View Full Version : Obama Names more ‘Devout’ Muslims to Security Posts
Warrior-Mentor
11-17-2009, 16:00
Obama ‘Reaches Out’ by Naming ‘Devout’ Muslims to Security Posts
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
Israel News
November 17, 2009
U.S. President Barack Obama continues to “reach out to Muslims” by appointing them to key security posts amid charges he wrongly ignored internal Muslim terror. One recent appointee was harshly criticized for appearing on a British-based television station whose host is a member of a radical Muslim group.
President Obama has continued to “reach out Muslims,” as he said in his keynote speech in Cairo last June, and this past week he swore in a Muslim rights advocate to the Homeland Security Advisory Council, shortly after the Fort Hood massacre. HSAC members are involved in expertise on national security.
The new member is Syrian-born Kareem Shora, who was the national executive director of the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination (ADC), which previously has called on the United States to stop providing Israel with weapons because of alleged “atrocities” against Arabs. Her background for her new security post is having been a legal counsel and advocate for Muslim civil rights.
She also has been a frequent guest on the pro-Hamas al-Jazeera satellite network.
Shora, who has been described as a “devout Muslim, joins another devout member of the faith, Arif Alikhan, who was appointed as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development in the Department of Homeland Security. His qualifications for the job were listed as having been in charge of public safety in Los Angeles during his term of deputy mayor. One of his actions was to remove the plan that tracked Muslims in the city who were suspected of terrorist activities.
Americans have been jolted by several lethal attacks and confrontations with Muslims over the past year, including a plot to attack synagogues and down U.S. military aircraft, the manufacture of bombs, an alleged attempt to explode a Texas skyscraper, a plot to blow up malls in Boston, and last month’s Fort Hood massacre by a Muslim psychiatrist who was an officer in the army.
A desire to avoid the appearance of labeling all Muslims as terrorists lunged out from the shadows last month after President Obama faced criticism for not taking seriously the threat of Muslim terrorism within American society as well as in the Middle East, Asia and Africa.
Several months ago, President Obama appointed Dalia Mogahed, a “devout Muslim,” to his Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. She quickly came under fire for appearing in a telephone interview on a London-based Muslim television station, whose host is a member of an extreme Islamic group.
She said was unaware of the affiliations of her host, whose program included questions and comments favoring the implementation of Islamic Law (“sharia”).
Mogahed explained that she did not hang up the phone in the middle of the interview because "I assumed that very few people would watch this show but that doing something more dramatic would bring more attention."
In the current issue of Newsweek, columnist Jacob Weisberg, citing former Secretary of State Colin Powell, wrote that “Obama's [Muslim] heritage feeds a broader suspicion that he is too casual about the threat from America's Islamist enemies.”
The journalist added, “With the massacre in Texas, Obama now confronts something that George W. Bush did not face in the years after September 11—not just a major act of domestic terrorism, but one struck from inside our security apparatus…. America does not face a threat from the perversion of faith in general. We face a threat from the perversion of one faith in particular.”
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/134466
dirtyshirt
11-17-2009, 16:56
Unbelieveable.
And no one thinks,says,or does anything. "Nothing wrong here...move along"
Honestly,NO ONE see's what's going on with this man,I can't believe it!!!!!
Here's the dig...
- The people that voted for him with their hearts think everything he does is spot on and would not say anything critical of the President even if he hit the Easter bunny in the face with a brick.
- The people that voted because they bought into the "h0pe and change" mantra heard "we live in the greatest country in the world, help me change it." and wrote it off as a speech writers gaffe; now they wonder if the comment was just the soon to be president speaking his mind just like when he told 'Joe the Plumber' he wanted to spread his wealth around.
(These people don't want to speak up because they are afraid to admit they paid in cash for the Golden Gate bridge.) The same people had the same empty responses when Rahm Emanuel stated that he didnt want to waste a good crisis.
- The people that zealously campaigned for anyone BUT president 0bama have already been written off as either radical conservatives or outright racists. These people speak up all of the time, tea parties, town hall meetings, calling in to vent on talk radio shows... but again, they just sing to the choir because they have already been written off as angry, racist, radical conservatives that are mad that their candidate didn't win.
- Like the emperors new clothes: no one wants to admit they dont see his "robe" So at the end of the day: no one is fooled, in fact most of us aren't even surprised. The masses have gotten used to the government teat and dont want to make waves. Did anyone really expect him to execute his office from anywhere close to center? Hell, he grew up in Hawaii... isn't that located to the far left of California?
just my two cents...
Here the dig...
- The people that voted for him with their hearts think everything he does is spot on and would not say anything critical of the President even if he hit the Easter bunny in the face with a brick.Wait until I tell the doctors in the hospital this today.:D
Stay safe.
Here the dig...
- The people that voted for him with their hearts think everything he does is spot on and would not say anything critical of the President even if he hit the Easter bunny in the face with a brick.
