From The Political Commentator (http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com)

Healthcare: At The Best 50% Approval, Now 38%


Nothing means more to politicians than the polls. Polls are the lifeblood that let them know what they should be for, what they should be against and what they should stay away from. If some action is in the best interest of national security, but the polls say that public opinion is against it, most, not all, politicians will be swayed. This, despite the fact that popular opinion is not a reliable gauge of right and wrong, particularly when it comes down to facts that only politicians may be privy to.

That said, Democrat representatives should take a hard look at the series of polling data below from Rasmussen, which clearly indicates the steadily declining view of the American public regarding the healthcare reform that has become the focal point of the Obama administration. A word of advice to the Democrats might be to not allow the President to put an end to their political ambitions with legislation that is not only wrong for the country, but their careers as well.

Don't let this be the one time you become thinkers independent of the polls. Stick to your guns and vote career. This time though, it would be consistent with the best interests of the country.

Public View Of The President's Healthcare Plan? Yay Or Nay For The Democrats?

From The Political Commentator(http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com)

Relax Everybody: Healthcare Was Cleared For Debate In The Senate

Home from an Asian trip that was a waste of presidential time and taxpayer money, the President is back on his laser point of healthcare reform and Afghanistan procrastination, national security be damned.

Returning from his recent trip to Asia with very little to show for it, particularly from the Chinese, the situation with the Iranians continues to just float by as nothing is done, and our two main allies show little interest in doing anything, sanctions included.

In the meantime the Iranians are conducting military and air force war games designed to illustrate it's capabilities at fighting back any attempts to take out it's nuclear plants, most likely by the Israelis.

(Post-Gazette)"If the enemy tries its luck and fires a missile into Iran, our ballistic missiles would zero in on Tel Aviv before the dust settles on the attack," said Mojtaba Zolnour, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's representative in the Revolutionary Guard Corps, told state news agency IRNA on Saturday."

What exactly is the Obama plan. Obviously Russia and China have little chance of being coerced into joining us in our attempts to stop Iran. Did President Obama articulate to the leaders in China that we will deal with this problem, with them preferably, but without them if they refuse? That is doubtful, and goes with the commander in chief style of Obama which is to appease and placate, while accomplishing absolutely nothing.

What is his loyalty to our ally Israel? Does he have it's back? Will Israel be hung out to dry having to do the worlds dirty work in Iran and then pay the consequences?

While On The Subject, What's Up With This Terror Trial?

It is still hard to fathom what the President and his Attorney General are thinking with the decision to hold a criminal trial in New York rather than a swift and efficient military tribunal at Gitmo. Is it to show the world how fair the United States is? Is it to give the terrorists the ability to hammer the United States during the course of a trial? Is it to put the people of New York in danger once again? Is it to provide the potential to expose covert operatives? Or maybe it is to have the opportunity to have these terrorists released on a technicality.

Any way you slice it, it is just one more example of how inexperienced and ineffectual this President is. That, to the detriment of a nation and the world. Not that polls matter, but the American public is not behind the decision to have this trial (see above from CBS News).

From The Political Commentator (http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com)

The Bastion Of Bush/Palin Bashing Has Seen The Obama Light

For those of you who go to sleep early on Saturday nights, or who are out late having a good time, Saturday Night Live had a great opening skit of a press conference between the leader of China and President Obama. In it, the questions are raised as to how China is going to be paid back the hundreds of billions that they have lent to us, given the huge level of deficit spending already done, and that which is in the pipeline such as the new healthcare plan.

The tape lasts about 4 minutes, and is well worth the time. In it, one of the questions asked of President Obama is if he will kiss his Chinese counterpart, because he likes to be kissed before having sex done to him. Very funny, but definitely to the point.

From The Political Commentator (http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com)

Hope and Change or Truth or Consequences

What Credibility Does Mr. Obama Think That He Has?

He Talks of Consequences In Iran While Allowing Terrorists To Go On Trial In Civilian Court In The United States

Talk and rhetoric are cheap as the nation and the world has witnessed since the campaign that brought President Obama into office. Actual experience and actions in the election unfortunately took a back seat to speechmaking and smear campaigns. What was the reality for those who fell over each other to pull the lever for Obama was the incessant use of the phrase Hope and Change. Great marketing created from the bowels of a high priced wordsmith hired by the campaign and tested in focus groups for effectiveness.

