The Pentagon press for the Fort Hood shooter's execution

Let us confront the grim reality of Nidal Hasan, a name that ought to evoke not just revulsion but a piercing clarity about the consequences of ideological blindness. The Pentagon, we are told, is poised to seek President Donald Trump’s approval to execute this former jihadi Army major, convicted of the 2009 Fort Hood massacre, a slaughter that left 13 dead and 32 wounded. If granted, this would mark the first U.S. military execution in over six decades, a milestone that forces us to grapple with the weight of justice and the cowardice of obfuscation.

The facts are stark. On November 5, 2009, Hasan, then an Army psychiatrist, strode into Fort Hood's Soldier Readiness Center, armed with a semi-automatic pistol, and unleashed carnage on his fellow service members: men and women preparing to deploy in defense of their nation. 

At his trial, he offered no pretense of remorse, declaring the act necessary to shield an imagined "Islamic Empire" from American forces. Such is the mind of a man who, born in Virginia to Palestinian parents, served nearly two decades in the U.S. Army only to betray it, seduced by the siren call of radical Islam.

For years, Hasan has languished on death row at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, his appeals snaking through the courts like a slow poison. In April 2025, his final legal gambit was rejected, clearing the path for the Pentagon to act. 

The Department of War, under Secretary Pete Hegseth, is unambiguous: "I am 100% committed to ensuring the death penalty is carried out for Nidal Hasan," Hegseth told Fox News Digital. This savage terrorist deserves the harshest lawful punishment for his 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood. The victims and survivors deserve justice without delays." 

One can almost hear the exasperation in his voice, a righteous demand for closure after years of bureaucratic nose picking.

And yet, the story is not merely one of a traitor's overdue reckoning. It is a searing indictment of institutional denial. The Pentagon, in a decision that defies reason, initially labeled this massacre "workplace violence." Workplace violence! That's like calling the Charlie Hebdo massacre 'a workplace misunderstanding.' It's as if Hasan's rampage, fueled by his outspoken defense of suicide bombings and hatred of U.S. campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, were akin to a disgruntled employee's outburst over a parking dispute. Lawmakers, victims' families, and national security experts rightly excoriated this absurdity, pointing to the ideological and terrorist roots of the attack. To call it anything less is to dishonor the dead and to embolden those who would emulate Hasan's treachery.

Now, with the Army secretary's recommendation in hand, the Department of War presses forward, seeking Trump's authorization to end Hasan's stay on earth and send him to meet his goats. He remains one of only four prisoners under military jurisdiction facing the death penalty—a small, grim fraternity. The question is not whether justice demands his execution; it does. The question is whether we, as a society, have the moral courage to see it through, or whether we will once again retreat into euphemism and delay, leaving the wounds of Fort Hood to fester.

This is not merely about one man's fate. It is about whether we can still name evil, confront it, and destroy it, or whether we will continue to avert our gaze, pretending that the ideologies that animate such atrocities are mere workplace grievances. The victims of Fort Hood, and the nation they served, deserve better.

If you like my blog and want to Buy Me A Coffee, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work. Obviously, there is no pressure.

Tweet

Texas Gov. Abbott working to 'swiftly' pardon Sergeant convicted of murder in BLM riot

Well, the pressure from the people actually worked and Governor Greg Abbott (R-TX) said on Saturday that he intends to pardon Army Sergeant Daniel Perry who was convicted of murder for shooting a Black Lives Matter rioter during an anti-police demonstration in 2020.

It was obvious that the shooting was done in self-defense, but Soros-backed District Attorneys don't believe self defense is an excuse.

"I am working as swiftly as Texas law allows regarding the pardon of Sgt. Perry," the Texas Republican tweeted Saturday along with a statement on how his office will go about a pardon. The pardon in his state must be recommended by the Board of Pardons and Paroles, so there's the one hurdle that could cause a problem.

"I have made that request and instructed the board to expedite its review," Abbott said.

The governor said he looks forward to signing the pardon as soon as it reaches his desk.

Sgt. Perry was convicted of murder on Friday for shooting a BLM rioter who was holding an AK-47 and pointed it towards him in a threatening manner. The Austin Police Department concluded in their investigation that Perry acted in self-defense.

Perry was stationed at Fort Hood at the time of the shooting. He was driving for Uber to make extra money in downtown Austin on the night of July 25, 2020, when he encountered a large crowd of protesters. They were illegally blocking city streets that night, according to police, as protesters in Austin and elsewhere had done during the weeks of rioting.