- The people that voted because they bought into the "h0pe and change" mantra heard "we live in the greatest country in the world, help me change it." and wrote it off as a speech writers gaffe; now they wonder if the comment was just the soon to be president speaking his mind just like when he told 'Joe the Plumber' he wanted to spread his wealth around.
(These people don't want to speak up because they are afraid to admit they paid in cash for the Golden Gate bridge.) The same people had the same empty responses when Rahm Emanuel stated that he didnt want to waste a good crisis.
- The people that zealously campaigned for anyone BUT president 0bama have already been written off as either radical conservatives or outright racists. These people speak up all of the time, tea parties, town hall meetings, calling in to vent on talk radio shows... but again, they just sing to the choir because they have already been written off as angry, racist, radical conservatives that are mad that their candidate didn't win.
- Like the emperors new clothes: no one wants to admit they dont see his "robe" So at the end of the day: no one is fooled, in fact most of us aren't even surprised. The masses have gotten used to the government teat and dont want to make waves. Did anyone really expect him to execute his office from anywhere close to center? Hell, he grew up in Hawaii... isn't that located to the far left of California?
Spot on, every last word.
Secretary Napolitano Swears in Homeland Security Advisory Council Members
Release Date: June 5, 2009
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010
Albuquerque, N.M.—U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano swore in 16 members of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) today during her first meeting with HSAC in Albuquerque, N.M.
“I congratulate the members of the Homeland Security Advisory Council on their appointments,” said Secretary Napolitano. “As we work to fulfill the Department’s core mission of securing the country against the many threats it faces, the unique insights and expertise of this diverse council will be a valuable resource.”
At the HSAC meeting, Secretary Napolitano joined with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Office of National Drug Control Policy Director Gil Kerlikowske to announce President Obama’s National Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy. Speaking to a group of local law enforcement, elected officials and members of the public, their remarks were also streamed live to state and local intelligence fusion centers throughout the Southwest.
Comprised of experts from state, local and tribal governments, emergency and first responder communities, academia and the private sector, HSAC provides recommendations and advice directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security. Of the 16 members sworn in today, 10 are new to HSAC and six were re-appointed. The Council is chaired by former CIA and FBI Director Judge William Webster.
Yesterday, Secretary Napolitano announced the formation of the HSAC Southwest Border Task Force, a 20-member group of national security experts charged with providing advice and recommendations on the Department’s efforts along the U.S.-Mexico border.
For more information about HSAC, visit www.dhs.gov/hsac. To view a video of today’s meeting, visit http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nmspirg-hsac.
HSAC Members
William “Bill” Webster (Chair) is a retired partner at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, LLP. Judge Webster previously served as Director of both the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Gary Hart (Vice Chair) is Chairman of the American Security Project. The former senator from Colorado served on the Hart-Rudman Commission and is an advisory board member for the Partnership for a Secure America.
Norman “Norm” Augustine is a retired Chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin Corp. Augustine served as chairman and principal officer of the American Red Cross. He was a member of the Hart-Rudman Commission and has been honored five times with the Department of Defense’s highest civilian decoration, the Distinguished Service Medal.
Leroy “Lee” Baca is Sheriff of Los Angeles County. He serves on the boards of directors for the Optimist Youth Homes and Ranch, Puente Learning Center, Buena Nueva Foundation, EMEK Hebrew Academy, and Harriett Buhai Center for Family Law, and as well as the University of Southern California Alumni Association board of governors.
Richard “Dick” Cañas is Director of the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness. Cañas has served as Director of the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC), Special Assistant to the CIA’s Latin American section, and on the White House’s National Security Council (NSC).
Kenneth “Chuck” Canterbury is National President of the Fraternal Order of Police. Prior to his service as President, Canterbury spent 25 years with the Horry County Police Department of Conway, S.C.
Jared “Jerry” Cohon is President of Carnegie Mellon University. Cohon served as a Legislative Assistant for energy and the environment for Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. President Bill Clinton appointed him to the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.
Ruth David is President and CEO of ANSER. Previously, David served as CIA Deputy Director for Science and Technology and represented the CIA on numerous national committees and advisory bodies, including the National Science and Technology Council and the Committee on National Security.
Manny Diaz is mayor of Miami and President of the United States Conference of Mayors. Diaz is also a partner in the law firm of Diaz & O’Naghten, L.L.P.
Clark Kent Ervin is Director of the Aspen Institute’s Homeland Security Program. He served as the first Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Louis Freeh is Senior Managing Partner of Freeh Group International. He served as the FBI Director and as a Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Ellen Gordon is Associate Director and Faculty for the Naval Postgraduate School Center for Homeland Defense and Security. Gordon previously served as the Governor’s Homeland Security Advisor and Homeland Security and Emergency Management Administrator for the state of Iowa.
Lee Hamilton is President and Director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Hamilton spent 34 years in Congress, representing Indiana's Ninth District and served on the Hart-Rudman Commission and as vice-chair of the 9/11 Commission.
