Look Who's In The White House...

[Montrovant]

Yep. If it was Irish or German or Slovakian or Canadian or accordian players or jazz musicians or ventroloquist militant extremism that was committing or attempting to commit act after act after act after act of terrorism, I think nobody would even blink if extra focus was spotlighted on the Irish, Germans, Slovakians, or Canadians (etc.)

But these days it is not Irish or Germans or Slovakians or Canadians or accordian players or jazz musicians or ventriloquists who are committing regular acts of terrorism all over the world.

It is militant Islam in case after case after case. It has become so commonplace that we are always surprised when somebody OTHER than an Islamic extremist commits an act of violence of this type.

I can't understand a form of mushy minded, irresponsible political correctness that would refuse to acknowledge this. Yes, we acknowledge that there are exceptions--in the world there are almost always exceptions--but the fact is, it is almost always Muslims who are involved in such violence these days. And to think we aren't supposed to recogize or consider that or else we are racist or hateful is just dumb.

You're right Foxy, but there's also the other side of the coin : becoming overly hostile against all adherents of Islam, profiling or racism against anyone who has the look of being Middle Eastern, etc.

Radical Islam certainly seems to be out of its collective mind, but with over a billion Muslims in the world, it can be hard to find the right balance between battling extremism and condemning the entire religion.

Anyway, my comment about openly Islamic people with Middle Eastern looks was in reference to the op. If there really is an infiltration going on by the Muslim Brotherhood, I just question whether they would do it so openly or if they would attempt to be more covert about it. I don't actually accept the premise as of yet, but if I assume it to be true, it seems odd to me that they would be so.....obvious about it.

This discussion however is not about profiling or hating or discriminating against people who are Muslim. This discussion is about using common sense and due prudence in an increasingly dangerous world that is increasingly dangerous mostly due to Islamic extremism.

All persons entrusted with sensitive government policy, processes, or information must always be thoroughly vetted. Bill Clinton was unable to get several of his nominees past the vetting process because they had broken the law related to their personal employees. Many of us were incensed when Timothy Geithner was allowed to keep his very sensitive and important job after it was revealed he had the same kind of problem.

Would we want somebody handling race relations who had ties to the KKK? Do we want somebody working in high levels of the Treasury Dept who has ties to the Mafia? Do you want anybody working anywhere in government with ties to the Westboro Baptists?

For me it is every bit as problematic for us to have people with ties to or sympathetic to extremist Islamic groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood in high level positions in government.

Ah, but that's just the thing! What constitutes 'common sense' and what goes beyond that?

The reality is that common sense is not so common most of the time. It's an extremely misused expression. Very often what one person considers common sense is, in fact, more of a rarity.

So what, specifically, should be done that isn't already? How should the vetting process be changed? These are questions that may end up dealing with profiling, racism, discrimination, etc. Just saying 'common sense' does not really answer anything.

If we have people in government with direct sympathetic ties to terrorist organizations, I agree that is an issue. That sounds like a failure of the vetting process. I am skeptical of those kinds of claims, though, as too often they turn out to be partisan rhetoric. Even if true, I wonder if the problem is poor vetting guidelines, or if the guidelines are fine but the enforcement is lacking. And I certainly do not think saying we should use common sense is a good answer, as what that entails is usually impossible to agree upon.

 

[Montrovant]

Excuse me but I disagree. No one is becoming overly hostile towards All Adherants of Islam here. We oppose Sharia Law that makes Islam a political entity which threatens our Constitution and way of life here. Not people. Get that through your mind.

Anthony Wiener is running for Mayor of NYC. A white man. His wife & inlaws - brother in laws are said to be tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and there is documentation to prove it. That would be information people should be aware of when they cast their vote for Mayor of NY. - Jeri

Considering the thread you started and continued, in the face of all opposing evidence, about Delta, I question your objectivity where Islam is concerned.

I have no problems with opposition to Sharia Law. I don't see how it is currently a threat to our constitution and way of life. Sharia law is not the law of the US, not even close. The only times it is relevant in US law, that I am aware of, is with non-criminal matters in which the sides agree to be judged under Sharia. The kind of thing that has long been done with other religions, I believe.

I also have never quite understood why Islam is political where other religions are not. To me it sounds like an attempt to excuse anti-Islamic sentiment. If you oppose the religion, just say so, don't couch it in terms of politics!