While that smoke and mirrors may well have fooled those who put him in office, countries such as Russia and China eat his words for lunch. These leaders understand one thing and one thing only. It is not the well turned phrase, but the assumed willingness to back up those phrases with action.

More than flowery speech, those who pass for our allies are keenly aware of the reality behind the Obama words. Statements such as:

"begun discussions with its international partners about the importance of having consequences" "It is going to take time and part of the challenge that we face is that neither North Korea nor Iran seem to be settled enough politically to make quick decisions on these issues."

From The Political Commentator (http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com)

The Presidential Teleprompter 

We Are At War
So Says Attorney General Eric Holder

Prior to beginning his testimony on Wednesday in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain (or more to the point try to explain) the upside to a civilian trial held in New York City versus a military trial for the five terrorists held at Gitmo, he wanted to first make clear that he is aware that a war is going on. Assuming that is true, he should try and explain that fact to his boss.

In any case, as a mere observer from Ground Zero in the War on Terror (Overseas Contingency Operations), what is the possible upside to a civilian trial for those who are in essence war criminals. Is it so a slick lawyer, the best money can buy with funds from who knows where, can make a mockery of the judicial system with stall tactics, attempts to suppress evidence, civilian jurors who could go either way and assuming that there is a conviction, years to an execution.

Does the Attorney General realize that the Pentagon was attacked as well on 9/11? Why not hold a military tribunal down in Washington where justice can be served, without traumatizing an already traumatized city. Unless of course the President wants to be able to preserve his date nights which could be compromised due to the increased security brought on buy a trial in that town.

Net net, like many of the decisions and non-decisions coming from this White House, it all makes absolutely no sense. All of that said, here are some of Holders statements:

 -“There was not a political component to my decision,”
 -“As a prosecutor, my top priority was simply to select the venue where the government will have the greatest opportunity to present the strongest case.”
  -“And at the end of the day, it was clear to me that the venue in which we are most likely to obtain justice for the American people is in federal court.” 
On the five areas of misconception regarding the case
 - “First, we know that we can prosecute terrorists in our federal courts safely and securely because we have been doing so for years,”
 -“Second, we can protect classified material during trial.”
 -“Third, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will have no more of a platform to spew his hateful ideology in federal court than he would have had in a military commission.”
 -“Fourth, there is nothing common – there is nothing common – about the treatment the alleged 9-11 conspirators will receive.”
 -“Finally, there are some who have said that the decision means that we have reverted to a pre-9-11 mentality, or that we don’t realize that this nation is at war. I know that we are at war. I know that we are at war with a vicious enemy who targets our soldiers on the battlefield in Afghanistan and our civilians in the streets here at home.”

Hmmmmmm.

From The Political Commentator (http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com)

Remember The Beatles Revolution 9? Very Strange. Sorry, That Was Penny Lane
President Obama Could Potentially Hold The Ninth Meeting On Afghanistan This Week

President Obama is off on his trip to the Far East, ready to come home to deal with the many items piling up on his plate: healthcare, the economy, Thanksgiving, Democrat fundraising, the environment, early Christmas shopping, you name it. Busy, busy schedule. Somewhere in all of that he will fit in his ninth meeting with his war council on the troop decision in Afghanistan. To date he has spent a good 20-30 hours with them. That 20-30 hours has been spread over many months (close to 11 in office to date), leading one to believe that this decision is not his number one priority.

He probably spends more time than that in a week lobbying for his healthcare bill. What message is this sending to the rest of the world, let alone his troops and the country.

Multiple Choice Problem

(A)Meticulous decision maker? (B)Dotter of I's and crosser of T's? (C)Focused leader? (D)Procrastinator? (E)Unfocused? (F)Weak? (G)Indecisive? (H)Unable to prioritize? (I) Military and the troops a low priority? (J) Worst kind of politician putting a healthcare bill ahead of the safety and lives of our troops?

1. A, B and C
2. A, B and not C
3. A,C and not B
4. B,C and Not A
5. D, E, F, G, H, I, J (and more)
Hint: #5

Even The MSM Is Catching On 
Things are getting a little dicey when members of the press actually ask questions with bite, rather than giving the President the free ride that he has had since the time he began running for office. The President and his handlers obviously do not like being held accountable, as the tone of response shows.

This from the AP's Jennifer Loven in Shanghai: (Post-Gazette)"Can you explain to people watching and criticizing your deliberations what piece of information you're still lacking to make that call."


The President then countered with what appears to be the official talking point on the matter.

