Some Of Our Congressmen Are Paying Attention

This video was posted at the Washington Examiner the last week of August:

The video shows House Homeland Security Committee chairman Pete King, R-N.Y. questioning Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano about the recent visit by Hani Nour Eldin to the White House where he met with high-ranking Obama administration and State Department officials. Mr. Eldin is a member of the recently elected Egyptian parliament. He is also a member of a group designated as a terrorist group by the United States government.

The article reports Ms. Napolitano’s answers to Rep. King’s questions about letting a known terrorist into the White House:

“I think we have to add more nuance to that,” she said when King mentioned that Eldin is part of a designated foreign terrorist organization. “We have to know what the group was. Is it now a political party that is running the government of a country that has strong ties to the United States?” She added that he went through three stages of vetting and “everyone who looked at this person felt confident that he was not a security risk to the White House or to the United States.”

My question after watching the video is, “Didn’t anyone bother to check his Facebook page?” I find the lack of research amazing.

As someone who is not prone to nuance, I think this is nuts. One of the things Mr. Eldin did while at the White House was ask for the release of another terrorists–the Blind Sheik. Enjoy the video.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

I Am Not A Terrorist

I am a conservative. I believe in limited government. I agree with most of the ideas of the Tea Party. I am not, nor am I in danger of becoming, a terrorist. I am a little old lady who remembers when autumn meant the smell of burning leaves, gasoline was $.30 a gallon, and we sang patriotic songs and prayed in school. (I went to elementary school in the south, and we sang Dixie a lot!)

However, the Department of Homeland Security sees people who believe what I believe as a threat.

The Department of Homeland Security publication, LaFree, Gary, and Bianca Bersani. “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970 to 2008,” Final Report to Human Factors/Behavioral Sciences Division, Science and Technology Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. College Park, MD: START, 2012., includes the following statement about potential terrorists:

Extreme Right-Wing: groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent (for some the threat is from a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group), and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism. Groups may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.

…Religious: groups that seek to smite the purported enemies of God and other evildoers, impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists), forcibly insert religion into the political sphere (e.g., those who seek to politicize religion, such as Christian Reconstructionists and Islamists), and/or bring about Armageddon (apocalyptic millenarian cults; 2010: 17). For example, Jewish Direct Action, Mormon extremist, Jamaat-al-Fuqra, and Covenant, Sword and the Arm of the Lord (CSA) are included in this category.

I don’t mean to be difficult, but there is only one religion on that list that has been consistently involved in terrorism. My experience with Christian fundamentalists has been that when someone commits violence in the name of Jesus, he is condemned by the Christian community–not lauded. Bible-believing Christians may practice civil disobedience (e.g. Martin Luther King Jr.‘s freedom marches), but violence against authority is not Biblical (e.g. Dietrich Bonhoeffer felt that he needed to ask God’s forgiveness for plotting against Hitler).

The report is approximately 37 pages long. It reminds me of the story (previously related in this blog) about the man walking around under a streetlight seemingly looking for something. When someone asks him what he is doing, he explains that he is looking for his car keys, which he dropped on the other side of the street. When asked why he is looking under the streetlight when he dropped the keys on the other side of the street, he replies. “Because the light is better over here.” Obviously, as long as he is looking on the wrong side of the street, he has no hope of finding his keys.

So why would the Department of Homeland Security rather see Christians as a threat than Muslims? Christians in America don’t fight back. Muslim radicals have learned to use the American court system to their advantage. We have seen that particularly in the Midwest with regard to foot washing basins in airports and taxi drivers who refuse to transport blind people because Muslims regard dogs as unclean.

It’s much easier to search for your keys under the streetlight! You may never find them, but the search is easier!

 

 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Putting The Focus Where The Problem Is

Peter king

Image via Wikipedia

As Congress tries to find ways of cutting the federal budget, a few Congressmen are looking at ways to make some agencies more efficient in dealing with the problems they were created to solve. In Washington, that is easier said than done.

Representative Peter King is asking for changes at the Department of Homeland Security that would allow the Department to focus formally on “homegrown violent Islamist extremism.” Joe Lieberman has introduced a companion bill in the Senate that would require a czar to oversee the program.

The article reports:

“Sen. Lieberman and I think it’s important to focus on the most serious threat, and Islamist radicalism is the most dangerous threat,” the Long Island Republican said. “By not saying that, we would be creating the appearance of equivalency with any number of different threats.”

Under President Obama, Homeland Security has avoided the term “terrorism” and references to radical Islam.

Whether it is politically correct to say so or not, the majority of our problems with terrorism have been with Islamist extremists. It is foolish to say that by ignoring that fact, we are doing something constructive.

The article further reminds us:

Both bills, for example, would consolidate redundant DHS offices and impose tight controls on spending by the agency, which has wasted billions in its first seven years.

Most notably, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that DHS spent more than $4 billion on nuclear detection equipment that either didn’t work or wouldn’t fit in lanes at U.S. ports of entry.

It will be interesting to listen to the debate as these two bills move through Congress.

Enhanced by Zemanta