One of these protesters, Garrett Foster, 28, was brandishing an AK-47. Perry's lawyers said that the rioters surrounded his vehicle and began pounding on it and during the incident, Foster raised his weapon and aimed it at Sgt. Perry who, in self-defense, shot Foster before he could shoot Perry.

"When Garrett Foster pointed his AK-47 at Daniel Perry, Daniel had two tenths of a second to defend himself. He chose to live," Doug O’Connell, Perry's attorney, told Fox News Digital in a statement last year.

"It may be legal in Texas to carry an assault rifle in downtown Austin. It doesn’t make it a good idea. If you point a firearm at someone, you’re responsible for everything that happens next."

Abbott explained that Texas has one of the "strongest stand your ground" laws in the country that "cannot be "nullified by a jury or a progressive District Attorney." But tell that to the leftists who hate law and order and always take the side of rioters be they BLM or Antifa.

Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza, the George Soros-backed prosecutor who never saw a patriot he couldn't prosecute was the scumcrumpet who brought the case. He was widely criticized for pursuing charges against Perry and accused of malicious prosecution. The case has no merit, but like the Kyle Rittenhouse case where self-defense saved a young man's life, the left will go after these people because of who the criminals were.

"Self-defense is a God-given right, not a crime. Unfortunately, the Soros-backed DA in Travis County cares more about the radical agenda of dangerous Antifa and BLM mobs than justice," Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement to Fox News Digital following the Perry verdict.

"Right now we are completely focused on preparing for Daniel’s sentencing hearing," O'Connell told Fox News Digital following Abbott's tweet.

"I visited Daniel in jail this morning. As you might expect he is devastated. He spoke to me about his fears that he will never get to hug his mother again. He’s also crushed that this conviction will end his Army service; he loves being a Soldier."

Brain Flushings will follow this case and keep you apprised of the results.

Tweet

SOTU and POTUS, the empty chair

At tonight's SOTU address, Barack Obama will do what Clint Eastwood did back in the 2012 Republican Convention: use an empty chair as a prop. Eastwood 'spoke' to the chair as if it was Mr. Obama, but Obama will simply allow it to symbolize those killed by gun violence.

So rather than Obama using people as a prop, as he incessantly does when making a public speech, he is exploiting the dead as props and representing them with the chair. 

The chair will be placed in Michelle's sky-box for this purpose.

I wonder what those victims of gun violence would really say if they could somehow be brought back and asked questions.

"Here I was in a crowded movie theater, minding my own business when this crazy person stood in front of the audience and began shooting us. If I had a gun, I'd have shot the bastard, but I didn't and he killed me."

Brian Terry, the Border Patrol agent who was killed in 2010 by an illegal gun that was provided to the Mexican drug cartel by the Obama administration might have said, "Mr. Obama, why did your administration allow those guns to walk? What were you and Erik Holder thinking? I mean, if gun control is so important to you and your administration, why didn't you control the guns your Department of Justice already had control over?"

Then there are the soldiers at Fort Hood who were mercilessly executed by a Muslim "soldier of Allah," Nidal Hasan. Soldiers are trained in the safe and proper use of weapons but military bases are "gun-free" zones, so soldiers who obeyed the law [orders, in this case] did not have the ability to stop Hasan from slaughtering them--one .  .  .  after .  .  .  another.


Plain and simple: gun laws work to the advantage of those who don't obey them to take advantage of those that do.

Clint Eastwood had you pegged perfectly, Mr. Obama--you are an empty chair.


Tweet

Obama: Shooting possibly terror-related, probably just a workplace disagreement

If the Muslim terrorists stormed a Christmas party, screamed "Allahu Akbar!" adding "Allah is great!" in English (just in case your Arabic is rusty) and began shooting unarmed non-Muslims, then screamed as they fired that all infidels must die in the name of jihad, and there were at least three videos of the event, maybe then Obama would admit that it was a terrorist attack and not workplace violence.

But even then, I'm not sure he would.

The San Bernadino attack by a Muslim husband and wife team, dressed in military-type assault, load-bearing garb, carrying AK 47-style weapons with hundreds of available rounds, and two pistols, killed 14 and wounded about 20. 

Pipe bombs were found in their rented apartment along with material for building more bombs, and thousands of rounds of ammunition.

The wife handed over their 6-month-old baby to the grandparents just prior to the attack because jihadists don't bond well with actual innocent humans, even after jihadist mothers breastfeed them. Farooq, the husband, grew a "Mohammad-style" beard (sans mustache), and became increasingly more Islamic it was reported.

