Thursday, January 14, 2010

A Tale of Two World Views

I believe that everyone has a common trait in their in-ability to resolve oneself of all bias. Many will tell you that they can achieve this as they view world events and discern information. I say that it is impossible. Our life experiences and teachings of those we love and respect help everyone to develop a "World View", or filter in which we read or see different view points out of the same set of circumstances. You cannot choose to excuse yourself from a starting point of reference. If one insists that they can... they are not being intellectually honest.

Do you believe what you hear or what you see? In most cases what you see will most often be what you believe. If a husband tells his wife that he loves her, but then physically abuses her or has numerous affairs, do you believe what he says, or what his actions portray? Likewise, if someone followed you around for a week, do you believe that they would be able to discern what is important in your life, regardless of what you may say is important, by watching how you devote your time and money? If you say that TV is not important to you but you watch it 30 hours a week, is it important? It would be hard to argue no.

That leads us to the meat of this story. There are differing views on many things and I would like to share my view on terrorism, and in turn share what I can reasonably perceive to be the view that President Obama's administration and liberals in general have on terrorists. Not just what they say they believe, but what actions they follow up their spoken beliefs with.

On August 16th, 2007 there was an article published in the "New York Times", written by Al Baker, that discussed the release of a study on homegrown terrorists by the New York Police Department. The study was from the belief that the law enforcement officials needed to stay one step ahead of the terrorists and the best way to do this was to try and establish patterns in the stages of development of a terrorist mindset. The study found that unassimilated Muslims in the United States are vulnerable to extremism. Police analysts studied 11 cases from the previous six years to better understand terrorist patterns, the article stated. The 90 page report considered how ordinary people in Western nations, with little or no criminal histories, sometimes came to adopt a terrorist ideology. It looked for similar patterns in terrorist attempts by these individuals during the study period. This was their conclusion. They identified four steps in the process of radicalization: pre-radicalization, self-identification, indoctrination and jihadization. The report factored in the socioeconomic status, religion, and ethnic origin among other factors. Personal crises was found to encourage exploration of a deeper religious experience in some cases.

Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said that before law enforcement officers could disrupt terrorists, they had to understand the radicalization process and that this report put it in perspective and gave a framework to the radicalization process. This report is widely unknown and has probably been buried after critics voiced loud opposition to the results and decried the assault on the Muslim community.
“The report is at odds with federal law enforcement findings, including those of the recently released National Intelligence Estimate, and uses unfortunate stereotyping of entire communities,” Kareem W. Shora, the national executive director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said in a statement, a notion the Police Department rejected. Christopher Dunn, of the New York Civil Liberties Union, stated that " “While aggressive counter-terrorism policies are to be commended, this report appears to treat all young Muslims as suspects and to lay the groundwork for wholesale surveillance of Muslim communities without there being any sign of unlawful conduct,” he said. “To target Muslims in this way would mark a dangerous and unlawful erosion of the line separating the police from lawful religious activity.” Political correctness at its best.

Back to Kareem W. Shora. If his name sounds familiar it is no coincident. He was a frequent guest on Al-Jazeera, the BBC, and other American networks on top of having held the position of the national executive director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (see above paragraph). On June 05, 2009 Secretary Napolitano swore in the 16 member Homeland Security Advisory Council. Kareem W. Shora was sworn in and sits on this important homeland security council with 15 other members. You can find an article that he co-wrote here as he decries the state of Florida as persecuting a Muslim woman by insisting that she show her face on her drivers license.
In another article written solely by Shora he attacks an editorial that as stated
Ms. Hudson's editorializing in the two front-page stories smacks of the opportunistic bigotry so far reserved, almost exclusively, for extreme right-wing AM radio talk-show hosts and, on occasion, certain pundits on the Fox News Channel. The two stories, by default, advocate for the profiling of Arabs and Arab Americans.
You can no longer find this article on the Washington Times Website here
Shora also co-authored the LCCR’s report on racial profiling entitled Wrong Then, Wrong Now: Racial Profiling Before and After September 11, the LCCR’s 2004 Update of Cause for Concern: Hate Crimes in America, and the ADC 1998-2000 Report on Hate Crimes and Discrimination Against Arab Americans and Report on Hate Crimes and Discrimination Against Arab Americans: The Post September 11 Backlash - September 11, 2001 to October 11, 2002 (Part of the Congressional Record).
Shora, was born in Damascus, Syria. Does he sound like a good fit for such an important council in "Homeland Security"? Janet Napolitano thinks so.

