Saturday, August 31, 2013

Public School Art Project Desecrates American Flag

These Schools are Responsible for the young kids in the Country,,,,,How Pathetic!

Students at a Kentucky high school were encouraged to step on an American flag that had been placed on the floor as part of an art display, outraging parents and students.
The display at McCracken County High School, was a re-creation of “Dread” Scott Tyler’s 1989 installation titled “The Proper Way to Display an American Flag.”
Photo courtesy of Kathleen Fox, The Paducah Sun
Photo courtesy of Kathleen Fox, The Paducah Sun
A photograph shows a music stand on top of the flag that had been placed in a hallway, in a story first reported by Kathleen Fox, a reporter with The Paducah Sun.
As part of the art exhibit, students were encouraged to stand on the flag and write their reflections on how they felt standing on the flag.
Local residents filled social networking sites with their outrage over the flag desecration with many calling for the art teacher to be fired.
“The teacher should be fired and run out of town,” wrote one outraged Paducah resident. “I have a son serving to protect this flag at this very moment.”
“It is a sad day when the symbol of this great nation is relegated to occupy the floor,” a reader wrote. “It is a truly sorrowful day when the one who placed it there has the nerve to ask, ‘How does it make you feel?’”
“I doubt this teacher intended the disrespect her art project exhibited,” one reader wrote. “But nonetheless, it was really a despicable assignment.”
Art teacher Shand Stamper has since apologized for the controversial art display – telling The Paducah Sun that it was not a specifically assigned project. The newspaper reported she sent a written letter of apology to school administrators.
“I love our flag and the nation it stands for. I love the freedom I enjoy because of our brave veterans. I feel sick and deeply sad that through my actions I have dishonored these men and women and also poorly represented you all,” she wrote in a letter obtained by the newspaper. “(To say) I am devastated by my actions bringing outrage and negativity on you is a gross understatement.”
Michael Ceglinski, the principal of McCracken County High School, said the teacher made an error in judgement. He said the project was not sanctioned by the school nor approved by administrators.
“We (McCracken County High School) don’t condone this action and we handled it immediately and appropriately,” he told the newspaper.
Nancy Waldrop, the superintendent of McCracken County Schools, told television station WSPD the flag would be burned – the proper way to dispose of an American flag that has touched the ground.

White House Considers Awarding Obamacare Subsidies, Intended For The Uninsured, To Labor Unions