The attack was probably not an attack on co-workers. The attack was on Christmas itself. Just like the attacks ISIS is boasting to carry out on the Pope, the USA, and of course, Israel.

In spite of this, Obama said Thursday that it was merely possible the mass shooting was a terror attack. It has gotten to the point where Obama has gone beyond not saying the words "radical Islamic terror" attack. Now he has dropped the word "terror" from describing radical Islamic terror attacks unless it is unequivocally proven to be so--unless, of course, there is some kind of verbal loophole that can get him out of saying that.

His "go-to" position is workplace violence, like he did with the Soldier of Allah, Nadal Hassan, of Fort Hood shooting notoriety. 

His other "go-to" position was to call for more gun control, as if that would have prevented the killings. If the shooters were white, that would have been another "go-to," or if they were members of the NRA, or Christian or hard right wing conservatives. 

But since they were Muslims, blame the guns. Never, under any circumstances, blame the religion of peace.

Even the term 'religion of peace' has become a sardonic joke, much like our so-called president.

Of course it's possible there were different motives behind this horrible slaughter, but I would look at it as a radical Muslim terrorist attack first, and rule out the possibility of workplace violence--not use it as my first hypothesis.

Tweet

Hasan, the Verdict is Near

Tomorrow, Monday, is Nidal Hasan's big day. It's sentencing day for the Islamic terrorist, jihadist, Muslim murderer of US Army soldiers and civilians at Fort Hood four years ago. It has taken four years before justice could be served. Yes, the wheels of justice do move ever so slowly. While there will be no actual sentencing on Monday, families and victims who lived through the terror attack will be speaking and trying to convince the jury to give Hasan what he gave 13 victims: death.

Hasan Guilty--Possibly Eligible for 72 Virgins

Nidal Hasan has been found guilty on all 45 counts, including 13 counts of murder, and the 42 year old Hasan is eligible for the death sentence. It took the military panel about six and a half hours to come to a decision, and they all agreed that Hasan is guilty for all the misery he has given to the victims who lived through the ordeal, and the families of the dead victims.

On one hand, Hasan wants to be put to death so that he can be a martyr, while on the other hand, he's in a wheelchair, and isn't eligible for conjugal visits except from Chelsea Manning, perhaps, and will live the remainder of his days in a military brig with just a koran (that, like the Gitmo prisoners, he will insist we dirty infidels handle with white gloves) to give him solace in his hatred for us. I suspect he'll also demand halal food.

Family members of the victims will have their say before sentencing, but for now, there is a gag order about what they say until after sentencing. 

Hasan sat in court motionless. When the verdict was read, he looked at the court reporter who read it, then looked back down at his lap. Some family members hugged each other, some cried. Hasan showed no emotion, and that's to be expected from a person who is able to kill people because his religion tells him that doing so will get him into heaven. This is probably the most horrible case of workplace violence in history of full-time jobs, even though some would call it an act of jihad--religious war. Just because Hasan calls it his personal jihad, and other Islamic terrorists do the same, is no reason to think it's not workplace violence. Hey, it happened at work, at a military workplace, by a disgruntled co-worker. Just because Hasan was corresponding to Anwar al Awlaki and signed his name with "SOA" (Soldier Of Allah") is no reason to make this terrorist act out to be a religious thing, or even a terrorist thing--that would be politically incorrect. To not call his act of terrorism anything but that, makes us more vulnerable to the next attack. He told us why he killed soldiers (to keep them from killing Islamic terorists) and there is no reason to call his act anything other than what it was.

America is going to hell in a hand basket. We cannot use words like "terrorism," "jihad," or "Islamist," because that might anger Muslims who hate us and they might, in turn, try to kill us, and as long as we are nice to them, heck, they're going to be nice to us too. 

I hope Hasan gets a death sentence, loses the automatic appeal, and is quickly put to death.

Tweet

If I Could Ask Obama 10 Questions with Subquestions, I'd Ask Him These

The title says it all so I'll spare you a long-winded introduction. Here are the 9 questions I'd ask Obama.

1. If the Affordable Care Act is so great, why are your cronies asking for waivers? Why are you giving exemptions for one year to businesses but not individuals? And why are you subsidizing Congress with taxpayer's money to cover 75% of the cost?

Nidal Hasan, the Trial and the Religion of Peace

Calling Nidal Hasan's killing of Americans at Fort Hood "workplace violence" is like calling the injuries and death from the Boston Marathon bombers "sports injuries." I find it insulting that our president and attorney general (I have difficulty capitalizing their titles lately) think so little of the American public that they believe they we would buy this nonsense. 

