THE AMERICAN COWBOY CHRONICLES

Muslim Terrorist Getting Military Salary?

2013-05-22T02:45:00.000-07:00

Fort Hood's Muslim Terrorist has been paid $278,000 Salary since 2009 Terrorist Attack

So what's wrong with this picture?the Muslim terrorist who was an

The military can't take away the salary of Nidal Hasan, the Army Major turned Muslim Terrorist charged in the deadly 2009 Fort Hood attack, until he has been convicted.

Because of that rule, Army Major Nidal Hasan, a soldier who renounced his oath to this nation and instead waged Islamic Jihad against unarmed people, and in the process killed 13 people and wounded 32 others during his terrorist attack at Fort Hood, has reportedly been paid more than $278,000 in salary since the 2009 attack.

Believe it or not, Department of Defense officials confirmed to NBCDFW.com that imprisoned Army Maj. Nidal Hasan’s salary cannot be suspended unless he is proven guilty in the Nov. 5, 2009, terrorist attack in Texas, citing the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Jury selection in his trial is scheduled to begin May 30.

If Hasan, 42, had been a civilian Defense Department employee, Army officials could have suspended his pay after just seven days - but since he was in the Army that's not the case.

If though he yelled out "Allah Akbar" and conducted himself as a Muslim Terrorist when he killed the unarmed and the innocent, the Army has kept paying him.
And yes, this has been going on since 2009!

Now, a military judge has refused to another delay in Hasan’s trial. His attorneys keep seeking to postpone the court-martial, but now it will be held on September 1st.

Hasan’s attorneys claimed military jurors may be influenced by national media coverage of the Boston Marathon bombings that compared the two Muslim terrorists - Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev - to Hasan.

Of course Hasan's attorneys don't want military jurors to be influenced by Muslim attacks around the globe which Hasan used as an example when he planned his attack.

His pattern of behavior is that of a Muslim terrorist, a Jihadis, a enemy combatant, not just some criminal violating the UCMJ.

Nidal Hasan is no different than Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

So why hasn't he been tried years during the almost 4 years ago since he conducted his attack? That's a great question, why indeed? Could it be politics?

Nidal Hasan faces the death penalty or life in prison without parole if convicted of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder.

But honestly, that doesn't make sense.

Premeditated murder is the crime of wrongfully causing the death of another human being, also known as murder, after rationally considering the timing or method of doing so, in order to either increase the likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension.

While Nidal Hasan did rationally consider killing people, it was a lot than than that.

Nidal Hasan rationally put together a terrorist plot to knowingly kill as many unarmed people as he could, through surprise and involving deliberate use of extreme violence, in the hope of attaining his religious aim of adhering to the murderous doctrine of Islam.

On April 15, 2013, two Muslim terrorists detonated two pressure cooker bombs in the City of Boston during the Boston Marathon.

The Fort Hood Terrorist Attack took place on November 5, 2009 at Fort Hood near Killeen, Texas. In the course of the attack, a single terrorist killed 13 people and wounded another 32 people.

It is the worst terrorist attack to take place on American soil since 9/11/2001.

Several individuals, including Senator Joe Lieberman, Army General McCaffrey, and others have called the event a terrorist attack.

Senator Joe Lieberman called the shooting "the most destructive terrorist attack on America since September 11, 2001."

Michael Scheuer, the retired former head of the Bin Laden Issue Station, and former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey also described it as a terrorist attack.
The White House and Pentagon have refused to characterize Hasan's attack as terrorism, instead terming it mere "workplace violence."

It seems they were more worried about offending our enemies than looking the problem squarely in the eye and seeing it for what it is.

An example of this was the statement that came out of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano who stated "we object to - and do not believe - that anti-Muslim sentiment should emanate from this ... This was an individual who does not, obviously, represent the Muslim faith."

Yes, there's nothing like a head of a government agency who is completely out of touch. Well, maybe there is? How about the President being out of touch?

