Chuck Baldwin questions Ft Hood story

Here's the guy "on the grassy noll" again.

Surviving Fort Hood shooting suspect arrested at golf course, officer says

(CNN) -- A senior officer who was playing golf Thursday near Fort Hood, Texas, told CNN he witnessed the arrest of one of the two surviving suspects of the shooting at the Army installation.

Shortly after the shooting, the officer said, military police told him to clear the course and he saw other MPs surround the building that held the golf carts, he said.

The senior officer said he ducked into a nearby house for cover as 30 to 40 cars carrying MPs approached.

He said he saw a soldier in battle-dress uniform, his hands in the air. The MPs ordered him to lie on the ground and open his uniform, presumably to ensure he was not carrying explosives, the senior officer said.

He said an MP told him that authorities considered the man to be a suspect in the shootings after having overheard the man say he was with the shooter.

The man was surrounded for 25 to 30 minutes, until a convoy of vehicles arrived, led by a Ford Crown Victoria and carrying men in suits, and he was taken away, the senior officer said.

The golf course is about 2.5 miles from Fort Hood, the officer told CNN.

CNN's Kay Jones contributed to this story

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/05/texas.fort.hood.witnesse...

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/114461

A Republic, If You Can Keep It

This one is especially interesting, and, to me, casts the most doubt on the official story:

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? ....

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 have another question: since I haven't been following the story too much, since I think it's mostly fabrications and propaganda, can someone tell me if there are any eyewitnesses talking to the media?

it was a well-thought-out, well-written piece. He slams political correctness, exposes the fallacy of being protected by giving up our civil liberties, questions the "one-shooter" account, etc. He questions everything about the incident!!

From the article:
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.
......................................................
This, of course, was my favorite part:

"...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.)..."

Paul/Baldwin 2012...

A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences. Proverbs 22:3
Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to
send peace on earth: I came not to send peace,
but a sword.

about 9/11, apparently they have been convinced that they can say anything, and get away with it, and morons will believe it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Excellent Article!