A few weeks ago, I discussed the fact that labor unions have been increasingly vocal about their objections to certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare will “shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class,” wrote three labor leaders in July. Now, according to a report fromInsideHealthPolicy, the Obama administration is considering offering insurance subsidies—intended for the uninsured—to labor union members who already have employer-sponsored coverage.    Unions seek additional subsidies for multi-employer plans
The issue at hand is the way Obamacare affects multi-employer health plans, also known as Taft-Hartley plans. These plans consist of employer-sponsored health insurance that is arranged between a labor union in a particular industry, such as restaurants, and small employers in that sector. Approximately 20 million workers in the United States are covered under such arrangements, including 800,000 of the 1.3 million members of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, whose leader, Joseph Hansen, signed the letter I described above.
Workers with employer-sponsored coverage don’t qualify for subsidized coverage on Obamacare’s insurance exchanges. Those subsidies are designed for low-income people who aren’t offered coverage from their employers, and have to shop for insurance on their own. But the labor union leaders want those subsidies to also apply to their members with employer-sponsored coverage, even though they already get those benefits tax-free due to the employer tax exclusion for health insurance.
Administration ‘working to address’ unions’ complaints
Now, according to Rachana Dixit of InsideHealthPolicy, the administration is “working on regulations to address the issue” that people covered under Taft-Hartley plans aren’t eligible for subsidies. But it’s not an “issue” in the sense of being a glitch or a mistake; union leaders are seeking special treatment, and additional taxpayer subsidies, that other participants in employer-sponsored coverage don’t get.
“Democratic aides and sources off Capitol Hill say conversations about unions’ concerns are ongoing, and they say that the administration is working on regulations to address the issue,” Dixit writes. “But, it is not clear if the proposed Department of Labor rule” would satisfy unions’ concerns. “Separately, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi [D., Calif.]said to union members earlier this month that she was still working to resolve their concerns about the law, particularly on the Taft-Hartley plan issue.”
Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO,confirmed to Alexis Simendiger of RealClearPolitics that “fixes” to the law were a “topic of conversation among top labor leaders and senior White House officials this week.” “We were talking about health care, and we’ll continue to talk about health care to try to solve problems,” said Trumka. Trumka, James Hoffa, chief of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and other labor leaders met with President Obama’s chief of staff, Denis McDonough, on Tuesday.
‘Fixing’ unions’ concerns requires an act of Congress
However, it’s not clear what the White House can unilaterally do to address unions’ concerns. The text of the Affordable Care Act is straightforward; if you have gained coverage through an employer-sponsored health plan, you’re not eligible for subsidized coverage in the exchange, because you already get a subsidy through the tax code: you don’t pay income or payroll taxes on the value of your health coverage.
If, suddenly, the 20 million people on Taft-Hartley plans were eligible for subsidies, Obamacare’s costs would skyrocket.  If half of those Taft-Hartley enrollees gained $5,000 per year in tax credits along with their tax-free health benefits, we’re talking $50 billion a year in additional insurance subsidies for those individuals. That’s more than half a trillion dollars over ten years, accounting for health inflation.
I would say that it’s inconceivable that the White House would seek to impose such a “fix” to Obamacare without the consent of Congress. But, given the other changes that the administration has made to the health law—of similarly questionable legality—we can’t rule anything out.
*    *    *
Follow @Avik on Twitter, Google+, and YouTube,
The Apothecary on Facebook.
Or, sign up to receive a weekly e-mail digest of articles from The Apothecary.
*    *    *
(h/t Michael Cannon.)
UPDATEAaron Carroll highlights this PolitiFact piece which elaborates on labor leaders’ concerns. The main one is that because Taft-Hartley plans typically involve small employers who are exempt from the employer mandate, these employers have an incentive to drop coverage and move workers into the exchanges. It would be a better deal for many workers and their employers, but would eliminate unions’ prized role as the dues-collecting middlemen:
These plans are often called Taft-Hartley plans after the federal labor law that created them. And here’s the rub: The Affordable Care Act creates insurance exchanges that will present employers with a new alternative to the current union insurance.
“The unions think it will be cheaper for employers to drop out of the Taft-Hartley plans and go on the health exchange,” said Paul Secunda, a labor law professor at Marquette University School of Law. “This puts pressure on the unions who want to keep workers satisfied and make sure they have a reason to belong to the union.”
Here’s why the unions think that could happen. DeFrehn says 90 percent of the employers in these plans have fewer than 50 workers. While larger employers will face penalties if they don’t offer health insurance, these smaller employers would not. At the end of a union contract, they would be perfectly free under the law to drop coverage and encourage workers to buy through an exchange.
The exchanges could be an attractive option for another reason. In an exchange, workers with family incomes as high as 400 percent of federal poverty level would be eligible for a subsidy from the federal government.
A subsidy calculator from the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health policy group, shows what this could mean in dollars and cents. A family of four making $92,000 a year would get about 25 percent knocked off the premium. That’s a significant discount; one that Secunda says would put the union plans at a competitive disadvantage.
Over the decades, some unions have negotiated successfully for good health care benefits, even at the expense of wages. But if the unions’ nightmare scenario plays itself out as they fear, and employers drop coverage, then workers would find that they can get coverage without the union. The coverage probably wouldn’t be as good but its shortcomings might not be obvious. And maybe these workers would have less reason to belong to the union.
“This could be yet another existential threat to the unions,” said Secunda.
There’s reason to think that some employers would exercise this option. Marshall Babson is a long-time employment lawyer and former member of the National Labor Relations Board, appointed by President Ronald Reagan. Babson represents management. Babson said for the past 20 years, he has been advising his clients to get out of Taft-Hartley plans. He said they are inefficient.
“If the Affordable Care Act is a threat to these plans,” Babson said, “It’s because they have been vulnerable for a long time.”