As the U.S. military and law enforcement were scrambling to save lives after the Nidal Hasan terrorist attack at Ft. Hood, Texas, President Obama, fully aware of what had taken place opened his remarks at the Tribal Nations Conference for America’s 564 federally recognized Native American tribes with a three-minute "shout out" to an audience member while stressing desire to pass ObamaCare.

"I hear that Dr. Joe Medicine Crow was around, and so I want to give a shout out to that Congressional Medal of Honor winner. It’s good to see you," he said.

Then after a few laughs and pitching his ObamaCare package, the President finally acknowledged the tragedy by saying, "I planned to make some broader remarks. But as some of you might have heard there has been a tragic shooting at the Fort Hood Army base in Texas."
The next day, Obama opened his remarks at a brief press conference in the White House Rose Garden in which he warned the American public against "jumping to conclusions" over the motives of the shooter.
Obama said. "This morning I met with FBI Director Mueller and the relevant agencies to discuss their ongoing investigation into what caused one individual to turn his gun on fellow servicemen and women. We don't know all of the answers yet, and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all of the facts."

Obama was criticized by some for being "insensitive", as he addressed the shooting only three minutes into his prepared speech, and then for not giving it enough importance even the next day.

Many have criticized Obama for refusing to acknowledge the attack for what it was - Islamic Terrorism and not merely workplace violence akin to domestic violence.

The phrase "Allahu Akbar" is commonly used as a "war cry" by Jihadis. Jihad entails the act of killing the innocent and non-Muslims. It is used by Jihadis.

So imagine the scene, Nidal Hasan, acting as a Muslim terrorist screams, "Allahu Akbar!" Then starts shooting anyone he sees!

Does that sound like mere workplace violence to you? Does Hasan sound like some disgruntled employee? Was the whole attack as merely workplace violence because Hasan had a beef with his supervisor or co-workers?

No it doesn't. He is a Muslim Jihadis!
Days after the shooting, reports in the media revealed that a Joint Terrorism Task Force had been aware of e-mail communications between Hasan and the Yemen-based cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who had been monitored by the NSA as a security threat, and that Hasan's colleagues had been aware of his increasing radicalization for several years.

When President Obama went before cameras at the White House oafter the deadly bombings in Boston, he was smart enough to call the attack an “act of terrorism.”

Obama’s decision to use that designation - which he scrupulously avoided in his first public response on a few days before - attests to his extreme sensitivity of calling an Islamic attack terrorism.

Deploring what he called a "heinous and cowardly act," Obama said that “the American people refuse to be terrorized."

Moving quickly to put Obama on the record, the White House appeared intent not to repeat the messy chain of events after the assault on the diplomatic mission last year in Benghazi, Libya, which killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

In that case, critics accused the White House of initially playing down the terrorism links for political reasons during a hard-fought presidential campaign.

Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, echoed a sentiment voiced by many of her colleagues when she said, “I was puzzled yesterday that the president did not describe it as a terrorist attack right off the bat since it was so evidently a terror attack.”

The White House appeared to have learned from episodes like the failed plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines jetliner on Dec. 25, 2009, when the president was heavily criticized for saying nothing publicly for three days about the event.

A month before that plot, Obama was faulted for his initially subdued response to the terrorist attack at Fort Hood, Tex., in which Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 active and retired soldiers - all unarmed and innocent.

Let's understand something here, Hasan expressed admiration for the teachings of Anwar al-Awlaki, the imam at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia between 2000 and 2002.

Awlaki had been the subject of several FBI investigations, and had helped hijackers al-Hazmi and Hanjour settle, and provided spiritual guidance to them when they met him at the San Diego mosque, and after they drove to the east coast.

Hasan wrote nearly 20 emails to him between December 2008 and June 2009. In one, Hasan wrote: "I can't wait to join you" in the afterlife.

Hasan asked al-Awlaki when jihad is appropriate, and whether it is permissible if innocents are killed in a suicide attack.

