November 5, 2009, Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 soldiers at Fort Hood in Killeen Texas.  For months if not years I have puzzled over Obama’s almost meniacal insistence that event’s like those at Fort Hood were nothing more than “workplace violence”.  Clearly Fort Hood was not simply workplace violence, it was Islamic terrorism.  The shooter spoke to clerics about jihad, he cried out allahu akbar as he shot innocent soldiers for reasons related to Islam, not for reasons related to his workplace.  Yet the Obama administration continues to insist Fort Hood was only workplace violence.  Ask why?  Why would Obama’s administration insist that an event be characterized as workplace violence rather than what it actually was… which was terrorism.  I ask myself why and have come to the conclusion Obama needs to avoid characterizing any event as terrorism in order to continue to push his gun control agenda.  Every shooting that occurs, Obama pulls out the gun control rhetoric.  Why you ask?  Terrorism would support more guns in circulation as citizens armed themselves to protect themselves; whereas, workplace violence would cause the opposite.  Workplace violence or any shooting that is domestic and unrelated to terrorism would suggest we need to control the possession of guns in order to prevent more shootings.  Aha… the motive, means and opportunity to control guns.  It’s sad that everything in Washington has a hidden agenda.  I just found Obama’s hidden agenda.  If I am wrong, tell me where!