Raymond Kelly is the Police Commissioner of the City of New York. Kelly formerly served as Senior Managing Director of Global Corporate Security at Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. Previously, he served as Commissioner of the U.S. Customs Service and as Under Secretary for Enforcement at the U.S. Treasury Department.
John Magaw is a Domestic and International Security Consultant who most recently served as the Under Secretary for Security at the Department of Transportation. Magaw has served as Acting Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and Director of the U.S. Secret Service.
Jeff Moss is Founder and Director of Black Hat and DEFCON Computer Hacker Conferences. Moss has also worked for Ernst & Young, LLP in their Information System Security division.
Martin O’Malley is Governor of Maryland. Governor O’Malley previously served as Assistant State’s Attorney for Baltimore City, as a member of the Baltimore City Council, and Mayor of Baltimore City.
Sonny Perdue is Governor of Georgia. Previously, he was a Captain in the U.S. Air Force, a member of the Houston County Planning and Zoning Board and a member of the Georgia State Senate.
Harold Schaitberger is General President of the International Association of Fire Fighters. He also serves as a vice president of the Muscular Dystrophy Association and on the AFL-CIO Executive Committee, where he is a vice president of the AFL-CIO’s Executive Council.
Joe Shirley, Jr. is President of the Navajo Nation. He also served as a member of the Advisory Committee to the President's Commission of Sustainable Communities in Washington, D.C.
Kareem Shora is National Executive Director for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC). In 2008, he was selected by the Ford Foundation as a member of the Foreign Policy Task Force.
Lydia Thomas is a trustee of Noblis, Inc. She is a member of the Virginia Governor’s Commission on Climate Change and serves on the Board of Directors of the Cabot Corporation, the United States Energy Association, and the Northern Virginia Technology Council.
Frances Fragos Townsend is a partner at Baker Botts, L.L.P. She previously served as Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and Assistant District Attorney.
Chuck Wexler is Executive Director of the Police Executive Research Forum. Wexler was an assistant to the nation’s first Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy and Operations Assistant to the Boston Police Commissioner.
John “Skip” Williams is Provost of The George Washington University (GWU) and serves as Vice President for Health Affairs at the GWU Medical Center. In 2002, the Republic of Panama bestowed the Order of Vasco Nunez de Balboa on Williams for his efforts to create the International Center for Tropical Diseases and Genomic Studies.
Ex Officio members:
Edward Mueller is President and CEO of Qwest. Mueller previously served as CEO of Williams-Sonoma and currently serves as a Director of The Clorox Company and McKesson Corporation.
Erle Nye is Chairman Emeritus of TXU Corp. Nye served on the advisory committee to the President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection and on the U. S. Department of Energy’s Electric System Reliability Task Force. He is also a member of The Texas A&M University System Board of Regents.
http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1244227862914.shtm
Dozer523
11-18-2009, 06:44
Secretary Napolitano Swears in Homeland Security Advisory Council Members
“Bill” , “Norm” , “Lee” ,“Dick”, “Chuck”, “Jerry”, Manny, Clark Kent, (I didn't make that up) Sonny, Joe, Kareem Shora, Chuck, “Skip” AWwwwww! This never would have come up if that one guy, Kareem, had a cool nickname. How about "Stilt";)
Thanks for the post Richard. Definitely added some balance!
Bill Harsey
11-18-2009, 08:30
Thanks for the post Richard. Definitely added some balance!
Sir,
I'm not here for balance. What we should be interested in are sources of information that may establish pattern or trend.
Please note I'm not telling you what to look for or think.
Team Sergeant
11-18-2009, 09:22
Thanks for the post Richard. Definitely added some balance!
Let's put a light on your idea of balance.
History will soon repeat itself.
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.
~ Marcus Tullius Cicero (42B.C)
Sir,
I'm not here for balance. What we should be interested in are sources of information that may establish pattern or trend.
Please note I'm not telling you what to look for or think.
I would maintain you cannot establish patterns or trends without balance.
Bill Harsey
11-18-2009, 09:33
I would maintain you cannot establish patterns or trends without balance.
We may or may not be talking about the same thing. I just want to see the information.
If your looking for balance, you might miss the critical information.
I do not think it's a question of balance at all. Some folks should be precluded from even coming close to a government or advisory position. If they are a jihadist , communist etc. they have no place there. In other words, are we going to say, "we x number of traitors on this panel to balance things out?" No.
This person could be one of many, but end up chairing a subcommittee and have undo influence. Are we willing to give this guy the opportunity? From this point forward, this guy can put this on his resume, his business card. It lends credence to someone who may not deserve it. Oh he cannot be a jihadist, he was a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council.
I would maintain you cannot establish patterns or trends without balance.
I think we're missing the point. What secure or classified information is Kareem going to have access to? What kind of information can he send back to Mecca to his grubby little jihadist friends which will ultimately be used against us? What does this have to do with Balance?