So since when is the silly concept of Jihad a part of workplace violence? It is a part of Islamic Terrorism. Muslim such as the two Muslim terrorist who killed and maimed all of those people in Boston followed the teachings of Anwar al-Awlaki - the same jerkweed that Nidal Hisan followed.

So where's the difference between Hasan and those two who set of bombs in their Muslim terrorist attack in Boston? All three were schooled by the same radical Muslim nutcase. All three did this in an attempt to kill as many innocent as possible all in the name of Jihad.

The victims of the Fort Hood Terrorist Attack have been denied Purple Hearts and are suing the military because they claim the "workplace violence" designation gives them diminished access to medical care and financial benefits normally available to those whose wounds are designated as "combat related."

A group of soldiers and families have sought to have the defense secretary designate the shooting a "terrorist attack;" this would provide them with benefits equal to injuries in combat.

Nidal Hasan shed his uniform and oath to this nation when he took up the mantle of Muslim Jihadis. At that moment, he was not an Army Officer, a Major, he became an enemy combatant.

And yes, as an enemy combatant, the Army should not be paying him a salary of any sort. But than again, don't ask the Army or the White House why Hasan is getting paid his full military salary while those he tried to kill don't get anything in the way of assistance - political pressure forbids the military from doing anything wise or noble these days.

Story by Tom Correa

Obama Admin say Scandals "Irrelevant"?

2013-05-20T00:57:00.000-07:00

The Obama administration is now saying that facts and the law are "irrelevant"? Can it be true?

Well, the Obama administration is now trying to tell the American people that the facts pertaining to the Benghazi scandal are "irrelevant."

Yes, a top White House adviser said it was an "irrelevant fact" where President Obama was on the night of the Benghazi terror attacks.

And believe it or not, if you are looking for justice in the IRS scandal - forget about it!

You see, Obama administration's Dan Pfeiffer said the Obama administration would NOT cooperate with the investigation into the IRS because they see it as a "partisan fishing expeditions."

I know it sounds like I'm making it up, but it's true! Dan Pfeiffer went so far as to say that the law governing the targeting of conservative groups was "irrelevant."

He actually said that the law is "irrelevant!"

Obama administration's Dan Pfeiffer went on five Sunday talk shows where he supposedly tried to do damage control and reverse the damage done to the Obama administration this week by a series of scandals.

On "Fox News Sunday," Dan Pfeiffer tried to hammer home that the president "only heard" about the IRS unfairly targeting Tea Party groups "when it came out in the news."

It doesn't matter that the IRS law breaking was widely reported in the news and was a topic of concern more than a year ago; it doesn't matter that it makes President Obama look like a completely out of touch dunce; Dan Pfeiffer says President Obama only found out about it in the news when you and I found out about it just recently.

Of course, what that means is that you and I must be getting more information than the President because I wrote a blog about the IRS intimidation and targeting Tea Party folks early last year:

IRS Threats - How The IRS Wants Information From Tea Party Chapters? March 2, 2012

But wait, I heard about it on Fox News! Does this mean that President Obama should be watching Fox News?

Is his problem CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, and MSNBC? His information and news outlets are all letting him down.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who appeared on CNN's "State of the Union," suggested there was a written policy to target political groups opposing the president but when pressed for proof, he was unable to provide details.

On ABC, Dan Pfeiffer did his best impression of a lying Ambassador Susan E. Rice when he stuck to the White House script and said that the law governing the targeting of conservative groups was "irrelevant."

Even ultra-liberal George Stephanopoulos couldn't believe his ears and asked, "You don’t really mean the law is irrelevant do you?"

Dan Pfeiffer took his cue and attempted to tap dance an answer as he tried to clarified his statement, "What I mean is that whether it's legal, or illegal is -- is not important to the fact that it -- that, the conduct as a matter. The Department of Justice said they're looking into the legality of this. The president is not going to wait for that. We have to make sure it doesn't happen again regardless of how that turns out."

