Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Monday, November 5, 2012

Fort Hood Anniversary: Gross Injustices three years later

On the third anniversary of the Fort Hood jihadist massacre, Nidal Malik Hassan is making a mockery of the judicial process; his victims still are not eligible for purple hearts because they were not officially killed or wounded in combat; a local memorial to commemorate the attacks still lacks funding; the unborn baby of one of the victims is not considered to be among the dead; and the survivors of the attack are being disrespected.

One of those victims has started the 32 Still Standing Foundation.

Via Temple Daily Telegram:
Christopher Royal doesn’t want the memory of the Nov. 5, 2009, Fort Hood shooting to fade into history.

On the first anniversary of the shooting, while those who died were honored, the 32 people who were shot yet survived were not even mentioned, said Royal, a chief warrant officer-3 assigned to III Corps. Royal was inside the Soldier Readiness Processing Center and was shot twice.

He called the lack of attention given to those who were shot a “slap in the face.”

To that end, he started the 32 Still Standing Foundation, a support group for survivors of the shooting and their families. It’s one of two groups — both founded by survivors and victims’ families — to form in the three years following the shooting.

The other is Coalition of Fort Hood Heroes, which made headlines a few weeks ago when the group released a video calling on the Defense Department to classify the shooting as an “act of terror.”
If you haven't seen that video, it is a must-see:

It's really a shame that the Fort Hood massacre hasn't been brought up by the Romney campaign. The third debate would have been an ideal time to ask Obama why none of the victims have Purple Hearts.


Mitch said...

I would have loved to see Romney pin down Oblahblahblah on this one during the last debate. Would have been priceless seeing him stammer and stutter trying to come up with a response.

Or, even better, hearing him call an obvious act of terror, an act of "workplace violence". How well would that have gone over?

But, no such luck.

Mitch said...

Would have been awesome if Mitt had done that in the last debate. Would have loved to see Oblahblahblah once again remind the American people that he's CLEARLY not on America's side.

He would have either:
a. called it an act of "workplace violence" again, or
b. on the heels of the Benghazi massacre (at the hands of the terrorists) tried to stammer and stutter his way through a response.

In either case, he would have been exposed for the cowardly, liberal turd he really is.

Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive