much more than we originally bargained for. It won’t destroy the Culture of Death, and it won’t overturn Roe v. Wade, but it may remove abortion as an option for millions of women.

While progressives see the greatest evil in all this the notion that rich women may continue to have abortions while poor women can’t – boo hoo, boo hoo – we can see the greatest good in the promise that millions of children will not die simply because they are poor. I suspect, anyway, that poor men will be more angry about this than poor women. They’re usually the ones pressuring their mates for abortion in the first place, and now when they discover that abortion is too expensive, they’ll have no choice but to take responsibility for their sexual behavior.

I know that some of you will see in this a Faustian pact, but on the other hand, I can’t think of any other way the result we want will ever actually be achieved. Roe isn’t going anywhere. Our culture isn’t going to revert to 1950’s norms of decency. This may be it. We can’t change the law or the hearts of men and women, but it seems that we can close the store.

I really want to see some good comments on this one! Let’s assume the worried progressives have a point – will you support the current health care legislation if it means cutting off abortion services to the majority of Americans? And if you think the analysis linked to above is misguided or wrong, I’d also like to hear arguments on that.

Faithful readers of this blog will recall this post here  discussing the Bishop of Providence Thomas J. Tobin taking Patrick Kennedy, Teddy’s nephew, to task for attacking the Church over ObamaCare.  Now the Bishop has written the following letter to Congressman Kennedy:

Dear Congressman Kennedy:

“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” (Congressman Patrick Kennedy)

Since our recent correspondence has been rather public, I hope you don’t mind if I share a few reflections about your practice of the faith in this public forum. I usually wouldn’t do that – that is speak about someone’s faith in a public setting – but in our well-documented exchange of letters about health care and abortion, it has emerged as an issue. I also share these words publicly with the thought that they might be instructive to other Catholics, including those in prominent positions of leadership.

For the moment I’d like to set aside the discussion of health care reform, as important and relevant as it is, and focus on one statement contained in your letter of October 29, 2009, in which you write, “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” That sentence certainly caught my attention and deserves a public response, lest it go unchallenged and lead others to believe it’s true. And it raises an important question: What does it mean to be a Catholic?

“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does. Although I wouldn’t choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church. This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents.

For example, the “Code of Canon Law” says, “Lay persons are bound by an obligation and possess the right to acquire a knowledge of Christian doctrine adapted to their capacity and condition so that they can live in accord with that doctrine.” (Canon 229, #1)

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” says this: “Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles, ‘He who hears you, hears me,’ the faithful receive with docility the teaching and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.” (#87)

Or consider this statement of the Church: “It would be a mistake to confuse the proper autonomy exercised by Catholics in political life with the claim of a principle that prescinds from the moral and social teaching of the Church.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2002)

There’s lots of canonical and theological verbiage there, Congressman, but what it means is that if you don’t accept the teachings of the Church your communion with the Church is flawed, or in your own words, makes you “less of a Catholic.”

But let’s get down to a more practical question; let’s approach it this way: What does it mean, really, to be a Catholic? After all, being a Catholic has to mean something, right?

Well, in simple terms – and here I refer only to those more visible, structural elements of Church membership – being a Catholic means that you’re part of a faith community that possesses a clearly defined authority and doctrine, obligations and expectations. It means that you believe and accept the teachings of the Church, especially on essential matters of faith and morals; that you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish; that you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly; that you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially.

Congressman, I’m not sure whether or not you fulfill the basic requirements of being a Catholic, so let me ask: Do you accept the teachings of the Church on essential matters of faith and morals, including our stance on abortion? Do you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish? Do you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly? Do you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially?

In your letter you say that you “embrace your faith.” Terrific. But if you don’t fulfill the basic requirements of membership, what is it exactly that makes you a Catholic? Your baptism as an infant? Your family ties? Your cultural heritage?

Your letter also says that your faith “acknowledges the existence of an imperfect humanity.” Absolutely true. But in confronting your rejection of the Church’s teaching, we’re not dealing just with “an imperfect humanity” – as we do when we wrestle with sins such as anger, pride, greed, impurity or dishonesty. We all struggle with those things, and often fail.

Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category – it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you’ve re-affirmed on many occasions. Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an “imperfect humanity.” Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.