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner! We can give this week's Foot-In-Mouth Award to Dan Pfeiffer!

The Foot-In-Mouth Award is presented to a political hack who bravely goes forth and allows their mouths to over-run their ass! In this case, Danny boy doesn't know what he is talking about!

Earlier this week, a Treasury Department inspector general report revealed that Tea Party and other groups that had been critical of Obama received extra scrutiny when applying for a tax-exempt status from the government.

According to the report, IRS agents had not flagged similar liberal or progressive groups.

The incident was traced back to an Ohio IRS office that had singled out conservative groups and held up their applications or demanded information from them like donor information, which is illegal.

Many groups would not or could not provide the confidential information and as a result had to suspend their applications.

And how many Conservatives groups have been targeted by these Obama Nazis? Well, over 500 Conservative groups and no telling how many Conservative individuals have been singled out and targeted by the IRS tax men.

And yes, unless you have been audited - you have no idea how that Gestapo bunch works!

Then, believe it or not, while he was defending the IRS or how the President's where-abouts during a National Security Emergency does not matter, Dan Pfeiffer took on another subject.

He demands an apology from Republicans for saying that U.N. ambassador Susan Rice was a part of the Benghazi cover-up after the Obama administration did nothing to help the four Americans who were fighting for their very lives for more than 10 hours.

That's right, no help for more than 10 hours and U.S. Marine response teams were only 2 hours away! Imagine that! Ten hours!

Dan Pfeiffer went on CBS' "Face the Nation" to say that the issue of "who" changed the initial talking points on the attack is "largely irrelevant."

Of course, what that means is that the White House doesn't think it matters "who lied" to us about what took place.

The Benghazi emails though did show top State Department officials involved in trying to water down the administration's initial storyline to remove references to prior security incidents and warnings.

So now, let's understand what Obama administration's Dan Pfeiffer is saying when he is speaking for the White House:

The Obama White House considers the law governing the targeting of conservative groups was "irrelevant."
The Obama White House does NOT consider what the IRS has done as illegal.
The Obama White House will NOT help find the criminals in the IRS who broke the law.
The Obama White House considers the Congressional investigation into the criminal acts by the IRS as "partisan fishing expeditions".
The Obama White House considers "the facts" pertaining to the where-abouts of the President of the United States during a National Security Emergency is "irrelevant;"
The Obama White House thinks "who lied" to us about what took place is "largely irrelevant."
That "the facts" pertaining to the series of scandals coming out of the White House are "irrelevant;"
That the person who man the call and refused aid or to send the Marines into Benghazi is "irrelevant."
That all information relating to these scandals are not pertinent to Americans being killed or targeted by an out-of-control Federal Government agency.

What Dan Pfeiffer said was that the law is not important; that the facts have no bearing on or connection with the subject at issue; that the actions of the White House are unconnected, unrelated, and unimportant in the managing of government agencies. And yes, that Benghazi doesn't matter.

So get ready folks!

In the next few weeks, the American people are going to be bombarded with the words "inappropriate," "peripheral," "insignificant," "negligible," "immaterial," "extraneous," "beside the point," "unrelated," "unconnected" and "neither here nor there" from the Obama administration.

The reason is that they are circling the wagons in an attempt to spin the lie that they have nothing to do with the abuse of power and rampant law breaking by the IRS, or the horrible performance of the White House and the State Department when our people were getting killed in Libya.

Story by Tom Correa

What Is Flag and National Anthem Etiquette?

2013-05-19T12:34:00.002-07:00

With Memorial Day coming up here in a few days, I figure it might be time to talk about what is proper Flag and National Anthem etiquette?

First off, proper etiquette for Old Glory or The Star Spangled Banner, or as a matter of fact the Pledge of Allegiance, is just not that tough that everyone can't do it.