"With respect to Afghanistan, Jennifer," the president scolded, "I don't think this is a matter of some datum of information that I'm waiting on. Critics of the process tend not to be folks who are directly involved in what's happening in Afghanistan. Those who are, recognize the gravity of the situation and recognize the importance of us getting this right."

Maybe General McCrystal should get more involved, because according to the President's statement he is not.

From The Political Commentator (http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com)

Not Ahmadinejad But Barack Obama

I don't know about the rest of you, but the fact that Iran is running this show, making the international community look like fools on the subject of the nuclear armament of this rogue country is extremely troubling. It is unfortunately very obvious that Iran is going to be able to play out the string due to the United States lack of resolve and the double dealing of our negotiating partners.

(Fox News) "President Obama told Iran Sunday that the international community will not wait in perpetuity for the regime respond to a UN offer over its nuclear program. "We are now running out of time with respect to that approach," he said, sitting alongside Russian President Dmitri Medvedev."


Unfortunately, when the time comes that the patience runs out our next step will be sanctions in the hands of the impotent United Nations, along with our partners who will likely go back door to violate them. But first let's look at the time factor.


I suppose that the underlying question regarding President Obama's statement would be just how big the hourglass filled with sand is. Is it an egg timer, or as big as all outdoors. Judging by his decision making prowess concerning troop deployment to Afghanistan, why would one believe that his definition of time is anything more than just another open ended statement. There is a lot of space between today and in perpetuity, and it is anyones guess where President Obama would be on that timeline. By the time any credible action is taken the Iranian missiles could already be airborne. Or worse the nukes that they develop could be in the suitcase of a terrorist making his or her way to a world city.


While both the Iranian and Afghan policy decisions are complex and critical, Iran has many more moving parts to the extent that coalition building is required and there is an unknown involved as to just how close that country is to deployable nuclear weapons. And what exactly is the President's resolve to make a decision that may involve a unilateral move as our allies China and Russia are playing both sides of the issue?

From The Political Commentator

President Obama Gives Good Speech: Afghanistan Ad Nauseum

No question about it. When he is scripted he will typically deliver well as he did at the memorial ceremony at Fort Hood. He spoke for an un-Obama like 15 minutes with little of the speech focused on himself as it so often is. He spoke of his admiration and respect for the soldiers in the military, saying "We need not look to the past for greatness, because it is before our very eyes.

Strong words. Words fraught with emotion that indicate his overwhelming support for the military he commands. But as always, actions speak louder than words, and his actions are indicative of a politician who is more concerned with protecting his base and edge in Congress than he is in dealing with the pressing issues of Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea. This has nothing to do with the many days it took to get down to the base after the attack, but more to due with his procrastination and indecisiveness in the face of ever increasing violence and death in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In the many months since the McCrystal troop surge request was leaked, President Obama has been moving in relative slow motion. Eight meetings in the four months since the request was made, and only this week did the ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, provide his assessment which recommends no troops until the Karzai government proves that it is up to the task of cleaning things up. This is the opinion of a man the President apparently has much faith in, so why is it only being provided now? Is it possible that he is more forthcoming now that the healthcare vote is done in the House? I certainly hope that is not the reason but one is left scratching the head of the lack of any urgency to deal with this problem.

If you don't want to rush the decision, and not rushing is the correct thing to do, then accelerate the delivery of the information that you need to make the decision. The President has the entire world at his beck and call, and the process could have been condensed. It now appears after yesterdays summit that any decision is going to be pushed back weeks. This is due to the fact that the four options currently on the table due not adequately address the ultimate endgame of Afghani takeover and the United States ability to withdraw.

Now I am not an expert on the inner workings of this foreign policy decision, but it would seem to me that these questions, only now arising, would have been questions that could have been foreseen and addressed months ago. Why does this process seem so haphazard and seat of the pants. Is it at all possible, that despite the rhetoric, this was actually a back burner issue while healthcare is pending?

The fact that commentary on the lack of an Obama decision in Afghanistan continues to get ink is unfortunate, both for the readers and for the country. This situation will be rectified when the ling awaited strategy is announced. Until then....

From The Political Commentator (http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com)

At Fort Hood, the largest military base in the country, it would be assumed that it would have a superior level of security, at least when compared to the streets of New York City, Chicago or some other urban area. People are watched going in and out of the base, they are constantly observed and they are subject to the rules and disciplines of the armed forces. In our cities and towns there is no such surveillance or rules. Malik Nadal Hasan was a known entity, and one whose actions had been under scrutiny. In other words, all of the signs were there if someone wanted to see them.

