O's aide terror-fying

So, it's an immigration problem and not a terrorist problem. Interesting spin on this one.




www.nypost.com...

reply to post by adifferentbreed


my favorite line

A Muslim who has spent time in one of the world's deepest terror havens lies on a visa application, and Obama's top terror expert thinks it's a technicality? Read more: www.nypost.com...

I dont know about terrorism expert. Pass the blame expert maybe. Things like this just make me shake my head.

From
www.judicialwatch.org...

QUOTE:

"Devout Muslims In Key Homeland Security Posts"

...View Discussion Last Updated: Fri, 11/20/2009 - 4:45pm
Days after a devout Muslim terrorized a U.S. Army base in Texas several news reports remind that two key Homeland Security posts are occupied by equally devout Muslims, one of them a former Los Angeles deputy mayor who eliminated a crucial program that tracked terrorist activities in the city.

...Earlier this year President Obama appointed Arif Alikhan to be the nation’s Assistant Secretary for Policy Development at the Department of Homeland Security and Kareem Shora to the agency’s influential advisory council, which provides recommendations and advice directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security.

...Alikhan, who leads a Homeland Security team responsible for developing policy issues to secure the country against terrorism, has referred to the renowned terrorist organization Hezbollah as a “liberation movement” and was responsible for killing a Los Angeles Police project that monitored terrorist activities in the city’s notoriously radical mosques. The defunct Muslim terror tracking plan was designed to identify hotbeds of extremism in an area where several locals offered the September 11 hijackers support.

...Shora was the head of a well-known Arab organization whose officials refer to anti-U.S. jihadists as heroes. As executive director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Shora had close ties to radical Ivy League professor Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian terror supporter who has reportedly worked on behalf of the extremist Palestine Liberation Organization.

...An Israeli newspaper criticizes Obama for reaching out to Muslims by appointing them to key security posts amid charges he wrongly ignored internal Muslim terror. The passage undoubtedly refers to the Muslim, al Qaeda wannabe Army major (Nidal Malik Hasan) who went on a murderous rampage at Ft. Hood as he chanted "Allahu Akbar!" ("God is great!") in Arabic.

...Days after the massacre, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was most concerned about preventing a wave of anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States. She vowed that her agency is working hard with groups across the U.S. to deflect any retaliation against Muslims for one man’s fury."...

Just something to think about!

And there's this:



From www.nypost.com...

QUOTE:

"HOLDER'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST:"

...Holder's previous job, after all, was as a senior partner with Covington and Burling - a white-shoe DC law firm that devotes considerable pro bono time to defending the Gitmo detainees.

...The job paid $2 million a year, and he expects to collect a like amount this year as part of his separation package.

...As a senior partner, he undoubtedly had significant input on what kind of charity cases his firm picked up.

...He surely knew that dozens of lawyers from from his firm were among the 500-plus civilian lawyers representing the 244 or so remaining detainees (on top of military-court-appointed defenders).

...Even now, his Covington colleagues continue to allege rampant torture at Gitmo. They're fighting hard to have detainees tried through the US court system - essentially given the same rights as US citizens. And their arguments and plans hinge largely on having Holder issue a bad report card.:...

Can't say I'm really surprised. The bad part is, if you tried to remove them from their post now, you would be a racist. Business as usual for Obama though, and Janet, she needs to go.

Too funny I've noticed that not much has changed since Obama took office. We still have muslim extremist trying to put the fear of allah into us heathens. I'm still trying to wrap my head around him being tried in our civilian courts I think this column puts things in perspective!

www.nypost.com...

reply to post by hangedman13


I think some things have changed. We are now more apologetic and more willing to help slit our own throats. I also think the media bias has done a better job of assisting Obama with his lack of transperency.

reply to post by adifferentbreed


Good point! So shall we say there has not been a change for the better? I'm sure Obama will get around to bowing to everyone else sooner or later!

reply to post by hangedman13


I don't care about him bowing.........but I really do care about him destroying this country. No matter what this pos does, no matter what criminals he appoints we all stand there going please sir, can I have some more. Is the fear of being labelled a racist really that powerful. seems to be the first thing that happens when you disagree with him?

reply to post by hangedman13


I think the civilian courts thing is actually just a help to them. They get to further their cause, increase dissent, and do it all on the American dollar.

Originally posted by hangedman13
I'm still trying to wrap my head around him being tried in our civilian courts

Because as time goes by the definitions may expand until one day you, or future relatives might fit the criteria to be tried in a separate court. You fight for it now
or you lose it later...

[edit on 5-1-2010 by Janky Red]

reply to post by Janky Red

But, at what point do we call a spade a spade. The government right now seems hell bent on screwing these things up fast. When does our national security actually become important?

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by Janky Red

 

But, at what point do we call a spade a spade. The government right now seems hell bent on screwing these things up fast. When does our national security actually become important?

Please elaborate...

I am not sure what gripe you have so I cannot respond specifically.

At what point does someone who is a non unifromed enemy combatant get treated as such? These people have no right to be tried in a civilian court. At what point does this administration quit playing nice, and do what is fair and right for this country without regaurds to political correctness?

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
At what point does someone who is a non unifromed enemy combatant get treated as such? These people have no right to be tried in a civilian court. At what point does this administration quit playing nice, and do what is fair and right for this country without regaurds to political correctness?

Well I do not believe in creating a three tiered justice system, that is a recipe for tyranny and can be used as a TOOL of such a government. Personally, for me it has nothing to do with correctness.

If you guys fear Obama's intentions then I suggest you do not offer him or ANY FUTURE PRESIDENT a vehicle to crackdown on whom ever they would like, in secret, BY LAW with no recourse.
There is already a frame work

Patriot act

a (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are
a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or
of any State;


Now if you had to explain to me what the part "(A)" above meant what would you say???

What does "acts" mean to you?

What does "dangerous" mean to you?

"Violation of (WHAT/WHICH) criminal laws of the United States or of any State" ?

Do you see the quandary?

Now another example:

--`(B) appear to be intended--


Now the word "appear" --

Could the word "assume" be a possible synonym for appear in this context ?

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion

What does "intimidation" mean to you?

More importantly what does it mean to someone else or the government?

Now do the same with "coercion"...

If the US is headed for total chaos and the citizenry becomes "ANGRY" how might these
words be interpreted?

What if you are "suspected terrorist" and judged by a judicial body who is working hand in hand with possible "Fascist government entities"???

Might a government under siege use the full extent and widest interpretation of the law to quell any citizen decent?
________________________________________________________________________

Unfortunately these few lines hold a lot of weight and in the wrong hands could effectively silence our Democracy and any protest that may result!

` (C) occur primarily within the territorial
jurisdiction of the United States.''.

Oh,,, but this last line is very clear and not vague at all- ANYWHERE