Congressman Kennedy, I write these words not to embarrass you or to judge the state of your conscience or soul. That’s ultimately between you and God. But your description of your relationship with the Church is now a matter of public record, and it needs to be challenged. I invite you, as your bishop and brother in Christ, to enter into a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance. It’s not too late for you to repair your relationship with the Church, redeem your public image, and emerge as an authentic “profile in courage,” especially by defending the sanctity of human life for all people, including unborn children. And if I can ever be of assistance as you travel the road of faith, I would be honored and happy to do so.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas J. Tobin

Bishop of Providence

Here is a Bishop!  He is speaking words that Catholic pro-abort pols have needed to hear for decades.  Bravo!  Father Z adds some timely comments of his own here.

The House version of the Democrats’ health care bill, which passed on Saturday, provides that no funds appropriated under the bill “may be used to pay for any abortion, or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion” except in the case of abortions involving rape, incest, or a danger to the life of the mother. Since other provisions of the bill include taxpayer subsidies for individuals to buy health insurance on the private market, and since some private insurance currently covers abortion other than in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother), the net effect of the House bill would be to make abortions more difficult to obtain than they are currently.

Admittedly, there is some question about how big of an effect this provision of the House bill would be. According to a 2003 study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, only 13 percent of abortions were billed directly to insurance companies. Presumably at least some of that 13 percent would not be by the provision, as the women involved would not be receiving tax subsidies to help them pay for insurance, and presumably some portion of the 13 percent would have still had an abortion even if they had to pay for it out of pocket. Yet even if the Stupak Amendment only resulted in a 1% reduction in abortions this would translate into tens of thousands of saved lives every year. The House bill has many features that I consider silly or stupid, and if abortion were not a factor I would have no trouble saying that it should be opposed. Yet assuming the effect of the Stupak Amendment is more than trivial, this would seem to outweigh any of the negative aspects of the proposal.

I’ve looked around a bit for some analysis of the likely effects the Stupak Amendment would have on the abortion rate, but I couldn’t find anything (or, rather, I couldn’t find anything other than demagoguery and hysteria). I know that a handful of states have explicit prohibitions on insurance covering elective abortion, but I haven’t seen any analysis of what effect this has had on the number of abortions in those states. If anyone out there on the Internets knows of such a study, or could point me in the right direction, I would be much appreciative.

With the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, many who lived under the communist regime of East Germany have taken the opportunity to go to the state archives and view the files which the Stasi secret police kept on them. Stasi files were not kept only on spies and political dissenters, but on ordinary people whose “offenses” were almost shockingly mundane, and whose betrayers were often friends or family:

A West German pudding. That was all it took. Once the Stasi found out about it, a family breadwinner was fired from his army job and an East German household was plunged into destitution.

Even worse, the family later found out that they had been turned in by a close friend. “She was watering the plants and went through the cupboards to find a Dr. Oetker dessert,” Vera Iburg, who has worked with files kept by the East German secret police for the last 20 years, told SPIEGEL ONLINE, referring to the snoop. “What was she doing? She had no business there!”

It’s an interesting example of the corrupting power of temptation that the availability of the means to easily hurt those around you by reporting others to the police motivated many to inform merely for the satisfaction of it:

The files — which occupy over 100 kilometers of shelf space (not including the 16,000 sacks of shredded documents the Birthler Authority is currently trying to reassemble with the aid of computers) — are testament to a darker side of humanity. And Ziehm says that films like “The Lives of Others,” which indicate that many were coerced into spying on friends and neighbors, don’t come close to plumbing the depths that some ultimately fall to. Friends informed voluntarily on friends and spouses even tattled on each other.

“More often than not, the Stasi did not need to apply pressure at all,” he says. “In fact, many often felt snubbed if their information was deemed to be of no interest.” The real motivation behind these acts of betrayal was much more humdrum than one might think. “People informed for personal gain, out of loyalty to the East German regime, or simply because they wanted to feel like they had some power,” Ziehm says.

Often we think of repressive regimes’ primary evil being what they do to the people of a country, yet it’s perhaps more important (and more disturbing) to think of how the tools of such a regime corrupt many of the people themselves.

Lots of disturbing facts coming out as to information possessed by the Federal government about  the alleged shooter Nidal Malik Hasan prior to the Fort Hood Massacre.

1.    Internet postings:   At least six months ago Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement authorities regarding internet postings about suicide bombings. 

2.    Attempts to contact al-Qaeda:  US intelligence officials knew for months that Hasan was attempting to contact al-Qaeda operatives.  Apparently the Army was informed of these attempts by Hasan to contact al_Qaeda.  The inquiry was dropped last year because the feds decided that there was no indication he would become violent.  (I guess they were wrong about that.)