We here in the United States know that there are events which are usually opened with the formal presentation of the Flag of the United States of America followed by the national anthem.

And yes, some events are opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.

The information below describes the proper way for US citizens within U.S. jurisdictions to show the due respect for these symbols of our country, as defined by the Code of Laws of the United States of America - also known as the United States Code.

Flag Etiquette

It is all about standards of respect.

When the flag of the United States of America is formally presented or paraded, the proper etiquette or respect is described below:

United States Code, Title 4 Chapter 1 — The Flag, section 9:

During the ceremony of hoisting or lowering the flag or when the flag is passing in a parade or in review, all persons present in uniform should render the military salute.
Members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute.
All other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, or if applicable, remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart.
Citizens of other countries present should stand at attention.
All such conduct toward the flag in a moving column should be rendered at the moment the flag passes.

The Flag Code

The Flag Code, which formalizes and unifies the traditional ways in which we give respect to the flag, also contains specific instructions on how the flag is not to be used. They are:

The flag should never be dipped to any person or thing.
It is flown upside down only as a distress signal.
The flag should not be used as a drapery, or for covering a speakers desk, or draping a platform. Bunting of blue, white and red stripes are available for these purposes. The blue stripe of the bunting should be on the top.
The flag should never be used for any advertising purpose. It should not be embroidered, printed or otherwise impressed on such articles as cushions, handkerchiefs, napkins, boxes, or anything intended to be discarded after temporary use. Advertising signs should not be attached to the staff or halyard
The flag should not be used as part of a costume or athletic uniform, except that a flag patch may be used on the uniform of military personnel, fireman, policeman and members of patriotic organizations.
The flag should never have placed on it, or attached to it, any mark, insignia, letter, word, number, figure, or drawing of any kind.
The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.
When the flag is lowered, no part of it should touch the ground or any other object; it should be received by waiting hands and arms. To store the flag it should be folded neatly and ceremoniously.
The flag should be cleaned and mended when necessary.
When a flag is so worn it is no longer fit to serve as a symbol of our country, it should be destroyed by burning in a dignified manner.

Note: Most American Legion Posts regularly conduct a dignified flag burning ceremony. Many Cub Scout Packs, Boy Scout Troops, and Girl Scout Troops retire flags regularly as well. Contact your local American Legion Hall or Scout Troop to inquire about the availability of this service.

Displaying the Flag Outdoors

When the flag is displayed from a staff projecting from a window, balcony, or a building, the union should be at the peak of the staff unless the flag is at half staff.

When it is displayed from the same flagpole with another flag - of a state, community, society or Scout unit - the flag of the United States must always be at the top except that the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for Navy personnel when conducted by a Naval chaplain on a ship at sea.

When the flag is displayed over a street, it should be hung vertically, with the union to the north or east. If the flag is suspended over a sidewalk, the flag's union should be farthest from the building.

When flown with flags of states, communities, or societies on separate flag poles which are of the same height and in a straight line, the flag of the United States is always placed in the position of honor - to its own right:

The other flags may be smaller but none may be larger.
No other flag ever should be placed above it.
The flag of the United States is always the first flag raised and the last to be lowered.

When flown with the national banner of other countries, each flag must be displayed from a separate pole of the same height. Each flag should be the same size. They should be raised and lowered simultaneously. The flag of one nation may not be displayed above that of another nation.

Raising and Lowering the Flag

Old Glory should be raised briskly and lowered slowly and ceremoniously.

Ordinarily it should be displayed only between sunrise and sunset. It should be illuminated if displayed at night.

The flag of the United States of America is saluted as it is hoisted and lowered.

The salute is held until the flag is unsnapped from the halyard or through the last note of music, whichever is the longest.

Displaying the Flag Indoors

When on display, the flag is accorded the place of honor, always positioned to its own right. Place it to the right of the speaker or staging area or sanctuary. Other flags should be to the left.