 

[Foxfyre]

You're right Foxy, but there's also the other side of the coin : becoming overly hostile against all adherents of Islam, profiling or racism against anyone who has the look of being Middle Eastern, etc.

Radical Islam certainly seems to be out of its collective mind, but with over a billion Muslims in the world, it can be hard to find the right balance between battling extremism and condemning the entire religion.

Anyway, my comment about openly Islamic people with Middle Eastern looks was in reference to the op. If there really is an infiltration going on by the Muslim Brotherhood, I just question whether they would do it so openly or if they would attempt to be more covert about it. I don't actually accept the premise as of yet, but if I assume it to be true, it seems odd to me that they would be so.....obvious about it.

This discussion however is not about profiling or hating or discriminating against people who are Muslim. This discussion is about using common sense and due prudence in an increasingly dangerous world that is increasingly dangerous mostly due to Islamic extremism.

All persons entrusted with sensitive government policy, processes, or information must always be thoroughly vetted. Bill Clinton was unable to get several of his nominees past the vetting process because they had broken the law related to their personal employees. Many of us were incensed when Timothy Geithner was allowed to keep his very sensitive and important job after it was revealed he had the same kind of problem.

Would we want somebody handling race relations who had ties to the KKK? Do we want somebody working in high levels of the Treasury Dept who has ties to the Mafia? Do you want anybody working anywhere in government with ties to the Westboro Baptists?

For me it is every bit as problematic for us to have people with ties to or sympathetic to extremist Islamic groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood in high level positions in government.

Ah, but that's just the thing! What constitutes 'common sense' and what goes beyond that?

The reality is that common sense is not so common most of the time. It's an extremely misused expression. Very often what one person considers common sense is, in fact, more of a rarity.

So what, specifically, should be done that isn't already? How should the vetting process be changed? These are questions that may end up dealing with profiling, racism, discrimination, etc. Just saying 'common sense' does not really answer anything.

If we have people in government with direct sympathetic ties to terrorist organizations, I agree that is an issue. That sounds like a failure of the vetting process. I am skeptical of those kinds of claims, though, as too often they turn out to be partisan rhetoric. Even if true, I wonder if the problem is poor vetting guidelines, or if the guidelines are fine but the enforcement is lacking. And I certainly do not think saying we should use common sense is a good answer, as what that entails is usually impossible to agree upon.

In my opinion, the risk of government infiltration is too great to take any kind of risk. The vetting process for everybody else includes research into their background and affiliations. I have close friends and family with very high level security clearances, and to get those clearances, the investigation on them was amazing. My husband and myself were checked out thoroughly, people who knew us were questioned about us, etc. etc. etc. and it was much much more thorough with those getting the clearances.

So if the vetting process shows any kind of ties to any kind of organizations with a history of violence, the people should not be considered for government positions. And certainly that would include ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. And only Muslims would have ties to that group. If people with such ties are being appointed to high level advisory positions in the White House, that would suggest either incompetence in the vetting process or a tolerance for a situation that should be unacceptable. THAT is what common sense, untainted by dangerous political correctness notions, looks like.

 

[gallantwarrior]

You're right Foxy, but there's also the other side of the coin : becoming overly hostile against all adherents of Islam, profiling or racism against anyone who has the look of being Middle Eastern, etc.

Radical Islam certainly seems to be out of its collective mind, but with over a billion Muslims in the world, it can be hard to find the right balance between battling extremism and condemning the entire religion.

Anyway, my comment about openly Islamic people with Middle Eastern looks was in reference to the op. If there really is an infiltration going on by the Muslim Brotherhood, I just question whether they would do it so openly or if they would attempt to be more covert about it. I don't actually accept the premise as of yet, but if I assume it to be true, it seems odd to me that they would be so.....obvious about it.

This discussion however is not about profiling or hating or discriminating against people who are Muslim. This discussion is about using common sense and due prudence in an increasingly dangerous world that is increasingly dangerous mostly due to Islamic extremism.

All persons entrusted with sensitive government policy, processes, or information must always be thoroughly vetted. Bill Clinton was unable to get several of his nominees past the vetting process because they had broken the law related to their personal employees. Many of us were incensed when Timothy Geithner was allowed to keep his very sensitive and important job after it was revealed he had the same kind of problem.

Would we want somebody handling race relations who had ties to the KKK? Do we want somebody working in high levels of the Treasury Dept who has ties to the Mafia? Do you want anybody working anywhere in government with ties to the Westboro Baptists?

