Fort Hood Suspect Warned of Muslim Threat Within Military

Tuesday , November 10, 2009

FOX NEWS

The Army psychiatrist suspected of killing 13 people at Fort Hood reportedly warned senior Army physicians in 2007 that the military should allow Muslim soldiers to be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting in wars to avoid "adverse events."

According to The Washington Post, Major Nidal Malik Hasan was supposed to make a presentation on a medical topic during his senior year as a psychiatric resident at Walter Reed Medical Center.

Instead, Hasan lectured his supervisors and two dozen mental health staff members on Islam, homicide bombings and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting against other Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A source who attended the presentation told the paper, "It was really strange. The senior doctors looked really upset."

The Powerpoint, entitled, "The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military," consisted of 50 slides, according to a copy obtained by the Post.

"It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims," Hasan said in the presentation.

Under a slide titled "Comments," he wrote: "If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the 'infidels'; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc." [sic]

The last bullet point on that page reads simply: "We love death more then [sic] you love life!"

On the final slide, labeled "Recommendation," Hasan wrote: "Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as 'Conscientious objectors' to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events."

An Army spokesman told the Post Monday night he was unaware of the presentation, and a Walter Reed spokesman declined comment.

A classmate of Hasan, meanwhile, told FoxNews.com that the warning signs were all there — the justification of homicide bombings; spewing anti-American hatred; efforts to reach out to Al Qaeda — but that the military treated Hasan with kid gloves, even after giving him a poor performance review.

And though he was on the radar screen of at least one U.S. intelligence agency, no action was taken that might have prevented the Army psychiatrist from allegedly gunning down 13 people and wounding 29 others in the Fort Hood massacre last week.

"There were definitely clear indications that Hasan's loyalties were not with America," Lt. Col. Val Finnell, Hasan's classmate at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md. He and Hasan were students in the school's public health master's degree program from 2007-2008.

"The issue here is that there's a political correctness climate in the military. They don't want to say anything because it would be considered questioning somebody's religious belief, or they're afraid of an equal opportunity lawsuit.

"I want to be clear that this wasn't about anyone questioning his religious views. It is different when you are a civilian than when you are a military officer," said Finnell, who is a physician at the Los Angeles Air Force Base.

"When you are in the military and you start making comments that are seditious, when you say you believe something other than your oath of office — someone needed to say why is this guy saying this stuff.

"He was a lightning rod. He made his views known and he was very vocal, he had extremely radical jihadist views," Finnell said. "When you're a military officer you take an oath to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.

"They should've confronted him — our professors, officers — but they were too concerned about being politically correct."

Finnell said the warning signs were clear to many, not just classmates. Faculty members, including many high-ranking military officers, witnessed firsthand his anti-Americanism, he said.

Finnell recalled Hasan telling his classmates and professors, "I'm a Muslim first and I hold the Shariah, the Islamic Law, before the United States Constitution."

He recalled one time when his classmates were giving presentations in an environmental health class on topics like soil and water contamination and the effects of mold. When it was Hasan's turn, he said, he got up in front of the class and began to speak about his chosen topic, "Is the War on Terror a war on Islam?"

Finnell says he raised his hand. "I asked the professor, "What does this topic have to do with environmental health?"

"When he was challenged on his views, Hasan became visibly upset. He became sweaty, he was emotional."

But despite questioning from the other students, Finnell said, the professor allowed Hasan to continue. He said Hasan's anti-American vitriol continued for two years as he worked toward his degree in public health.

There were even more warning signs that might have alerted the Army in recent months:

— In the days and weeks before the shooting, Hasan voiced his objections to Muslims fighting the war on terror to members of his mosque, the Islamic Community of Greater Killeen. Congregants at the mosque said he voiced his objections to Muslims serving in the U.S. military and to his impending deployment to Afghanistan.

— Over the summer, Hasan's comments led Osman Danquah, co-founder of the mosque, to recommend that it deny Hasan's request to become a lay Muslim leader at Fort Hood, the Associated Press reported.

— In the months before Thursday's shooting Hasan tried reaching out to people associated with Al Qaeda — and did so under the watchful eye of at least one U.S. intelligence agency. An intelligence official told FOXNews.com that "Hasan was on our radar for months."

On Sunday Sen. Joe Lieberman announced his intention to lead a congressional investigation into the Fort Hood murders, saying there were "strong warning signs" that Hasan was an "Islamic extremist."