Summer with Islam in America

Will Anthony Weiner drop out of the mayoral race in New York? Will Bradley Manning serve more than a half hour in prison? Will we ever get Edward Snowden back so we can determine whether he is a hero or a traitor? Will Jay Z ever get over himself? These are the tough questions that I will not be dealing with in this submission. Instead, I will discuss America's new love affair with Islam's Muslim Brotherhood, where it is behind closed doors, doors that we paid for, in the White House.

It's no secret that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya to a communist Muslim father and white communist mother. In is also no secret that Barack went to an all Muslim school in Indonesia where he was enrolled as a Muslim and played on the Muslim "Pin the Bomb on the Zionist." Finally, we all know that since being our POTUS, Obama has done nothing in office that a Muslim president would not have done, including his inviting members of the Muslim Brotherhood to the White House to break the Ramadan fast, strategically plan the complete and utter destruction of infidel Israel, and outlaw Christianity. 

8 Questions That Aren't Funny

Juan Williams  of Fox News says the terrorists who bombed the Boston Marathon were not tied into any radical organization. Thus, we can view them in terms of "radical Islam." Obviously, Williams isn't counting Islam as a radical organization--the largest radical organization on earth--nor sees how the Koran, their marching orders, to be radical in what is written therein. .

Some of the thoughts I had about this bombing might sound offensive because they are ironic, which might be mistaken as humor, but I only mean the following to be sarcastic.

1. When Islam wins a battle, they often build triumphal mosques at the site where the battle was waged and won by them. Will the Muslim world now consider building a triumphal mosque on Boylston Street like they wanted to do at the Twin Towers sight? All they need to do is wait a few years until the heat is off them and Americans forget what it felt like on April 15th, when 3 innocent race spectators were killed and over 160 were maimed and otherwise injured severely.

2. In light of the Fort Hood shootings in 2009, where 13 people were killed by Nidal Hasan while shouting "Allahu Akbar," meaning, "My god is greatest," and President Obama had this incident labeled "Workplace violence," will he soon declare the Islamic terrorist attack to be "Sports place violence," and the injuries suffered, "Sports injuries?"

3. Since the latest terrorist attack happened in Boston, will the liberals blame it all on the Tea Party? While liberals consider cutting down a tree as terrorism, the English considered the Boston Tea Party an act of terrorism.

4. Will our talking about the Boston Marathon terrorist attack in terms of Islamic terrorism, will CAIR insist that we are merely being "Islamophobic" as if this is an actual phobia rather than a fear that is totally rational? 

5. Female DNA was found on pieces of the bomb. Does this mean that the pressure cooker that was the container for the bomb, once belonged to a female who used it for making basmati rice, sambar, or some other Indian food? Could it have belonged to a sales clerk?

6. Will terrorist #2 (I refuse to use his name) beat the death penalty, get out of prison after a decade or so, and write a book which will become a movie and make him rich? Will part of the movie earnings go to the Muslim Brotherhood and eventually come back to bite us? Will the movie be a Michael Moore documentary?

7. Will terrorist #2 be forced to repay the SNAP benefits he and his family were given if he, in fact, becomes wealthy from the movie about his life? Will Barack Hussein Obama play himself in the movie?

The people who were killed by these jihadist scum-bags will never get their loved ones back. The people who lost limbs, vision or hearing, will never be the same for the remainder of their lives. I hope we never forget and that we change our policies on Islamic terrorism and immigration. I am angry at how we've been doing business in the USA under Obama. Our enemies see us as impotent, weak, and all bark with no bite. Obama believes the FBI did all it could do, in spite of the Russian information they gave us about the terrorists, but "this is hard stuff," he added.

Sadly, I believe that terrorist #2 will not get the death penalty and will give us no real information in the war against jihad. (I don't call it the war against terror because it's pointless to have a war against a tactic rather than an enemy.) The terrorist, will have the very high profile lawyer, Judy Clark, to defend him and try to keep him from getting the death penalty. You and I will pay for her services, just as we did for the terrorist's family's welfare.

8. Finally, will we learn the truth about Benghazi before the movie on terrorist #2 is released? Obama promised to punish those involved, but Obama makes a lot of empty promises and I'm not holding my breath.

My latest novel, Jihad Joe, is about Islamic terrorism and suspense.  In it I challenge the precepts of the religion through my protagonist, Zed Nill, a journalist, captured by terrorists and who is destined to be killed if the American President refuses to release three Gitmo prisoners.  Of course, American policy demands we never give in to terrorists, and for Zed, the clock is ticking.

Jihad Joe Soft Cover       

click here for ebook version   

Tweet