For me it is every bit as problematic for us to have people with ties to or sympathetic to extremist Islamic groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood in high level positions in government.

these guys have about as much of a tie to the Muslim Brotherhood because they are brown as you do to the KKK because you're white.

I find it interesting that folk of your ilk will point out how little "proof" or "evidence" people with opposing views have, and yet, you continuously make statements that are even less supported by any proof or evidence. So, what information to you have that makes you so certain that none of the high-ranking government officials listed in the OP are not affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood or any other islamic-extremist group?

 

[percysunshine]

Don't know if the specific theory is valid, but it is well known that this administration will prostitute itself to anyone with the cash. Be it General Electric, Goldman Sachs, Unions, or Saudis.

 

[gallantwarrior]

While not the first administration to sell itself to the highest bidder, this administration is the most openly blatant about being whores.

 

[Truthseeker420]

This discussion however is not about profiling or hating or discriminating against people who are Muslim. This discussion is about using common sense and due prudence in an increasingly dangerous world that is increasingly dangerous mostly due to Islamic extremism.

All persons entrusted with sensitive government policy, processes, or information must always be thoroughly vetted. Bill Clinton was unable to get several of his nominees past the vetting process because they had broken the law related to their personal employees. Many of us were incensed when Timothy Geithner was allowed to keep his very sensitive and important job after it was revealed he had the same kind of problem.

Would we want somebody handling race relations who had ties to the KKK? Do we want somebody working in high levels of the Treasury Dept who has ties to the Mafia? Do you want anybody working anywhere in government with ties to the Westboro Baptists?

For me it is every bit as problematic for us to have people with ties to or sympathetic to extremist Islamic groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood in high level positions in government.

these guys have about as much of a tie to the Muslim Brotherhood because they are brown as you do to the KKK because you're white.

I find it interesting that folk of your ilk will point out how little "proof" or "evidence" people with opposing views have, and yet, you continuously make statements that are even less supported by any proof or evidence. So, what information to you have that makes you so certain that none of the high-ranking government officials listed in the OP are not affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood or any other islamic-extremist group?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWJTUAezxAI]James Randi Lecture @ Caltech - Cant Prove a Negative - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Foxfyre]

these guys have about as much of a tie to the Muslim Brotherhood because they are brown as you do to the KKK because you're white.

I find it interesting that folk of your ilk will point out how little "proof" or "evidence" people with opposing views have, and yet, you continuously make statements that are even less supported by any proof or evidence. So, what information to you have that makes you so certain that none of the high-ranking government officials listed in the OP are not affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood or any other islamic-extremist group?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWJTUAezxAI]James Randi Lecture @ Caltech - Cant Prove a Negative - YouTube[/ame]

GW wasn't asking you to prove a negative. He was asking you to show that there is no indication that these people have ties with the Muslim Brotherhood. I posted evidence I found that one of them--probably the least questionable in the entire group--did. Whether that is significant or not, I don't know, but the tie is there. Was that checked out by the Administration? Based on Obama's very open and obvious appreciation for the Muslim faith and his deference to that faith, I think there is good reason to believe that it was not checked out.

All the people named in the OP are big names in the Muslim world. Researching whatever background information is available on line on the people named in the OP does not require rocket science. If there is no credible evidence found tying somebody to an extremist group, then it is safe to say that criticism of the person purely because he is Muslim is unfounded prejudice.

But if there ARE ties to extremist groups, then concern for their motives in being in the White House is quite reasonable.

 

[Foxfyre]

Now then, if we can set aside partisan idocy and personal attacks for a bit and actually engage in an interesting discussion offered by the OP. . . .

Let's look at the first name on the list.

Arif Alikhan has been with the justice department since the Clinton Administration and well into the Bush administration. He has an extremely impressive resume and I can find absolutely no scandals of any kind associated with his public service.

And yet there is this reported:

In April 2009, Obama appointed Arif Alikhan, the deputy mayor of Los Angeles, as assistant secretary for policy development at the Department of Homeland Security. Just two weeks before he received this appointment, Alikhan (who once called the jihad terror group Hezbollah a “liberation movement&#8221 participated in a fund-raiser for the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). Like the ISNA, MPAC has links to the Muslim Brotherhood
Obama's Muslim Brotherhood Ties | Human Events

Where did Human Events get this information? Is it accurate? I don't know. Is it significant? I don't know. Is it worth filing back in the store of 'evidence' we have on those entrusted with the security of the nation and something we should seriously consider? Yes it is.