By the way, do you see any Christian, Jewish, Catholic, Mormon organizations represented?
Bill
Do not think in any way my comment was in any way critical of the initial post!! Just the opposite. We need to consume as much information as our minds can absorb. To me, Richard's post added more information to better interpret the initial info. Both posts are "pieces of the main." Don't think I don't worry about the enemy within, I do and it is real just as WM has so often shown. But as Richard and others have often shown, lets look carefully so we fully understand. I think that is especially true when people too often equate "editorial" with "news"
...the acceptable number of social radicals with jobs of influence in our government is akin to putting a number on the acceptable amount of rat feces that can be packaged into my can of tuna.
...not really looking for a balanced diet, I just don't want to eat a shit sandwich
I'm a biased son of a bitch.
Balance doesn't exist with me. The rose colored glasses being handed out to the masses keep getting crushed under foot by those with more morale obligations and a "real" sense of patriotic duty than those currently in appointed positions that work for "YOU"
There will be a reckoning, but at what cost?
To avoid inflammatory remarks, and to ensure I don't apply anything digitally to this domain that would risk my paycheck or that of others, I'll stop short.
Those QP's I work for and know me to be a bit passionate about my job. Anyone that will work from within to harm the great Soldiers I support will always be a treasonist POS and I do recall that there is a part of my oath that states:
I, XXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Warrior-Mentor
11-18-2009, 11:11
Let's put a light on your idea of balance.
History will soon repeat itself.
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.
~ Marcus Tullius Cicero (42B.C)
Looks like something straight out of the Muslim Brotherhood's strategy documents.
Here's a great reader's digest on the Muslim Brotherhood:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/chi-0409190261sep19,0,3008717.story
Here's their Strategy for North America. Starts in English on page 15:
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/20.pdf
Warrior-Mentor
11-18-2009, 11:16
...the acceptable number of social radicals with jobs of influence in our government is akin to putting a number on the acceptable amount of rat feces that can be packaged into my can of tuna.
...not really looking for a balanced diet, I just don't want to eat a shit sandwich
Nice Billy. No balance there. Just clarity.
The Reaper
11-18-2009, 16:10
You can bet that if they were Aryans or Nazis, they would not be considered for security posts.
Why is it okay to be members of some organizations that advocate the violent overthrow of the United States and destruction of the Constitution, but not others?
It looks to me like it is actively encouraged in the name of diversity to have America haters from the left in high government positions.
How do these appointees get security clearances to do their jobs?
TR
Assistant Secretary for Policy Development: Arif Alikhan
Arif Alikhan is the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in Washington, D.C. Assistant Secretary Alikhan leads a team of policy analysts, scientists, and economists responsible for coordinating, analyzing, and developing policy issues for securing the United States against terrorists and natural threats. The Department comprises over 200,000 federal employees in various agencies including U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Secret Service. Assistant Secretary Alikhan’s team works with these agencies to develop critical policy initiatives on issues ranging from counterterrorism to emergency management to cyber security.
Prior to his appointment as Assistant Secretary, Mr. Alikhan served as Deputy Mayor for Homeland Security and Public Safety for the City of Los Angeles. As Deputy Mayor, he was the chief adviser to Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa on all public safety and homeland security initiatives and had oversight responsibilities for the Los Angeles Police, Fire, and Emergency Management Departments. His team also administered over $400 million in federal and state homeland security grants and was responsible for agencies with nearly $2 billion in budgetary authority for approximately 18,000 sworn and civilian employees.
Assistant Secretary Alikhan is a former federal prosecutor who acted as an Assistant United States Attorney in Los Angeles where he served as Chief of the first Cyber and Intellectual Property Crimes Section for the Central District of California. He subsequently served approximately two years as a senior adviser to the Attorney General on intellectual property and cyber crime issues in Washington D.C.
Assistant Secretary Alikhan graduated with honors from Loyola Law School in Los Angeles where he was Chief Articles Editor of the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. He also attended the University of California at Irvine where he received a degree in criminal justice, criminology, and legal studies. He is a frequent lecturer on a variety of public safety and homeland security issues and was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Southern California Law School in Los Angeles.
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/bio_1250605425754.shtm
The Office of Policy Development:
Supports the Secretary in the identification, development, and implementation of the Department's policy objectives.
Regularly interacts with Department entities such as Legislative Affairs, Public Affairs, the Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officers, the General Counsel, and the Department's agencies to ensure effective and coordinated development of Department policy.
Serves as principal representative for the Department in promoting the policies before the White House and other cabinet agencies.
Works with foreign governments and institutions, stakeholders in the affected private sector industries, think tanks, and media to identify potential concerns and solutions.