"The U.S. Army has to have zero tolerance. He should have been gone," said Lieberman, who is chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

In interviews Sunday, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey stressed that it was too early in the investigation to know whether these warnings signs could have spared the lives of the 13 killed, dismissing earlier reports about such signs as "speculation" based on anecdotes. "I don't want to say that we missed it," he said.

Finnell said that once Hasan was identified as the suspect in Thursday's massacre, he reached out to the Army to tell them about his experiences with Hasan.

This time, he said, "They listened."

Fox News' Jonathan Passantino and Jana Winter contributed to this report.

Copyright 2009 FOX News Network, LLC.

All rights reserved.

Canada's Healthcare Disaster

By DICK MORRIS

Published on TheHill.com on November 3, 2009

After more than a decade of public healthcare with mandatory coverage, so many Canadian doctors have left the practice and so many young people have entered other fields that Canada ranks 26th of 28 developed nations in its ratio of physicians to population. Once, Canada ranked among the leaders in the number of physicians, but that was before government healthcare drove doctors out of the practice in droves.

The fundamental fact is that we cannot cover 36 million new patients without more doctors and nurses, much less with the declining census of medical professionals the Canadian experience points to. A recent survey of doctors by the Pew Institute found that 45 percent of all practicing doctors would consider retiring or closing their practices if the Obama healthcare bill passes. This scarcity of medical personnel heightens the likelihood of draconian rationing, lengthy waiting lists and lower-quality medical care for all of us, particularly for the elderly.

This physician shortage leads to massive and never-ending waiting lists. In 1993, for example, there was an average wait of 9.3 weeks from the time a patient got a referral from a general practitioner to the time he could see a specialist. By 1997, the wait was up to 11.7 weeks. Now it's 17.3 weeks -- over four months just to see a specialist!

In Canada, unions control the entire healthcare process. In Manitoba, for example, there is an eight-month wait for colonoscopies, yet the unions do not permit weekend or evening procedures, thereby extending the waiting lists. The unions are doing to healthcare in Canada what they have done to education in America: stifling creativity, reinforcing bureaucracy and extending waiting times.

Because of these long waits for colonoscopies, there is now a 25 percent higher incidence of colon cancer in Canada than in the United States. And because the leading drugs that we routinely use to treat the malady in the U.S. are banned in Canada because of their high cost, 41 percent of Canadians who get the cancer die of it, compared with only 32 percent in the United States. Overall, the cancer death rate in Canada runs 16 percent higher than in the United States. Cancer does not wait for waiting lists to clear.

The potential of healthcare changes to shrink the doctor population, exacerbating scarcity and extending waits, is even worse now that it is apparent we have overestimated the number of doctors in the U.S. Where we once thought there were 840,000 doctors, the total is now estimated to be only 760,000.

The proposed $400 billion cut in Medicare raises the probability that more and more of those doctors who do practice will refuse to accept Medicare patients, aggravating the doctor shortage among the elderly, the population that needs them the most.

As Obama's program moves through Congress, despite the fierce opposition of a majority of American voters in virtually all the polls, it becomes clear that those moderates who vote for it will face harsh retribution at the polls from their outraged constituents. A kind of suicide-pact mentality is gripping the Democratic majorities in Congress, akin to that which came over it when Congress passed President Bill Clinton's tax package in 1993. This disregard for the will of the marginal voter may make sense for those who come from safe districts, but it makes none for those who come from swing districts. For them, suicidal conduct leads to political demise.

Legal Action Looms Over Tax Rate OK'd by MFPD Directors

MIKE ANTHONY

Executive Editor - Call Newspapers

November 04, 2009 - The Missouri Attorney General's Office has notified the Mehlville Fire Protection District it intends to take legal action to prohibit the district from collecting the fiscal 2010 tax rate approved by the Board of Directors.

The Board of Directors voted Aug. 27 to set the fire district's tax rate at 59.3 cents per $100 of assessed valuation, an amount it contends is the legal maximum it can levy as a result of the passage earlier this year of two propositions reducing Mehlville's tax-rate ceiling by 40 cents.

The fiscal 2010 tax rate is 3 cents more than the previous year's tax rate of 56.3 cents, and board members voted to roll up the tax rate to collect the same amount of revenue as the previous year under the provisions of the Hancock Amendment.