From The Political Commentator

Author's Note: Although I understand that a great deal of focus is spent by me on foreign affairs and national security issues, the events at Fort Hood have shown that the United States faces threats not only overseas, but on our own soil as well. The phrase "Overseas Contingency Operations," coined by this White House was an attempt to deflect that reality so that domestic issues could become the priority. The reality is here and now. 


We face a Global War On Terror, and that certainly includes the United States. There are people and groups that would like to see our society and way of life destroyed, and places like Afghanistan and Pakistan are ground zero for the development of the terrorists. We unfortunately have some of those same issues here. Let your representatives know that you are aware of where the focus in Washington should be. If the terrorists and countries such as Iran have their way, domestic issues will not matter.  

If Only Afghanistan Could Be Renamed Overseas Healthcare Operations: Then It Would Get The Presidents Attention!

Until then, whatever decision is ultimately made will be done in dribs and drabs, fit in around a domestic agenda.

For those of you keeping track as I am of the machinations and deliberations taking place in the White House, Wednesday marked meeting number 8 on the road to a decision on troop deployments in Afghanistan. This situation, not surprisingly, is not extensively covered on your evening news, but it brings up questions as to the Commander-in-Chief, decision making capabilities of this President.

The protection of our people, soldiers and way of life is in no way connected to political considerations. Homeland security is not determined by anything more than what needs to be done to keep Americans safe. This is not the place to be pandering to your base, playing to the polls or for making nice with the very same people that want to destroy you, and who are playing us as patsies.

Over time, he has also raised questions as to his Campaigner-in-Chief capabilities (John Corzine), Olympian-in-Chief (Chicago going down in the 1st round), Diplomat-in-Chief (giving away the store and receiving nothing in return) and Healthcare Reform Obsessive-in-Chief as well. But those are secondary issues to the security of the country.

On Tuesday, Press secretary Robert Gibbs said this:

From The Political Commentator

It's Not Just Me

I have been writing commentary on President Obama for some time now, and on the day after the Berlin Wall ceremonies which he did not attend, wanted to offer the thoughts of Neoavatara. These thoughts are very similar to mine, but may help those who do not agree by hearing them said in another way.

For those leaning left, have an open mind and take off the rose colored glasses. Understand the inactions and perceptions that he is fostering around the world. It is not a right/left issue, but a United States issue.

Neoavatara: Obama The Clueless

I have more than given Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt on many foreign affair issues. I have made excuses for him regarding missing the 20th anniversary ceremonies at the Berlin Wall, and even defended his slow, methodical discussions regarding Afghanistan.

But anyone with any rational thinking whatsoever has to be getting really worried.

With the Berlin Wall Anniversary, I understand that it is more symbolism than substance. But Mr. Obama’s entire foreign policy is built solely on symbolism…the symbol that he, unlike his predecessor, is a man of the world.

In this case, Mr. Obama was blind to the reality of the world. European papers have been ripping Obama to shreds over his absence yesterday. The French, Polish, and English newspapers have been laughing at Obama all week for his ‘busy schedule’, basically joking that he is sitting in his office pondering his own greatness. Der Spiegel, a left leaning German paper, went even farther, basically stating that Mr. Obama skipped the ceremonies because the attention would not be on him:

There was one world leader absent for today’s commemorations marking the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Surprisingly enough, it’s President Barack Obama, who found time last year to give a campaign speech there last year, which Der Spiegel summed up as “People of the World, Look at Me”.The White House has cited a packed schedule, though looking at it he had nothing much on yesterday (brief chat to reporters about healthcare – by far his biggest priority) and just blah briefings and a bill signing today until a metting this evening with Benjamin Netanyahu. This time, Der Spiegel has reported it as “Barack Too Busy”.

And to illustrate the point, Mr. Obama sent a taped address to Germany that did not mention Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher, but did somehow refer to himself several times. “Few would have seen on that day that… that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent.” Um, who cares?

Obama’s 3 month walkabout on Afghanistan continues as well. He will begin discussing 5 options for Afghanistan. Ironically, only one of those is from the military itself (Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s plan, sent to him in July). Several news agencies had reported that Obama had decided on sending 34,000 troops (at the low end of what the military asked for), but that was quickly shot down by the White House. It likely was a trial balloon for the White House to see how the public would react.