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0872.shtm
Other than Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu's innuendo (which is rare as his writing is generally without any bias whatsoever) what has Mr. Shora done to advocate the overthrow of the U.S. or subversion of the Constitution? I mean in addition to the dreadful blogging during the 2008 presidential campaign on behalf of the Democratic candidate.:rolleyes:AWwwwww! This never would have come up if that one guy, Kareem, had a cool nickname. How about "Stilt";)Kareem has at least three great nicknames: the Big Fella, the Captain, and Cap.I would maintain you cannot establish patterns or trends without balance.FWIW, I agree. IMO, the most convincing assessments are those that look at a range of "data points," not just those that are going to agree with the position one had going into the process. (Something about a falsifiable hypothesis and the scientific method...darn, there goes that public school education again. I sure hated balancing those fracking chemical equations.)
Slightly off topic. Firefox 3.5 has a great extension called "FastestFox (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/9825)." It can speed up the process of doing background research on bloggers and journalists, their topics of interest, and their sources.;)
But I'm not bitter.:)
The Reaper
11-18-2009, 17:10
what has Mr. Shora done to advocate the overthrow of the U.S. or subversion of the Constitution?
So you think you can be a "devout Muslim" and still put the U.S. and the Constitution first?
Would that not make him an apostate or a "bad Muslim"?
TR
So you think you can be a "devout Muslim" and still put the U.S. and the Constitution first?
Would that not make him an apostate or a "bad Muslim"?
TRTR--
Briefly, my answers are "yes," and "not necessarily."
To elaborate on my answer to your second question. A point Robert Abzug (http://www.utexas.edu/opa/experts/profile.php?id=35) made is that it is perilous intellectual ground to judge others by one's own standard of devotion. (The historiographical importance of this statement is profound, especially when looking at the way the "new" social history talks about religion--opiate of the masses, false consciousness, cultural hegemony.)
Informed by this sensibility and the intertwined beliefs that nobody is just one thing and nobody does anything for one reason alone, MOO is that someone's professing to be a devout Christian is between that person and the Lord God. So is someone professing to be a devout Muslim is between her and Allah. In both cases, one can likely find wide gaps between the dictates of theological doctrine and the practices of everyday life. As long as that person's spirituality works for him or her (and I don't have to put up with any proselytizing sales jobs and other forms of pushy behavior), I don't care. (I do draw a line with Satanists.)
To elaborate on my first answer, IMO a more pressing question is can a person perform the functions of his or her job in a professional manner?
I understand that many Americans have legitimate concerns about the bellicosity of Islamic theology. I share some of those concerns. (I no longer think we're dealing with some sort variant of fascism.)
My deeper worry is how we're responding to that combative rhetoric. Our national history has too many examples in which totalizing arguments that pit "us" against "them" have cost us dearly. So too has America suffered greatly by a desire to compromise on issues that are fundamentally incompatible with our core values. I want to find the path between Scylla and Charybdis. I do not think that path is in the blogosphere.
To elaborate on my first answer, IMO a more pressing question is can a person perform the functions of his or her job in a professional manner?
I understand that many Americans have legitimate concerns about the bellicosity of Islamic theology. I share some of those concerns.
I understand your reasoning here, or at least I believe I do, but I think your aim is wide of the bulls eye. It's not the bellicosity of Islamic theology which is at issue. Neither is it the competence of the individual involved. It's all about this person's loyalties. Is this person's primary loyalty to the U.S.? When issues arise especially where U.S. vs. Arab or Muslim concerns are at odds, on what side of the ledger will he fall?
I believe his article below speaks volumes. Not only is he naive, but he is also intellectually dishonest. I question whether Al-Qaeda attacks have actually increased, and how can he determine with any degree of certainty as to the primary motivating factor behind these attacks?
Lastly, did we use torture? Is this no longer a gray area or issue? In his article there's not even a doubt; it's dogmatic. Also, ending terrorist safe zones by what, "by investing in the prevention of terrorist safe-zones through increased non-military crisis intervention and open political engagement. " What an absolute crock of yogurt. What does that even mean? Do we sing Kum Ba Yah before or after?
http://www.counterpunch.org/shora09222009.html
An Opportunity for Moral Leadership
After the CIA Torture Report
By KAREEM SHORA
With the release of the CIA report detailing torture methods in secret prisons, we are at a critical juncture with an opportunity to regain our nation's credibility in the world. The acts described in the report are morally reprehensible and a direct affront to our American values and international human rights.
While Americans are disgusted over the details of the CIA report, those who promoted the politics of fear — including the CIA's use of torture — following the attacks of September 11, 2001, have returned with a vengeance, uselessly attempting to protect their own political legacy. They are shamefully taking advantage of this situation to promote ineffective tools of what most Americans believe to be a bygone era. In addition to their inhumanity, these methods spread hatred, mistrust, and extremism worldwide while demonstratively doing nothing to bring those responsible to justice or reducing the number or frequency of terrorist attacks.