Ted Cruz: Obama is “Arm-in-Arm” With Islamic Tyrants

Sen. Ted Cruz isn’t a fan of Obama anymore than anyone else who values the basic rights of life, liberty, or property. In a recent interview with Sean Hannity, Ted Cruz unloaded on Obama, explaining what’s wrong with Obama’s approach.
While Cruz is more open to intervention (withcongressional approval) than we are, he had some extremely important points that show just how twisted and perverted Obama’s policy is.
He directly propped up the Muslim Brotherhood and indirectly armed Al Qaeda in Syria. He is supporting murderers and killers. He is actively helping them  Meanwhile, Obama continues to ignore one of the most basic security risks in the Syrian region — that terrorists he’s backing could acquire chemical weapons and push them to our enemies willing and able to use them on the US. The solution to that risk should be obvious: stop helping the rebels.
I doubt Obama will stop propping up his Islamic fascist buddies anytime soon. It really is sad. Here’s a longer quote from Ted Cruz:
Of nine major rebel groups, seven of them may well have some significant ties to al-Qaeda… What would be truly dangerous for the United States, for our allies like Israel and Jordan, is for a radical Islamc government to seize control of those chemical weapons and to deploy them against us or our allies… That should be the focus of the President.
…It was striking when the protests were occurring in Egypt against the Muslim Brotherhood that the protesters were waving banners that said ‘President Obama supports Morsi, the United States supports the radical Islamic government that’s oppressing us.’ What a sad state of affairs when the United States is arm-in-arm with oppressive Islamist governments.
Well said, Ted. If you agree, please share this article on Twitter or Facebook.

CNN Caught Staging News Segments on Syria With Actors

Almost like State run TV in a dictator country.....They are Idiots!

Anderson Cooper and CNN have been caught staging fake news about Syria to justify military intervention.

Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
By JG Vibes
August 30, 2013
The primary “witness” that the mainstream media is using as a source in Syria has been caught staging fake news segments.  Recent video evidence proves that “Syria Danny”, the supposed activist who has been begging for military intervention on CNN, is really just a paid actor and a liar.
While Assad is definitely a tyrant like any head of state, a US invasion of the country is a worst case scenario for the people living there.
By pointing out that the mainstream media is orchestrating their entire coverage of this incident, we are not denying that there is a tremendous amount of death and violence in Syria right now.  However, we are showing that the mainstream media version of events is scripted and staged propaganda.
The following video shows him contradicting himself while off air, and even asking crew members to “get the gunfire sounds ready” for his video conferencewith Anderson Cooper on CNN.
“Syria Danny” has also appeared on many other news programs, and everysingle time his story on specific events has changed.
This is not the first time that mainstream media has been exposed as propaganda, it happens all the time, especially during times of war.
Some of the most hyped up news images of our time surrounding war were not actually real but were simply public relations stunts, designed as psychological warfare operations. 
No one in America can forget the image of Saddam Hussein’s statue being toppled and covered with an American flag, yet few people realize that this was a hoax, a staged psychological operation coordinated between the military and the media.  In July of 2004 journalist Jon Elmer exposed an internal army study of the war showing that this whole statue scenario was indeed a set up. 
In the article Elmer writes “the infamous toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Firdos Square in central Baghdad on April 9, 2003 was stage-managed by American troops and not a spontaneous reaction by Iraqis. According to the study, a Marine colonel first decided to topple the statue, and an Army psychological operations unit turned the event into a propaganda moment… The Marines brought in cheering Iraqi children in order to make the scene appear authentic, the study said.  Allegations that the event was staged were made in April of last year, mostly by opponents of the war, but were ignored or ridiculed by the US government and most visible media outlets. “[1]
The statue hoax was just one example in a long list of lies and psychological operations surrounding the multiple wars in Iraq.  At the onset of Operation Desert Storm in 1990 apublic relations firm by the name of Hill and Knowlton spent millions of dollars on the government’s behalf, constructing news pieces that would sell the war to the American public.  One of the most moving pranks to come from this push to war was the testimony of a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only by her first name of Nayirah.  In a videotaped testimony that was later distributed to the media she said “I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital, While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where . . . babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die.”
Sounds horrible huh?  Well, luckily it never happened, this too was a fabricated event designed to dehumanize the Iraqi people.  The whole thing was exposed when the journalists discovered that the witness Nayirah was actually the daughter of a US ambassador who was being coaxed by military psychological operations specialists.  If the government and media cooperate to deceive the American public during times of war then there should be no doubt in your mind that the same techniques are used during times of peace, and especially elections.
The following clip is another classic staged news segment that was aired by CNN:



A Few more Facebook Post

All the Liberal Racist Assbags that don't believe in Voter ID should take note on this!