The more time passes, the more and more one has to believe that this is more than just simple deliberative thought process that is holding up the decision. It is, in fact, indecision. Clearly his political advisors are divided, with Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and Sec. of Defense Robert Gates both defending the military, and Sen. John Kerry and Vice President Joseph Biden (both of whom, incidentally, have been wrong on virtually every foreign affair crisis over the past quarter century) asking for a much smaller military footprint in Afghanistan.

The decision making on Afghanistan and the Pakistan border is difficult, but not that difficult. The first logical question is whether the war is worth fighting; Obama has answered that in the affirmative on multiple times, and has clearly stated that he will not pull out of Afghanistan. O.K., taking that into consideration, the second question is how to achieve victory? That is not a political question, like the initial question is. It is a purely military one. Once you have decided a war is worth fighting for and winning, the military must be given the tools to win the war outright. Correct?

I criticized former V.P. Dick Cheney when he said Obama was ‘dithering’ on the Afghanistan decision. I take back the criticism. At this point, Obama frankly has no excuses left. The Afghan election, for better or worse, is over. Hamid Karzai is the leader, and he is who we have to deal with. Afghanistan never has been or never will be the ideal situation. For Obama and his cohorts to hope for that is a waste of time. Obama is left with the war we have, not the war he would choose. And the time to choose has come and gone.

Frankly, these two scenarios have to be worrisome. In general, even during last year’s election, I thought Obama was a pragmatist on foreign affairs. I no longer believe that. He is a political animal first and foremost. Berlin did not give him any political points, so he skipped it all together. Afghanistan is full of potholes, and has nothing but negative political future potential, and thus he cannot make a decision. Presidents are ultimately the Commander in Chief. It is time that Barack Obama acted like it.

From The Political Commentator

What Do You Get If You Keep Sitting On Your Hands Mr. President?

You know the punch line to that old joke.

When you say that you want to win the war, what exactly does that mean? Slow motion only works in sports replays. You got the vote in the House on healthcare, so now how much longer do we wait for a decision on troops in Afghanistan? Until it is to late?

Decision by omission, politics and procrastination do not make for a winning strategy.

From The Political Commentator

Did They Shoot Up Their Bases And Kill Their Tormentors?

Is Hasan A Victim Or A Perpetrator? 


During World War II, as well as most other times in recent history, both blacks and Jews faced a degree of torment during basic training or after being deployed. 


(Forward) Jerome Minkow graduated from high school in the Bronx on January 30, 1945 and entered the army on January 31. When he reached basic training at Camp Blanding down South he couldn’t understand how he could be such an oddity for his fellow GIs. One of them even asked him to sign a piece of paper to show the folks back home what a Jew’s signature looked like. Minkow was flabbergasted, and stunned by the animus that surrounded him. He regularly found himself in fights. Eventually Minkow earned respect in the boxing ring.


(Daily Progress) When Frank C. Brown showed up to serve his country in World War II, he got beatings and an insult.
It wasn’t just the normal treatment Marine recruits get, either. It was because he was black. In 1943, Brown, who now lives in Kents Store in Fluvanna County, enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps in Washington.


How did these soldiers deal with the mistreatment that was based solely on who they were or what they believed? No pulling of weapons. No killings. No national apologies or attention to the problem to help the Jewish or black soldiers deal with the situation. If it was dealt with at all, it was mano y mano with fists.


Some in the news and elsewhere seem to be attempting to blame the murder committed at Fort Hood on the treatment that Major Hasan had reportedly received as it concerned his Muslin faith from some of his fellow soldiers. Is this a Columbine situation where the man was an abused outsider driven to kill? In a politically correct world where the truth is manipulated in order to make the committer of the act the victim of his own actions, that seems to be the attempt by many. On a certain level it has been made to sound as if the United States should apologize for putting Hasan in the position where he was left no choice but to commit mass murder.


I say that this position is wrong. Very wrong. As discussed before, groups through out time have been on the receiving end of taunts from their comrades due to either religious, ethnic or racial factors. That did not drive them to shoot up their base, killing or wounding many while allegedly screaming words indicating that this was a pre-planned act carried out for very specific reasons. A fight with the tormentor most likely, but not gunfire.


Prosthelytizing, Radical Mentor, Terrorist Associates, Radical Views


Not to go through all of the factors that may very well lead to the conclusion that this was in fact an act of domestic terrorism, but we as a nation need to take a step back and end the process of being apologists  for ourselves when it comes to conflicts at home and around the world. 