However, Missouri Auditor Susan Montee's Office contends that because the Board of Directors voted in August 2008 to levy a tax rate less than the district's tax-rate ceiling of $1.052, Mehlville's ceiling was reduced to 56.3 cents under the provisions of Senate Bill 711. As a result, the tax-rate-ceiling reduction of 40 cents approved by voters sets the district's new tax-rate ceiling at 16.3 cents.

"They are above the taxing rate that's allowed,'' Allison Bruns, public affairs coordinator for the Missouri Auditor's Office, told the Call.

Citing SB 711, she said, "It changed what your ceiling could be and because they took a voluntary reduction and then the voters passed an additional reduction, what that would create is the (tax) rate last year is now the ceiling under Senate Bill 711.''

Because the board voted to levy 59.3 cents for fiscal 2010, Montee's office deemed the fire district's tax rate to be non-compliant with state law and has referred the issue to Attorney General Chris Koster's Office, Bruns said.

In an Oct. 27 letter to Administrative Chief Fire Officer Tim White, Ronald Holier, general counsel for the Attorney General's Office, wrote, "... It appears that the levy you seek to impose is in violation of the certified rate provided by law. You have previously been given an opportunity to correct or explain this discrepancy by the auditor.

"It is our intention to file a petition for an injunction barring your attempt to levy a higher-than-authorized rate within 15 days of this letter. If you voluntarily come into compliance, we will not seek the assessment of costs against the district.''

But Mathew Hoffman, legal counsel for the fire district, told the Call the county collector of revenue will levy the tax rate approved by the Board of Directors. Furthermore, Hoffman contended the ballot language for the two tax-rate-ceiling-reduction measures — Proposition 1 and Proposition 2 — specifically stated they are not subject to any tax-rate-reduction rollback.

Proposition 1 asked whether the district's general-fund tax-rate ceiling should be permanently reduced by 36 cents per $100 of assessed valuation while Proposition 2 asked whether the district's pension-fund tax-rate ceiling would be permanently reduced by 4 cents per $100. Both measures were overwhelmingly approved by voters in April.

In an Oct. 21 letter to Montee's office, Hoffman wrote, "... It is the position of the district that the tax-rate ceiling available is higher than the tax-rate ceiling determined by your office. Further, both Proposition 1 and Proposition 2, which were approved by the voters of the district, state the following: 'This proposition is based upon the 2008 assessed valuation of the district. The foregoing shall not be subject to any tax-rate-reduction rollback' ...

"As such, the Mehlville Fire Protection District does not accept the tax-rate ceiling certified by the office of the Missouri state auditor ...,'' Hoffman wrote.

His letter also included a copy of the district's tax-rate resolution and the ballot language for Proposition 1 and Proposition 2.

In an Oct. 26 letter to Koster's office, Montee wrote, "... If a taxing authority rejects a rate change certified by the SAO (State Auditor's Office) and the SAO does not receive supporting information which justifies the taxing authority's original or any subsequent tax rate, the SAO shall refer the perceived violation to the attorney general ...''

Besides citing the ballot language for Proposition 1 and Proposition 2, Hoffman noted the Mehlville Fire Protection District is the first taxing entity in the state in which voters have approved a tax-rate-ceiling reduction. Therefore, it's his understanding the auditor's office has never dealt with such a situation, he said.

"The language included in both Proposition 1 and Proposition 2 states that they are not subject to any tax-rate-reduction rollback,'' Hoffman told the Call." The auditor's office did not address the roll-back language. It is my understanding that they have never dealt with a tax-rate-ceiling decrease prior to the legislation passed by Mehlville Fire Protection District voters in April 2009.

"At this point, we are in the process of discussing this issue in further detail with the office of the attorney general."

Board of Directors Chairman Aaron Hilmer told the Call he believes the ballot language of the two propositions is clear.

"... What the auditor's office is saying is you have to take the 40 cents from Prop 1 and 2 out of the 56 cents ...,'' he said. "Why would we put something on there that would take away from what we already took away? None of this makes any sense and what's really frustrating is that's why we drafted that last sentence the way we did. Because we realized the situation and that's why we put it in there. Everything that residents received, giving them information on this, made it clear that this was coming off the ceiling and not last year's tax rate.''

Proposition 1 and Proposition 2 were put before district voters after withstanding a legal challenge from Concord resident Dennis Skelton, who filed a lawsuit seeking to remove the measures from the April 7 ballot. But St. Louis County Circuit Court Judge Sandra Hemphill ruled the fire district had the legal authority to place the measures on the ballot, citing provisions enacted as part of SB 711.