Does he think he is King??? (Idiot)    http://barracudabrigade.blogspot.com/2013/08/egomaniac-obama-refers-to-us-military.html


Obama's and Kerry's Propaganda photo's

"Hey John Kerry, this is a 2003 photo from Iraq not just taken in Syria, you lyin' dumbass...." Part 1
So, Secretary of State John Kerry referenced this photograph when making his speech today, trying to drive home how awful the Syrian chemical attack was as he tried to convince us why we should go to war. One problem. The picture isn't even from Syria. It's from Iraq in 2003. The photographer, Marco di Lauro, said he nearly "fell off his chair" when he saw it was being used to promote a war in Syria. It's getting pretty disturbing to see how far our politicians, both Republican and Democrat, are willing to go to drum up support for a war nobody wants.

This was even flagged by the photographer and the Telegraph of London as an error in MAY 2012!!! Yet, Obama administration and Dumb Ass Kerry used it as propaganda YESTERDAY! Check out these links:



This is more from the photographer who took this


Friday, August 30, 2013

Domestic Barbarians Destroy America ... J. D. Longstreet


“We sit by and watch the barbarian. We tolerate him in the long stretches of peace, we are not afraid. We are tickled by his irreverence; his comic inversion of our old certitudes and our fixed creed refreshes us; we laugh. But as we laugh we are watched by large and awful faces from beyond, and on these faces there are no smiles.”   …   Hilaire Belloc

How many times have you heard someone say that when liberals are out of power their antics are funny …  but when they are in power they are dangerous?  My guess is you have heard it many times.  Most of us are quite familiar with it, in fact. 
Today America is living the nightmare … disguised by the Left as the American dream.  It has been pathetically named "The New Normal."   It's not new and it's NOT normal. 

“In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again.” 
— Edward Gibbon

Mr. Gibbon could easily have been describing modern day America rather than ancient Athens.  America’s coffers are empty largely to provide Americans a comfortable life.  And, just like the Athenians, we are losing everything, our security, our comfort, and most important, our FREEDOM.  

We have a government ruled by those barbarians America used to laugh at.  And they are solidifying and tightening their grasp on the throat of America’s freedom squeezing it out of existence. Viewing the constitution as nothing more than a speed bump, they are determined to drag America from the pinnacle to the cesspool -- and they are enjoying great success in their strivings!

In a recent commentary I noted how the peoples of a number of states have become so alarmed at the Obama government that they are harkening back to their rights as sovereign states and employing state nullification laws to countermand federal mandates intended to yoke them with federal laws to which they disagree and find overbearing, and massive financial costs they cannot bear. 

Thomas Jefferson, one of the founders of America, said the following:  “Whenever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”  He was there, at the birth of this nation, so he ought to know!

Thomas Paine, one of America’s great pamphleteers, author of “Common Sense,” and certainly one of the great rabble-rousers of all time -- and in many ways responsible for the American colonists’ revolution against Great Britain commented thusly: “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worse state, an intolerable one.”  No truer words were ever spoken.  

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859), the renowned French historian, in writing about what we call today “Big Government” said the following:“It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”

After reading de Tocqueville’s words above your brain happens to form the words “OBAMACARE” on the TV screen of your mind… then you, sir/madam, GET IT!  
Today we have first-hand knowledge of the destruction out-of-control big government can levy on a nation – even the most powerful nation on the globe.  Americans are weighted down, yoked to government as oxen were once yoked to the plow. Heads down, shoulders hunched forward we are pulling the weight with the near debilitating knowledge that our efforts only make the yoke stronger and will, eventually, end in our demise.

"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.”  Thus wrote Frederic Bastiat a French economist, statesman, and author in the 1800’s. 

Freedom is slowly being crushed in America.  As an American, now in my eighth decade of living in America, I can tell you, with no hesitation at all, that I am not nearly as free as I was only a decade or two ago. Freedom, once lost, is nigh impossible to regain.  That’s why free peoples should fight every attempt to take from them even the smallest and seemingly least important freedom. 

The man who has done more to diminish America and set her on a course to becoming another third-world dung heap asked Americans for -- and received -- four more years in which to complete the job. Unbelievable -- but true. 