On one hand, having people who understand the Muslim mind and methods helping with national security makes sense. On the other hand, there is always the very real possibility that those who intend to do great harm to us will look for ways to have access to our more sensitive information and vulnerabilities.

It isn't a matter of profiling or racism or prejudice or anything else like that. It is a matter of common sense and responsible prudence.

 

[Dot Com]

whats more important to me is your rw echo chamber source Foxy. Go back to the coffee thread

The Human Events Group, representing HumanEvents.com and RedState.com and offering e-letters such as Daily Events, RedState Morning Briefing, and Guns & Patriots, reaches millions of the most passionate, engaged, and dedicated conservatives in the country.

They have an agenda

 

[Foxfyre]

whats more important to me is your rw echo chamber source Foxy. Go back to the coffee thread

The Human Events Group, representing HumanEvents.com and RedState.com and offering e-letters such as Daily Events, RedState Morning Briefing, and Guns & Patriots, reaches millions of the most passionate, engaged, and dedicated conservatives in the country.

They have an agenda

Of course they do. But that agenda goes all the way back to the Clinton administration in the case of Arif Alikhan. The difference now is that the bright people left in this country are willing to set aside political correctness and admit that Islamic extremists have targteted us and our interests, and they have been commiting attack after attack after attack will continue to do so. They goal is to break us and force us to live as subjects of Allah.

I don't see what that has to do with the Coffee Shop.

Perhaps you need to go back to your other board?

 

[Dot Com]

whats more important to me is your rw echo chamber source Foxy. Go back to the coffee thread

The Human Events Group, representing HumanEvents.com and RedState.com and offering e-letters such as Daily Events, RedState Morning Briefing, and Guns & Patriots, reaches millions of the most passionate, engaged, and dedicated conservatives in the country.

They have an agenda

Of course they do. But that agenda goes all the way back to the Clinton administration in the case of Arif Alikhan. The difference now is that the bright people left in this country are willing to set aside political correctness and admit that Islamic extremists have targteted us and our interests, and they have been commiting attack after attack after attack will continue to do so. They goal is to break us and force us to live as subjects of Allah.

I don't see what that has to do with the Coffee Shop.

Perhaps you need to go back to your other board?

thats a lot of unsourced accusations you made there (quelle surprise ). Are you blaming it on religion?

 

[Foxfyre]

whats more important to me is your rw echo chamber source Foxy. Go back to the coffee thread





They have an agenda

Of course they do. But that agenda goes all the way back to the Clinton administration in the case of Arif Alikhan. The difference now is that the bright people left in this country are willing to set aside political correctness and admit that Islamic extremists have targteted us and our interests, and they have been commiting attack after attack after attack will continue to do so. They goal is to break us and force us to live as subjects of Allah.

I don't see what that has to do with the Coffee Shop.

Perhaps you need to go back to your other board?

thats a lot of unsourced accusations you made there (quelle surprise ). Are you blaming it on religion?

I have been posting my sources. What have you posted other than snarky personal attacks on me?

 

[Dot Com]

Human events as a source Thats like me using FireDogLake or DailyKos and expecting you NOT to take issue with it.

You have an agenda and it shows.

BTW- you a Reagan fan? Know the groups he supported/entertained at the WH? I'll tell you if you aren't aware

 

[Foxfyre]

I think it is probably time for your nap, Dottie. I am just not in the mood for trolls, idiots, and/or exercises in futility today. Do have a nice afternoon.

 

[Dot Com]

Human events as a source Thats like me using FireDogLake or DailyKos and expecting you NOT to take issue with it.

You have an agenda and it shows.

BTW- you a Reagan fan? Know the groups he supported/entertained at the WH? I'll tell you if you aren't aware

I see this never got addressed. Quelle surprise..... NOT!!! Carry on Foxy

 

[Foxfyre]

Ya'll hear that whistling sound? It was the point sailing right over Dottie's head. As well as him ignoring what disclaimers I posted. And him apparently being totally unaware of the topic of the thread.

 

[candycorn]

OP- Total lie, of course.

Do you get the feeling that the reason conspiracy whackjobs are that way because they were not spanked as children when they lied?