The flag of the United States of America should be at the center and at the highest point of the group when a number of flags of states, localities, or societies are grouped for display.

When one flag is used with the flag of the United States of America and the staffs are crossed, the flag of the United States is placed on its own right with its staff in front of the other flag.

When displaying the flag against a wall, vertically or horizontally, the flag's union (stars) should be at the top, to the flag's own right, and to the observer's left.

Parading and Saluting the Flag

When carried in a procession, the flag should be to the right of the marchers.

When other flags are carried, the flag of the United States may be centered in front of the others or carried to their right.

When the flag passes in a procession, or when it is hoisted or lowered, all should face the flag and salute.

The Salute

To salute Old Glory, all persons come to attention.

Those in uniform give the appropriate formal salute.

Citizens not in uniform salute by placing their right hand over the heart and men with head cover should remove it and hold it to left shoulder, hand over the heart.

Members of organizations in formation salute upon command of the person in charge.

The Flag in Mourning

To place the flag at half staff, hoist it to the peak for an instant and lower it to a position half way between the top and bottom of the staff.

The flag is to be raised again to the peak for a moment before it is lowered.

On Memorial Day the flag is displayed at half staff until noon and at full staff from noon to sunset.

The flag is to be flown at half staff in mourning for designated, principal government leaders and upon presidential or gubernatorial order.

When used to cover a casket, the flag should be placed with the union at the head and over the left shoulder. It should not be lowered into the grave.

National Anthem Etiquette

During the Pledge of Allegiance and National Anthem

The pledge of allegiance should be rendered by standing at attention, facing the flag, and saluting.

When the national anthem is played or sung, citizens should stand at attention and salute at the first note and hold the salute through the last note.

The salute is directed to the flag, if displayed, otherwise to the music.

During the playing of the national anthem of the United States of America, the proper etiquette or respect is described below:

United States Code, Title 36, section 301:

1. Designation. — The composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.

2. Conduct During Playing — During rendition of the national anthem:

When the flag is displayed individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note; members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform; and all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.

Keep in mind that there is no need to observe the above etiquette if you merely see the flag.

For example, at a rodeo the flag is often carried by a mounted rider. If the rider should carry the flag into the arena during a warm-up period prior to the rodeo there is no need to stand at attention and/or salute.

However, when the flag is formally introduced and passes by, rules of proper etiquette and respect apply.

Now as for Women and Hats

At a rodeo it is not uncommon to find women wearing cowboy hats or some other type of hat.

While the United States Code does describe the removal of "headdress," or hats, as proper etiquette for the formal presentation of the flag and the playing of the national anthem, this stipulation has not traditionally been applied to women.

Today, though, with the popularity of unisex hats among women such as a cowboy hat or ball cap, some women voluntarily remove their hat.

But to the best of my knowledge however, it is nonetheless not considered disrespectful if she chooses to leave it on.

But for the guys, they should take off there hats and place it over there hearts and give due respect to the symbol of our freedom and liberty.

It is worth mentioning that during the formal presentation of the flag and the national anthem, that not all "headdress" is the type that needs to be removed. For example, religious headdress such as a Jewish yamaka has always been considered an exception and may be left on.

Though most believe that there is or at least "should be" enforcement, it should be noted that while our flag and national anthem etiquette is Federal Law as defined by the United States Code - there are no provisions for enforcement.

Bottom line, showing proper etiquette or respect for Old Glory or our national anthem is voluntary.

Of course, there is that fact that not showing proper respect for Old Glory or our national anthem is a classless act.

Showing disrespect for either, might have someone taking the offender to task.
Then There Are The Ignorant!

It's true that every now and again you find someone so self-absorbed that they are either ignorant or just plain stupid.

Fact is that there are people, who in most cases were probably brought up without any guidance at all when it comes to love of our country.

These people have no idea what these symbols mean, how precious they are, or that it is right to give respect to them.

And yes, in most cases, you just can't fix stupid!

Story by Tom Correa