The judge also denied a motion for a new trial by Skelton's attorney, John Goffstein, who had contended, "The ballot measure is unconstitutionally vague because it states it is not a rollback measure, when in fact, that is the effect of the proposition."

But Hemphill disagreed, writing, "The critical test for the sufficiency of a ballot measure is 'whether the language fairly and impartially summarizes the purposes of the measure so the voters will not be deceived or misled' ... None of the provisions of 321.244.1, RSMo. mandate specific language for the type of ballot measures at issue here. The court has reviewed the language of the propositions and finds them to be in substantial compliance with the ballot form set out in section 321.244.1, RSMo."

Hilmer said he looked forward to meeting with representatives of the Attorney General's Office and was optimistic the situation would be resolved in the district's favor.

"I expect that to be the end of the story,'' he said. "Certainly the ballot language is very clear. Our intent was clear. What voters voted on was clear and here's what I think is really interesting: The ballot language was verified by a judge as to how clear it was. I am shocked that it got this far, but the auditor's office was not ... not that they weren't even helpful, but they wouldn't listen to us.''

Webmaster's Note: The South County Truth Spot has discovered that Local 1889 president, Nick Fahs visited Jefferson City several times in relation to the below actions of the State Auditor and Attorney General. We also have information that points to the involvement of the State Council of Firefighters, who along with the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF - the firefighters' AFL-CIO union) have also been involved.

State Auditor Montee and Attorney General Koster both officials received large political contributions to their campaigns from the State Council and the IAFF. Also, the State Council of Firefighters PAID for Dennis "Jaw Breaker" Skelton's unsuccessful lawsuits to stop Propositions 1 & 2 from appearing on the April 2009 ballot. We have been told that requests will be made under the Sunshine Law to identify the individuals who met with officials in Montee and Koster's offices to hatch this plot against the taxpayers of the Mehlville FPD.

Since it is the intention of the state & local firefighters' unions to destroy the MFPD and deprive it of the funding required to operate, we have a suggestion for the Board of Directors: Open a call for volunteer firefighters to replace the paid union firefighters who will have to be laid off due to lack of funding if the Attorney General prevails in court.

In Missouri, volunteer firefighters comprise the vast majority of personnel staffing fire districts across the state. Volunteers are professional and highly motivated for the simple reason that they WANT TO BE FIREFIGHTERS. Since Nick Fahs and his union cronies are starting up ANOTHER WAR that they will lose, perhaps it is time to consider a largely volunteer fire department who actually wants to SERVE instead of SUE the taxpayers who pay the princely salary and benefits to these ungrateful and malcontented public employees.

The Worst Bill Ever

NOVEMBER 1, 2009

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Epic new spending and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she's prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that's what it takes to pass ObamaCare, and little wonder. The health bill she unwrapped last Thursday, which President Obama hailed as a "critical milestone," may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced.

In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics.

Yet at this point, Democrats have dumped any pretense of genuine bipartisan "reform" and moved into the realm of pure power politics as they race against the unpopularity of their own agenda. The goal is to ram through whatever income-redistribution scheme they can claim to be "universal coverage." The result will be destructive on every level—for the health-care system, for the country's fiscal condition, and ultimately for American freedom and prosperity.

•The spending surge. The Congressional Budget Office figures the House program will cost $1.055 trillion over a decade, which while far above the $829 billion net cost that Mrs. Pelosi fed to credulous reporters is still a low-ball estimate. Most of the money goes into government-run "exchanges" where people earning between 150% and 400% of the poverty level—that is, up to about $96,000 for a family of four in 2016—could buy coverage at heavily subsidized rates, tied to income. The government would pay for 93% of insurance costs for a family making $42,000, 72% for another making $78,000, and so forth.

At least at first, these benefits would be offered only to those whose employers don't provide insurance or work for small businesses with 100 or fewer workers. The taxpayer costs would be far higher if not for this "firewall"—which is sure to cave in when people see the deal their neighbors are getting on "free" health care. Mrs. Pelosi knows this, like everyone else in Washington.

Even so, the House disguises hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs with budget gimmicks. It "pays for" about six years of program with a decade of revenue, with the heaviest costs concentrated in the second five years. The House also pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 21.5% next year and deeper after that, "saving" about $250 billion. ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that.