Now is the time to demonstrate true and historic moral leadership and correct the mistakes born out of the Bush-Cheney counterterrorism policies; including the CIA's use of torture. The only significant results we saw from these Cheney-era policies were the fanning of the flames of extremists everywhere and the reduction of U.S. credibility and support around the world. Several non-partisan studies and terrorism indices conducted over the past few years have demonstrated a dramatic increase in global terrorist attacks targeting innocent civilians, including Americans and American interests, during and following the implementation of these policies. The CIA's detention and torture program following September 11, 2001, was used by violent extremists as motivation for the successful increase in Al-Qaeda-sponsored attacks against Americans, American interests and allies all over the world.
We cannot win the struggle against violent extremism, including the fight against Al-Qaeda, without truly winning the hearts and minds of people around the world. This would be achieved most effectively by continuing to discredit Al-Qaeda's ideology and methodology of hate(is it Al-Qaeda's or Islam's ideology of hate?) and by investing in the prevention of terrorist safe-zones through increased non-military crisis intervention and open political engagement. Regaining the historic U.S. role as the primary enforcer of international human rights laws is vital in effectively achieving a victory against violent extremism.
The politically practical, yet false, assumption that should be challenged in the coming months is not the assumption that the Obama administration's counterterrorism reforms are placing our nation at risk.
What needs to be challenged at maximum volume, by President Obama, by members of Congress, by every American, is the false assumption that the CIA's detention and torture program was "successful." It is the CIA's detention and torture program, including the detentions at Guantanamo which continue today and remain unchanged since the Bush Administration, that did nothing to stop the increase in Al-Qaeda-sponsored or motivated attacks against Americans, American interests and allies in Bali, Casablanca, Islamabad, Istanbul, Madrid, Mumbai, London, Riyadh, and Tunis among others. Really? How does he know this? It's the age of Obama. You don't have to provide proof, you just keep repeating stuff until everyone believes it.
With the release of the CIA report and the Obama administration's decision to launch a Department of Justice investigation, our nation is in a struggle for the definition of what it means to be America in an admittedly dangerous and sometimes hostile world. Our worst enemies are those few individuals, on all sides, who act based on their emotions and in response to perceived injustice or pending national tragedy. It is time we learn from our historical mistakes born out of the Bush-Cheney counterterrorism policies and understand once and for all that the politics of fear, including the use of torture, have no place in this magnificent mosaic, the nation of nations we call the United States of America.
Kareem Shora is National Executive Director for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC). He is also a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).
Sheep Dog to D.C. "The weasels are in the chicken coop."
D.C. to sheepdog, "Those are not weasels, they are National Security Advisers the to protect the interests of the chickens."
Gonna get more interesting.
http://www.counterpunch.org/shora09222009.html
As quoted from the above article written by Kareem Shora:
"With the release of the CIA report and the Obama administration's decision to launch a Department of Justice investigation, our nation is in a struggle for the definition of what it means to be America in an admittedly dangerous and sometimes hostile world. Our worst enemies are those few individuals, on all sides, who act based on their emotions and in response to perceived injustice or pending national tragedy. It is time we learn from our historical mistakes born out of the Bush-Cheney counterterrorism policies and understand once and for all that the politics of fear, including the use of torture, have no place in this magnificent mosaic, the nation of nations we call the United States of America."
Yes, Kareem Shora, usually I would agree. Let's not act on our emotions without gathering the facts... let's all calm down and take a collective deep breath... let's all have another glass of milk with our oreos... let's think on this overnight and see how we feel in the morning...
But NO. That's not how I feel now. Mr. Shora, you may want to intimidate me with your written words, implying that if I choose to be emotional now I'm an unreasonable, crazybad American killing the "magnificent mosaic." So be it. No really, SO BE IT.
At times like this, I believe emotional response is exactly what is needed to drive people to recognize the danger and take action. Not flurries of foaming-at-the-mouth-emotion, but focused, driven, unrelenting emotion.
Leave Bush-Cheney out of this. In fact, leave Clinton and every other ex-American president out of it, too. Our American issues with Islam, which are so deadly obvious at an individual citizen level, have nothing to do with ex-presidents or "politics of fear." These American issues with Islam have everything to do with loyalties and integration with the team - our American team of citizens. You can't be loyal to the team if you're not even on it. Oh, and by the way, you can't be on the team if you're not really loyal to it. Yes, it's a circle of interdependence. You may not get that.
What you hear now, Mr. Shora, is the sound of my brain closing to any further written or spoken word by you. Having someone like you tell me to "learn from past mistakes" and calm down is having the opposite effect.
Moving onward.
orion5
You can bet that if they were Aryans or Nazis, they would not be considered for security posts.
Why is it okay to be members of some organizations that advocate the violent overthrow of the United States and destruction of the Constitution, but not others?
It looks to me like it is actively encouraged in the name of diversity to have America haters from the left in high government positions.
How do these appointees get security clearances to do their jobs?