I remain convinced nothing short of divine intervention can halt the wholesale destruction of a free America led by 
Barack Hussein Obama.


obama-2012-i-will-not-attack-Syria unilaterally : 2013, I do what I want

Britain for the 1st time since 1782 voted no to authorize force, why? Because they won't get in bed or a foxhole with a Serial Muslim Brotherhood Liar.


2012 Obama: Attacking Syria Alone Would Be a “Mistake”

If the conflict with Syria shows us anything, it’s the many layers of how broken, incoherent, and destructive Obama’s foreign policyreally is. It’s the worst of all possible worlds.
He’s meddling almost randomly, propping up Islamic fascists like the Muslim Brotherhoodaiding Al Qaeda, droning civilians in a manner that causes blowback — the whole thing is broken. There’s nothing redeeming about his foreign policy.
Now, Obama is threatening to take his foreign policy failures to a whole new level by attacking Syria without any approval from congress, the UN, or allies. This is what he has built his career on attacking. Even last year, he said this was a horrible idea. He’s not alone. Joe Biden threatened to impeach Bush if he attacked Iran without any sort of congressional approval, but now defends Obama in Syria. The entire thing is so contradictory and corrupt, it’s surreal.
In 2012, Obama was asked about attacking Syria alone, and he explicitly said it was a “mistake”. The scary thing is that he probably still believes that — he just doesn’t care. He’s only interested in saving face. We might be going to war over this man’s ego alone.
Here’s what Obama said in 2012, courtesy of The Daily Caller:
“For us to take military action unilaterally, as some have suggested, or to think that somehow that there is some simple solution, I think is a mistake.”
Here’s a video of Obama saying it:
You can’t make this stuff up. Obama is worried that Putin and Assad will come off better than he will if he doesn’t make good on a promise to attack Syria. It’s purelyabout saving face. Completely reprehensible.

Thursday, August 29, 2013

Fast-food strikes set for cities nationwide

People have to think or they don't think about the cost in each sale.
You have;
Energy cost (gas and electric)
Supply cost
Food cost 
Delivery cost
Building maintenance cost
Labor cost
All these cost come from the sales in the stores. Its all a part of the pie. If that labor cost doubled it would be passed along to the consumer. I won't pay $10.00 for a hamburger. Sales will drop, lay offs will ocure, stores will close. Its a big cycle.