All those on the left and the ACLU groupies who seem to take pleasure in the picking apart of acts of violence, inevitably coming to the conclusion that the perpetrators had their hands forced by some wrong inflicted by the United States. Perhaps they need to understand more completely that there are in fact groups of people who hate us and our way of life in a way and to a depth that is difficult to comprehend, and that no level of appeasement or apology is going to change that.


We can look to alter ourselves all that we want, but it will not change the reality of the world that we are living in. Political correctness is all well and good at a prep school, but not in the real world! Not when people want to eradicate you!

Below is a note sent to me today by Bill Dawson, one of my regular readers in Vienna, Austria. He is the author of the German History Blog, and offered this picture, note and other resources dedicated to this anniversary of an extraordinary day 20 years ago. The fall of the Berlin Wall. As he mentions below, it is unfortunate that the leader of the free world does not seem to deem it as significant as say...staying on Capitol Hill twisting arms on his healthcare monstrosity or jetting off to pitch the Chicago Olympic Games. Interesting priorities.

Dear Michael,

First I want to say "Happy Anniversary" because I know that to freedom lovers such as yourselves and your readers, the 20th anniversary of the seminal event marking the end of communism in Europe is something to be celebrated.  (Even if just one of the heads of state of the former four-power occupiers, our own President Barack Obama, doesn't find the occasion important enough to join the other three in Berlin.)

I want to also suggest that, while we celebrate, we also remember the victims.  Because of my focus area, German History, the German victims of communism are of course most interesting to me.  So on 9 November I will be sure to take a moment to think of people like Ida Siekmann, the Wall's first victim.  I'll also be thinking about former political prisoners such as Wolfgang Welsch, who spent seven years in Stasi prisons until he was sold -- yes, sold -- to West Germany.  In Mr. Welsch's case, I'm pleased to report that he is still with us today -- despite three attempts on his life by Stasi agents after he left East Germany -- working tirelessly within Germany to remind and educate people of the nature of the second German dictatorship.

In case your readers are interested in immersing themselves in this extremely important anniversary, I've put up a resources page concerning the Fall of the Berlin Wall, in addition to the several blog posts I've made over the last four weeks or so in preparation for the November 9 anniversary.  If I could share a direct link to one of my favorite recents posts, it would be the one wherein I quote a few letters from an East German penpal writing to my wife in 1988 and 1989.  I think you and your readers will find the words of this young man quite stirring.

Thank you for celebrating this important anniversary.

Best regards,
Bill Dawson
German History Blog

From The Political Commentator

Problem For Society

Educated psychiatrist. Articulate and vocal defender of his religion. Protester of the United States participation in the war in Iraq as a war on his religion and not on the people. Disgruntled soldier who wanted out. Internet author of radical views. Finally a murderer of his fellow American soldiers.

But for the last two descriptors, this profile could describe millions of Americans. Educated. Passionate. Anti-war. Staunch believers in their faith. The difference may be the radical direction that some such as Hasan are being led (unconfirmed reports are that Hasan attended the same mosque as two of the 9/11 terrorists, which at the time was led by radical Imam Anwar al-Awlaki) , and what it is that in their minds represents an acceptable resolution for differences. Tolerance of ideas different than ones own, or total intolerance. Vocal protest or the murder of those with beliefs different than your own.

In hindsight, those now looking into the past of Hasan see the clues and the warning signs, but will anyone put those clues together proactively next time first in order to prevent a tragedy? As I said before, these traits are not that different from anyone else with an opinion that is willing to articulate them. And will putting these facts together be decried as racial profiling and therefore not to be allowed to be pursued?

There is little question that intolerance of one kind or another is being incubated in portions of various religions and groups around the country and the world. Religious, ethnic and other types as well. Look at some examples. India versus Pakistan. The ethnic cleansing in the old Yugoslavia. The genocide in Africa. Uigurs versus Han in China. Not one in particular, but many.

Some are focused on peaceful demonstration to promote ideas and ideological differences, while others take it to the next level, and some to the ultimate level.

Here is an open question. How do we as a society deal with the unpredictable nature of this problem that has the potential to bubble over into deadly violence at any time? In a politically correct world, what is the solution? If we know that a certain Imam is preaching hatred and supporting the idea of Jihad, do we use surveillance techniques or would that be an ACLU violation?

If you have an idea to deal with this problem, pass it along.