TR
I've been thinking this for a while. . . from my eQIP:
Section 29: Association Record
The following questions pertain to your associations. You are required to answer the questions fully and truthfully, and your
failure to do so could be grounds for an adverse employment decision or action against you. For the purpose of this question,
terrorism is defined as any criminal acts that involve violence or are dangerous to human life and appear to be intended to
intimidate or coerce a civilian population to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the
conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.
a. Have you EVER been an officer or a member of, or made a contribution to, an organization dedicated to
terrorism, and which engaged in illegal activities to that end, either with an awareness of the organization's
dedication to that end or with the specific intent to further such illegal activities?
b. Have you EVER been an officer or a member of, or made a contribution to, an organization dedicated to the
use of violence or force to overthrow the U.S. Government, and which engaged in illegal activities to that end,
either with an awareness of the organization's dedication to that end or with the specific intent to further such
illegal activities?
c. Have you EVER been an officer or a member of, or made a contribution to, an organization that unlawfully
advocates or practices the commission of acts of force or violence to discourage others from exercising their
rights under the U.S. Constitution or any state of the U.S. with the specific intent to further such unlawful
activities?
d. Have you EVER advocated any acts of terrorism or activities designed to overthrow the U.S. Government by
force with the specific intent to incite others to unlawful action in furtherance of such aims?
e. Have you EVER knowingly engaged in any activities designed to overthrow the U.S. Government by force?
f. Have you EVER knowingly engaged in any acts of terrorism? Neither your truthful response nor information
derived from your response to this question will be used as evidence against you in any subsequent criminal
proceeding.
g. Have you EVER participated in militias (not including official state government militias) or paramilitary groups?
How many would a person who considers themselves a devout Muslim fall into?
Team Sergeant
11-19-2009, 09:48
TR--
Briefly, my answers are "yes," and "not necessarily."
To elaborate on my answer to your second question. A point Robert Abzug (http://www.utexas.edu/opa/experts/profile.php?id=35) made is that it is perilous intellectual ground to judge others by one's own standard of devotion. (The historiographical importance of this statement is profound, especially when looking at the way the "new" social history talks about religion--opiate of the masses, false consciousness, cultural hegemony.)
Informed by this sensibility and the intertwined beliefs that nobody is just one thing and nobody does anything for one reason alone, MOO is that someone's professing to be a devout Christian is between that person and the Lord God. So is someone professing to be a devout Muslim is between her and Allah. In both cases, one can likely find wide gaps between the dictates of theological doctrine and the practices of everyday life. As long as that person's spirituality works for him or her (and I don't have to put up with any proselytizing sales jobs and other forms of pushy behavior), I don't care. (I do draw a line with Satanists.)
To elaborate on my first answer, IMO a more pressing question is can a person perform the functions of his or her job in a professional manner?
I understand that many Americans have legitimate concerns about the bellicosity of Islamic theology. I share some of those concerns. (I no longer think we're dealing with some sort variant of fascism.)
My deeper worry is how we're responding to that combative rhetoric. Our national history has too many examples in which totalizing arguments that pit "us" against "them" have cost us dearly. So too has America suffered greatly by a desire to compromise on issues that are fundamentally incompatible with our core values. I want to find the path between Scylla and Charybdis. I do not think that path is in the blogosphere.
Our history shows that had we not taken sides (us against them) it would have cost us not only our Freedom but our Nation.
I'm not sure what you consider as "cost us dearly", but my number one cost and the only thing I'm willing to fight for is my Freedom.
In my opinion islam should no longer be considered a religion and should be considered a very dangerous ideology. I believe it is a threat to the basic freedoms of everyone on this planet.
And unlike you, I'll take the "Satanists" over the islamists every day of the week. At least the Satanists are not teaching their children to kill non-believers nor are they strapping bombs on mentally retarded children to go and kill their perceived enemies.
Team Sergeant
1stindoor
11-19-2009, 10:06
...
...not really looking for a balanced diet, I just don't want to eat a shit sandwich
That has to be one of the best statements I've ever read.
Bill Harsey
11-19-2009, 10:42
Leave Bush-Cheney out of this. In fact, leave Clinton and every other ex-American president out of it, too. Our American issues with Islam, which are so deadly obvious at an individual citizen level, have nothing to do with ex-presidents or "politics of fear." These American issues with Islam have everything to do with loyalties and integration with the team - our American team of citizens. You can't be loyal to the team if you're not even on it. Oh, and by the way, you can't be on the team if you're not really loyal to it. Yes, it's a circle of interdependence. You may not get that.
What you hear now, Mr. Shora, is the sound of my brain closing to any further written or spoken word by you. Having someone like you tell me to "learn from past mistakes" and calm down is having the opposite effect.
Moving onward.
orion5
Well said Ma'am. I agree.
Billy L-bach,
That was a "Moroney Class" quote. Thank you.