3.    Comments made to fellow officers:  Colonel Terry Lee who worked with Hasan makes clear in the above video that Hasan was not shy about making pro-jihadi comments to other officers.    At Walter Reed he gave a lecture to dozens of doctors in which he said that non-believers in Islam should be beheaded and boiling oil forced down their throats (presumably before the beheading), in addition to being condemned to Hell.  For good measure he also said that unbelievers should be set on fire, although after the the boiling oil and the beheading that strikes me as redundant.  I find it difficult to believe that Hasan’s superiors would not have been aware of this type of behavior by him.

4.    Attempts to proselytize: Hasan was disciplined at Walter Reed for attempting to proselytize his Muslim faith to patients and colleagues.

Taking all this together, all that was lacking was Hasan wearing a t-shirt saying “I Heart Jihad”.  Why in the world did the Army continue to have Hasan at a base where he had daily contact with troops coming to and from Iraq and Afghanistan?  Did the base commander at Fort Hood know any of this?  Had base security been briefed regarding Hasan?  Was Hasan under surveillance?  This affair requires a detailed investigation and heads should roll for anyone who did nothing after having the facts before him.  It is bad enough for this type of murderous rampage to occur, but to have clear warning signs and no action taken to prevent this tragedy is simply obscene.  We owe it to his victims, especially the men, women and unborn child Hasan is alleged to have murdered, to do everything in our power to prevent this from happening again.  Here is a list of the lives snuffed out:

Mr. Michael Cahill,62, of Cameron, Texas., a civilian employee at Fort Hood.

 Lt. Colonel Juanita Warman, 55, Harve De Grace, Md, assigned to the 1908th Medical Company, Independence, Mo.

Capt. John P. Gaffaney, 54, of San Diego, Calif., assigned to the 1908th Medical Company, Independence, Mo.

Major Libardo Eduardo Caraveo, 52, Tuscon, Ariz. assigned to the 467th Medical Detachment,  Madison, Wisconsin.

Capt. Russell Seager, 41, of Racine, Wis., assigned to the 467th Medical Company, Madison, Wis.

Staff Sgt. Justin Decrow, 32, of Plymouth, Ind., assigned to the 16th Signal Company, Fort Hood, Texas.

Sgt. Amy Krueger, 29, of Kiel, Wis., assigned to the 467th Medical Company, Madison, Wis.

Spc. Jason Hunt, 22, of Tillman, Okla., assigned to the 1st Brigade, Fort Hood, Texas.

Spc. Frederick Greene, 29, of Mountain City, Tenn., assigned to the 16th Signal Company, Fort Hood, Texas.

Pfc. Aaron Nemelka, 19, of West Jordan, Utah., assigned to the 510th Engineer Company, 20th Engineer Battalion, Fort Hood, Texas.

Pfc. Michael Pearson, 22, of Bolingbrook, Ill., assigned to the 510th Engineer Company, 20th Engineer Battalion, Fort Hood, Texas.

Spc. Kham Xiong, 23, of St. Paul, Minn., assigned to the 510th Engineer Company, 20th Engineer Battalion, Fort Hood, Texas.

Pvt. Francheska Velez, 21, of Chicago, Ill., assigned to the 15th Combat Support Battalion, Fort Hood, Texas.

The unborn child of Francheska Velez.

(Hattip to Lair of the Catholic Caveman for the list.)

Marine drill instructors have a motto:  “Let’s be damn sure that no man’s ghost will ever say, ‘If your training program had only done its job.”

Let’s make sure from this atrocity that no one will die in the future because some government employee, in or out of uniform, doesn’t do their job.

Update:  Hattip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.  The Feds are now claiming that in regard to the contacts with al Qaeda nothing was done because:  The FBI determined that the e-mails did not warrant an investigation, according to the law enforcement official. Investigators said Hasan’s e-mails were consistent with the topic of his academic research and involved some social chatter and religious discourse.  What’s going on now is a CYA operation of epic proportions to explain why Federal agencies and individuals did nothing in the face of clear evidence that Hasan was a potential threat.

40 “progressive” Democrats in the House of Representatives have sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi vowing to vote “no” on health care reform the next time around if the Stupak amendment is not stripped from the bill.

Remember all of those commentaries after the 2004 elections deriding conservative voters for placing their “values” ahead of self-interest? All over the country “progressives” asked “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” to get to the bottom of the matter.

I think what we are obviously seeing now is, at least from the standpoint of the American public that supports the current health care reform effort, a group of legislators who are irrationally placing their most deeply held moral and spiritual values ahead of – not their own self-interest, since they have money – but the interest of the people who sent them to office.