This brings us to another Janet Napolitano appointment to a high position in Homeland Security (Assistant Secretary for Policy Development) , Arif Alikhan. After she announced how proud she was to make the announcements she introduced Alikhan in these words; Arif comes from Los Angeles Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa’s office, where he served as Deputy Mayor for Homeland Security and Public Safety. As a key adviser to the Mayor, he has led the City’s efforts to develop homeland security, emergency management and law enforcement initiatives, including operational oversight of Los Angeles Police, Fire and Emergency Management departments. He is a former federal prosecutor and senior advisor to the U.S. Attorney General, and has partnered extensively with local, state and federal agencies,” said Secretary Napolitano.
What she did not share was another accomplishment. In 2007 Alikhan was instrumental in removing the Muslim terror tracking plan in LA. The Muslim 'Mapping' Plan of the Los Angeles Police Department is now "dead on arrival" according to Chief William Bratton. "It is over and not just put on the side," said Chief Bratton in a meeting with the Muslim leadership of Southern California at that time. The meeting was moderated by Arif Alikhan. Chief Bratton acknowledged the hurt and offense caused to Muslims and agreed to send a letter to the Muslim community announcing the official termination of the 'mapping' plan. Alikhan is a devout Muslim who has referred to the terrorist organization Hezbollah as a "liberation movement." After his appointment Alikhan said a big part of his job will be fostering communication between agencies. Isn't it strange that after the bombing attempt on Christmas, with the failure of the agencies to communicate, his name was never mentioned? Does he sound like a good fit for such an important position in "Homeland Security"? Janet Napolitano thinks so.
We could go into detail of the terrorist act at Fort Hood and the 14 lives lost there (one victim was pregnant), how political correctness cost their lives, and how the cover-up and refusal to define it as a terrorist act followed. But, this article needs to end at some point.

Now let's talk about some of Janet Napolitano's other statements and views. She brought on some outrage on April 7th with a report that she put out titled, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment". In this report she profiled, YES PROFILED, American citizens that included in a footnote; ," That while there is no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are planning acts of violence, such acts could come from unnamed "rightwing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, abortion, increasing federal power and restrictions on firearms -- and singled out returning war veterans as susceptible to recruitment". It included other statements like these; "The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of
military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities
could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists
capable of carrying out violent attacks", those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.. She also warned of Christian Identity Organizations and extremist members of the militia movement.
All of this while admitting that she has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence.

The White House is now trying to push through their nominee to be administrator of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Erroll Southers. Southers first testified to a Senate panel that he once had asked other law-enforcement officials at the FBI (where he worked) to check federal databases to find information about his estranged wife's then-boyfriend. He later admitted that he had accessed the records himself on at least two occasions. In the letter, he said he had previously provided incorrect information because he had forgotten the exact circumstances of the database searches because so much time had elapsed since the incident. He was recently shown in a video proclaiming that "Most domestic groups that we have to pay attention to here are White supremacist groups. They are anti-government and in most cases anti-abortion. They are usually survivalist types in nature, identity oriented". He then gives three examples of attacks and states that "Those groups are groups that claim to be extremely anti-government and umm... Christian identity oriented". This is the man they want providing for our airport security! Does he sound like a good candidate? Janet Napolitano thinks so.
If this is such a horrible thing to do to those that have a history of flying our passenger jets into our buildings, and attempting to bring down others, why is it acceptable for them to behave this way with others? Maybe Chris Mathews was correct when he stated that President Obama "Went to maybe the enemy camp tonight" when he was referring to president Obama speaking at West Point to our country and military?
See it here
Are we to judge by actions or words? How about both.

No comments:

Post a Comment