• Expanding Medicaid, gutting private Medicare. All this is particularly reckless given the unfunded liabilities of Medicare—now north of $37 trillion over 75 years. Mrs. Pelosi wants to steal $426 billion from future Medicare spending to "pay for" universal coverage. While Medicare's price controls on doctors and hospitals are certain to be tightened, the only cut that is a sure thing in practice is gutting Medicare Advantage to the tune of $170 billion. Democrats loathe this program because it gives one of out five seniors private insurance options.

As for Medicaid, the House will expand eligibility to everyone below 150% of the poverty level, meaning that some 15 million new people will be added to the rolls as private insurance gets crowded out at a cost of $425 billion. A decade from now more than a quarter of the population will be on a program originally intended for poor women, children and the disabled.

Even though the House will assume 91% of the "matching rate" for this joint state-federal program—up from today's 57%—governors would still be forced to take on $34 billion in new burdens when budgets from Albany to Sacramento are in fiscal collapse. Washington's budget will collapse too, if anything like the House bill passes.

• European levels of taxation. All told, the House favors $572 billion in new taxes, mostly by imposing a 5.4-percentage-point "surcharge" on joint filers earning over $1 million, $500,000 for singles. This tax will raise the top marginal rate to 45% in 2011 from 39.6% when the Bush tax cuts expire—not counting state income taxes and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. The burden will mostly fall on the small businesses that have organized as Subchapter S or limited liability corporations, since the truly wealthy won't have any difficulty sheltering their incomes.

This surtax could hit ever more earners because, like the alternative minimum tax, it isn't indexed for inflation. Yet it still won't be nearly enough. Even if Congress had confiscated 100% of the taxable income of people earning over $500,000 in the boom year of 2006, it would have only raised $1.3 trillion. When Democrats end up soaking the middle class, perhaps via the European-style value-added tax that Mrs. Pelosi has endorsed, they'll claim the deficits that they created made them do it.

Under another new tax, businesses would have to surrender 8% of their payroll to government if they don't offer insurance or pay at least 72.5% of their workers' premiums, which eat into wages. Such "play or pay" taxes always become "pay or pay" and will rise over time, with severe consequences for hiring, job creation and ultimately growth. While the U.S. already has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, Democrats are on the way to creating a high structural unemployment rate, much as Europe has done by expanding its welfare states.

Meanwhile, a tax equal to 2.5% of adjusted gross income will also be imposed on some 18 million people who CBO expects still won't buy insurance in 2019. Democrats could make this penalty even higher, but that is politically unacceptable, or they could make the subsidies even higher, but that would expose the (already ludicrous) illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.

• The insurance takeover. A new "health choices commissioner" will decide what counts as "essential benefits," which all insurers will have to offer as first-dollar coverage. Private insurers will also be told how much they are allowed to charge even as they will have to offer coverage at virtually the same price to anyone who applies, regardless of health status or medical history.

The cost of insurance, naturally, will skyrocket. The insurer WellPoint estimates based on its own market data that some premiums in the individual market will triple under these new burdens. The same is likely to prove true for the employer-sponsored plans that provide private coverage to about 177 million people today. Over time, the new mandates will apply to all contracts, including for the large businesses currently given a safe harbor from bureaucratic tampering under a 1974 law called Erisa.

The political incentive will always be for government to expand benefits and reduce cost-sharing, trampling any chance of giving individuals financial incentives to economize on care. Essentially, all insurers will become government contractors, in the business of fulfilling political demands: There will be no such thing as "private" health insurance.

All of this is intentional, even if it isn't explicitly acknowledged. The overriding liberal ambition is to finish the work began decades ago as the Great Society of converting health care into a government responsibility. Mr. Obama's own Medicare actuaries estimate that the federal share of U.S. health dollars will quickly climb beyond 60% from 46% today.

One reason Mrs. Pelosi has fought so ferociously against her own Blue Dog colleagues to include at least a scaled-back "public option" entitlement program is so that the architecture is in place for future Congresses to expand this share even further.

As Congress's balance sheet drowns in trillions of dollars in new obligations, the political system will have no choice but to start making cost-minded decisions about which treatments patients are allowed to receive. Democrats can't regulate their way out of the reality that we live in a world of finite resources and infinite wants. Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable—especially for the innovative high-cost technologies and drugs that are the future of medicine.

Mr. Obama rode into office on a wave of "change," but we doubt most voters realized that the change Democrats had in mind was making health care even more expensive and rigid than the status quo. Critics will say we are exaggerating, but we believe it is no stretch to say that Mrs. Pelosi's handiwork ranks with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act as among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated.

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

All Rights Reserved