Warrior-Mentor
11-19-2009, 11:08
At times like this, I believe emotional response is exactly what is needed to drive people to recognize the danger and take action. Not flurries of foaming-at-the-mouth-emotion, but focused, driven, unrelenting emotion.
Moving onward.
orion5
Given your comments, you might enjoy Oriana Fallaci's "The Force of Reason."
http://www.amazon.com/Force-Reason-Oriana-Fallaci/dp/0847827534
W-M, Thanks for the heads up on the book. I see Amazon readers highly recommend it. I'll let you know when I've finished it... :D
Our history shows that had we not taken sides (us against them) it would have cost us not only our Freedom but our Nation.TS--
Please note that my statement is not a blanket condemnation of America taking an "us" or them" position. In the next sentence, I indicate that there are instances when "us" or "them" has been an appropriate frame of mind.So too has America suffered greatly by a desire to compromise on issues that are fundamentally incompatible with our core values.
The "us" versus "them" arguments that I had in mind include (but are not limited to):
the treatment of British loyalists during the War of American Revolution,
the debate over America's entry into the Second Anglo-American War,
the increasingly rancorous debates over slavery,
the debate over America's entry into World War I,
the use of race and gender to distinguish who was or was not worthy of this civil liberty or that civil right,
the ongoing demonization of the American South,
and the increasingly toxic state of political discourse in today's America.
In regards to this last example, the polarizing rhetoric of "us" versus "them" casts important issues like immigration, health care reform, and the second amendment as shouting matches when informed civil discussions (with the occasional snarky remark) might suffice.
GratefulCitizen
11-19-2009, 14:01
"Whoever watches the wind will not plant;
whoever looks at the clouds will not reap."
-Ecclesiastes 11:4
Nuances can be debated forever.
The actions may be imperfect, but action is required now.
Errors will be made, injustices will occur.
Those can be redressed later.
Inaction will result in graver consequences than imperfect action.
However imperfect, I'll take an "us vs. them" mentality and let history judge.
Team Sergeant
11-19-2009, 15:25
TS--
Please note that my statement is not a blanket condemnation of America taking an "us" or them" position. In the next sentence, I indicate that there are instances when "us" or "them" has been an appropriate frame of mind.
The "us" versus "them" arguments that I had in mind include (but are not limited to):
the treatment of British loyalists during the War of American Revolution,
the debate over America's entry into the Second Anglo-American War,
the increasingly rancorous debates over slavery,
the debate over America's entry into World War I,
the use of race and gender to distinguish who was or was not worthy of this civil liberty or that civil right,
the ongoing demonization of the American South,
and the increasingly toxic state of political discourse in today's America.
In regards to this last example, the polarizing rhetoric of "us" versus "them" casts important issues like immigration, health care reform, and the second amendment as shouting matches when informed civil discussions (with the occasional snarky remark) might suffice.
Sigaba,
You are a civilian and most likely have never sworn a military oath of allegiance. And so we're clear here I mean an oath in which you'd give your life if required. That said I don't expect you to understand what it means to draw a line in the sand or how you like to put it "polarizing rhetoric".
IMO we are a nation suffering greatly only because of sheeple too afraid to not only make decisions but to take action.
We currently live in a nation where individuals look the other way while children are being raped, beaten and murdered. You cite "slavery", slavery ended over 100 years ago, the children I'm talking about were raped, beaten and murdered on our soil a few weeks ago. All right in front of dozens of so called "Americans". We are quickly becoming a nation of complete cowards not wanting to take action, take a stand or draw that line in the sand.
That cowardice shows in our current administration. That "and the increasingly toxic state of political discourse in today's America" you speak of is being brought on by the incompetent cowards that currently call the shots here in America and because of one hundred and eighty degree turnabout that they are attempting to steer this country in is a complete departure from OUR hard working core values.
My point is that there is a time to take action and stop an emerging threat before our children must.
Most would rather look away, others would engage in polarizing rhetoric and political discourse but there are a few that would stand in the way of the oncoming train and attempt to stop it with their own flesh and blood if need be. God bless them because they are so few and it was upon their backs this nation earned it Freedom.
You mention immigration, healthcare reform and the second amendment in the same sentence, surely you jest. Careful and remember where you are....
Team Sergeant
kimberly
11-19-2009, 20:59
There is no strength in the current administration's huge desire to be liked. While the dems continue to defend their misguided election of the current POTUS, those who have sworn to defend us in our military and in other areas of defense are who we have to depend on. The real men. We can't count on Obama for anything because he's too busy trying to prove he's everybody's friend.
Peregrino
11-20-2009, 07:14
"Whoever watches the wind will not plant;
whoever looks at the clouds will not reap."
-Ecclesiastes 11:4
Nuances can be debated forever.
The actions may be imperfect, but action is required now.
Errors will be made, injustices will occur.
Those can be redressed later.
Inaction will result in graver consequences than imperfect action.
However imperfect, I'll take an "us vs. them" mentality and let history judge.
Somebody else who "gets it".