NEW YORK (AP) — Fast-food customers in search of burgers and fries might run into striking workers instead.
Organizers say thousands of fast-food workers are set to stage walkouts in dozens of cities around the country Thursday, part of a push to get chains such as McDonald's, Taco Bell and Wendy's to pay workers higher wages.
It's expected be the largest nationwide strike by fast-food workers, according to organizers. The biggest effort so far was over the summer when about 2,200 of the nation's millions of fast-food workers staged a one-day strike in seven cities.
Thursday's planned walkouts follow a series of strikes that began last November in New York City, then spread to cities including Chicago, Detroit and Seattle. Workers say they want $15 an hour, which would be about $31,000 a year for full-time employees. That's more than double the federal minimum wage, which many fast food workers make, of $7.25 an hour, or $15,000 a year.
The move comes amid calls from the White House, some members of Congress and economists to hike the federal minimum wage, which was last raised in 2009. But most proposals seek a far more modest increase than the ones workers are asking for, with President Barack Obama wanting to boost it to $9 an hour.
The push has brought considerable media attention to a staple of the fast-food industry — the so-called "McJobs" that are known for their low pay and limited prospects. But the workers taking part in the strikes still represent a tiny fraction of the broader industry. And it's not clear if the strikes on Thursday will shut down any restaurants because organizers made their plans public earlier in a call for workers around the country to participate, which gave managers time to adjust their staffing levels. More broadly, it's not clear how many customers are aware of the movement, with turnout for past strikes relatively low in some cities.
Laila Jennings, a 29-year-old sales associate at T.J. Maxx, was eating at a McDonald's in New York City this week and said she hadn't heard of the movement. Still, she said she thinks workers should be paid more. "They work on their feet all day," Jennings said, adding that $12 to $15 an hour seemed fair.
As it stands, fast-food workers say they can't live on what they're paid.
Shaniqua Davis, 20, lives in the Bronx with her boyfriend, who is unemployed, and their 1-year-old daughter. Davis has worked at a McDonald's a few blocks from her apartment for the past three months, earning $7.25 an hour. Her schedule varies, but she never gets close to 40 hours a week. "Forty? Never. They refuse to let you get to that (many) hours."
Her weekly paycheck is $150 or much lower. "One of my paychecks, I only got $71 on there. So I wasn't able to do much with that. My daughter needs stuff, I need to get stuff for my apartment," said Davis, who plans to take part in the strike Thursday.
She pays the rent with public assistance but struggles to afford food, diapers, subway and taxi fares, cable TV and other expenses with her paycheck.
"It's really hard," she said. "If I didn't have public assistance to help me out, I think I would have been out on the street already with the money I make at McDonald's."
McDonald's Corp. and Burger King Worldwide Inc. say that they don't make decisions about pay for the independent franchisees that operate the majority of their U.S. restaurants.
For the restaurants it does own, McDonald's said in a statement that pay starts at minimum wage but the range goes higher, depending on the employee's position and experience level. It said that raising entry-level wages would mean higher overall costs, which could result in higher prices on menus.
"That would potentially have a negative impact on employment and business growth in our restaurants, as well as value for our customers," the company said in a statement.
The Wendy's Co. and Yum Brands Inc., which owns KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell, did not respond to a request for comment.
The National Restaurant Association says the low wages reflect the fact that most fast-food workers tend to be younger and have little work experience. Scott DeFife, a spokesman for the group, says that doubling wages would hurt job creation, noting that fast-food chains are already facing higher costs for ingredients, as well as new regulations that will require them to pay more in health care costs.
Still, the actions are striking a chord in some corners.
Robert Reich, a worker advocate and former Labor Secretary in the Clinton administration, said that the struggles of living on low wages is hitting close to home for many because of the weak economic climate.
"More and more, people are aware of someone either in their wider circle of friends or extended family who has fallen on hard times," Reich said.
Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, which is providing the fast-food strikes with financial support and training, said the actions in recent months show that fast-food workers can be mobilized, despite the industry's relatively higher turnover rates and younger age.
"The reality has totally blown through the obstacles," she said.

Lawmakers Renew Push to Label Fort Hood Shooting an Act of Terrorism

More of Obama and his DOJ protecting the Muslim name. All the news media covered this as a bad case of terrorism  and Obama says its workplace violence! What a Crock. The if classified as terror the victims will get other military benefits! Its obvious again Obama is protecting the Muslim name. 

When Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan yelled “Allahu akhbar” and opened fire on his comrades in 2009, leaving 13 people dead and more than 32 others wounded, it was clear, at least to the National Counterrorism Center, that this was indeed a terrorist attack and was labeled as such the day after. Then, as you well know, the massacre was deemed “workplace violence.”  Now that Hasan has been found guilty and sentenced to death, however, Texas lawmakers are planning to introduce legislation that would formally classify the shooting as an act of terrorism, making victims eligible for additional benefits, according to Fox News.
Lawmakers, as well as Fort Hood victims and their families, are renewing the years-long push now that Hasan has been found guilty in the deaths of 13 people and received his sentence. Among the arguments the government had made for not awarding Purple Hearts to victims was that it could negatively affect the trial. 
Families, though, have said that by treating the deadly November 2009 shooting as a terrorist attack, victims would get the same benefits as those killed or injured in combat. 
The new legislation, called the "Honoring the Fort Hood Heroes Act," would do that by labeling the attack as terrorism, giving victims the same status as that given to victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attack and making them eligible for the Purple Heart. 
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas; Rep. John Carter, R-Texas; and Rep. Roger Williams, R-Texas, plan to announce the legislation in Killeen, Texas. 
"Now that Hasan is convicted and has been sentenced,” Carter said in a statement, “I promise to pursue every avenue to promote the cause of our soldiers and their families. As the federal representative for Fort Hood, I will not abandon this fight until it is won."
Staff Sgt. Shawn Manning, who was shot several times during the attack, said not calling the shooting what it was—an act of terrorism—“is like a slap in the face.”
"Hasan yelled 'Allahu Akbar' as he attacked Americans and claimed his rampage was in defense of the Taliban," Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a statement. "His attack was an act of terrorism, not simply workplace violence, and we must continue to pursue justice for those wounded and the families of those killed by not only seeing this sentence carried out, but also by ensuring they receive the full benefits they deserve."