I have long believed that abortion is the most important sacrament in the religion of secular humanism. In their own language the sexual revolutionaries and the radical feminists have declared it the cornerstone of women’s liberation (and as I have argued, men’s “liberation” from parental responsibility as well). The idea of having to take responsibility for sexual behavior is almost like being sent to hell. Thus the importance of this sacrament. For a materialist-hedonist, it is the gateway to salvation.

But I wonder if all of those Democratic voters who were counting on health care reform will see it the same way if the bill does come back to the House with the Stupak amendment in-tact.

Ronald Wilson Reagan, how I miss you.

When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can’t be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989.Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend. His policy of aiding democratic movements in Central and Eastern Europe in the dark days of the Cold War meant a lot to us. We knew he believed in a few simple principles such as human rights, democracy and civil society. He was someone who was convinced that the citizen is not for the state, but vice-versa, and that freedom is an innate right.I often wondered why Ronald Reagan did this, taking the risks he did, in supporting us at Solidarity, as well as dissident movements in other countries behind the Iron Curtain, while pushing a defense buildup that pushed the Soviet economy over the brink. Let’s remember that it was a time of recession in the U.S. and a time when the American public was more interested in their own domestic affairs. It took a leader with a vision to convince them that there are greater things worth fighting for. Did he seek any profit in such a policy? Though our freedom movements were in line with the foreign policy of the United States, I doubt it.President Reagan, in a radio address from his ranch on Oct. 9, 1982, announces trade sanctions against Poland in retaliation for the outlawing of Solidarity.I distinguish between two kinds of politicians. There are those who view politics as a tactical game, a game in which they do not reveal any individuality, in which they lose their own face. There are, however, leaders for whom politics is a means of defending and furthering values. For them, it is a moral pursuit. They do so because the values they cherish are endangered. They’re convinced that there are values worth living for, and even values worth dying for.

Otherwise they would consider their life and work pointless. Only such politicians are great politicians and Ronald Reagan was one of them.The 1980s were a curious time — a time of realization that a new age was upon us. Communism was coming to an end. It had used up its means and possibilities. The ground was set for change. But this change needed the cooperation, or unspoken understanding, of different political players. Now, from the perspective of our time, it is obvious that like the pieces of a global chain of events, Ronald Reagan, John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher and even Mikhail Gorbachev helped bring about this new age in Europe. We at Solidarity like to claim more than a little credit, too, for bringing about the end of the Cold War.In the Europe of the 1980s, Ronald Reagan presented a vision. For us in Central and Eastern Europe, that meant freedom from the Soviets. Mr. Reagan was no ostrich who hoped that problems might just go away. He thought that problems are there to be faced. This is exactly what he did.Every time I met President Reagan, at his private estate in California or at the Lenin shipyard here in Gdansk, I was amazed by his modesty and even temper. He didn’t fit the stereotype of the world leader that he was. Privately, we were like opposite sides of a magnet: He was always composed; I was a raging tower of emotions eager to act. We were so different yet we never had a problem with understanding one another. I respected his honesty and good humor. It gave me confidence in his policies and his resolve. He supported my struggle, but what unified us, unmistakably, were our similar values and shared goals.* * *

I have often been asked in the United States to sign the poster that many Americans consider very significant. Prepared for the first almost-free parliamentary elections in Poland in 1989, the poster shows Gary Cooper as the lonely sheriff in the American Western, “High Noon.” Under the headline “At High Noon” runs the red Solidarity banner and the date — June 4, 1989 — of the poll. It was a simple but effective gimmick that, at the time, was misunderstood by the Communists. They, in fact, tried to ridicule the freedom movement in Poland as an invention of the “Wild” West, especially the U.S.But the poster had the opposite impact: Cowboys in Western clothes had become a powerful symbol for Poles. Cowboys fight for justice, fight against evil, and fight for freedom, both physical and spiritual. Solidarity trounced the Communists in that election, paving the way for a democratic government in Poland. It is always so touching when people bring this poster up to me to autograph it. They have cherished it for so many years and it has become the emblem of the battle that we all fought together.As I say repeatedly, we owe so much to all those who supported us. Perhaps in the early years, we didn’t express enough gratitude. We were so busy introducing all the necessary economic and political reforms in our reborn country. Yet President Ronald Reagan must have realized what remarkable changes he brought to Poland, and indeed the rest of the world.  And I hope he felt gratified. He should have.

Lech Walesa