One of many revelations
Ray
http://www.opiniontimes.com/nidal-hasan-homeland-security-connection/
Look here on Page 29.
Http://www.gwumc.edu/hspi/old/PTTF_ProceedingsReport_05.19.09.PDF .
Ray
Ken Gardner
"Ray" wrote:
> http://www.opiniontimes.com/nidal-hasan-homeland-security-connection/
> Http://www.gwumc.edu/hspi/old/PTTF_ProceedingsReport_05.19.09.PDF .
I haven't yet seen any confirmation that the Obama people knew anything
about this guy or had anything to do with him participating on the panel.
Remember, their vetting process wasn't exactly restaurant quality to begin
with even for Cabinet members.
Tomm Carr
>
> I haven't yet seen any confirmation that the Obama people knew anything
> about this guy or had anything to do with him participating on the
> panel.
That's true. The membership of these panels was probably controlled by
the university, not by the Obama team. It does, however, make one wonder
about the selection process used. Possibly they looked no further when
they found out a candidate was in the military. In all fairness, I don't
think (before this incident) I would have looked an further. I guess I
thought the US military had tighter control over its membership,
especially in the officer ranks, than it turns out they did.
> Remember, their vetting process wasn't exactly restaurant quality
> to begin with even for Cabinet members.
No, their vetting process seems to be working just fine. From comments
of top advisors, it would appear that they got exactly who they were
looking for.
Us: Did you know this guy is a Marxists???
Obama: Well, duh!
--
Tomm Catt
http://www.examiner.com/x-26551-Phoenix-Freethought-Examiner
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In
practice, there is.
Ray
news:_uNLm.16516$We2....@newsfe09.iad...
> Ken Gardner wrote:
>>
> That's true. The membership of these panels was probably controlled by the
> university, not by the Obama team. It does, however, make one wonder about
> the selection process used. Possibly they looked no further when they
> found out a candidate was in the military. In all fairness, I don't think
> (before this incident) I would have looked an further.
I figured as much myself.
> I guess I thought
> the US military had tighter control over its membership, especially in the
> officer ranks, than it turns out they did.
>
The military is a victim of political correctness just as the rest of us.
They even have "gun-free zones" on their bases.
> --
> Tomm Catt
> http://www.examiner.com/x-26551-Phoenix-Freethought-Examiner
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In
> practice, there is.
Looking at your "mug" shot I'm sure I saw you somewhere.
Not sure if it was in New Jersey or Ohio.
And no it wasn't in a department store during the Christmas season.
Ray
Charles Bell
> Fort Hood murderer was a Homeland Security advisor on Obama transition team.
>
> http://www.opiniontimes.com/nidal-hasan-homeland-security-connection/
>
<< Barack Obama on Friday urged Congress to refrain from beginning
investigations into the shootings committed by Hasan at Ft. Hood prior
this is revelation. Obama asked Congress to "resist the temptation to
turn this tragic event into the political theater. . . . The stakes
are too high.>>
I remember hearing a black woman commenting after the O.J. Simpson
acquittal that even if there was a photo of O.J. with a bloody knife
standing over Nicole's body, that jury would have acquitted him.
Likewise, just how much evidence do we need to conclude that BHO's
"government" is traitorous?
Would this do?
NEW YORK -- In a major victory for due process and the rule of law, the
Obama administration will announce today that the five defendants
represented by the John Adams Project who have been charged in
connection with the 9/11 attacks will be tried in federal court rather
than in the Guant�namo military commissions.
(the rest of the story . . . )
BIZARRO CITY -- In a major legal and propaganda victory for al Qaeda,
the Obama administration will announce today that the five demented
killers represented by the John Alan Muhammad Memorial Project who
were responsible for the slaughter of nearly 3,000 innocent Americans
will await acquittal in federal court by Leftists in New York rather
than standing before the incompetent troglodytes who "serve" our
country in the Armed Forces...The American Civil Liberties Union has
been working through the Project, a joint conspiracy with the National
Association of Criminals Disguised as Lawyers (NACDL), to provide
legal assistance to the five individuals who've blessed us with the
glorious 9/11 holiday. The Guant�namo military commissions are staffed
by drooling fools in odd uniforms with weird oak leaved, eagles and
stars on their shoulders and collars and who are despised by our
international comrades.
"The transfer of cases to federal court is a huge victory for al Qaeda
and is sure to threaten our national security. We can now finally
achieve the real and reliable justice that Americans deserve, but we
think should be applied to international terrorists, who until now
have never in history been granted the constitutional rights that were
once reserved for American citizens. It would have been an enormous
blow to ACLU self-esteem and fundraising if we had tried these
murderous thugs in a process that actually would have resulted in
justice being done," said Anthony D. Romero,
Executive Director of the ACLU. "However, it's disappointing that the
administration has chosen to prosecute some terrorists using those
idiots with really short haircuts. Time and again the federal courts
have proven themselves willing to advance the ACLU agenda, truth,
justice and national security be damned. This has us just tickled
pink."
Piet de Arcilla
> On Nov 14, 7:27�pm, Ray <rayd...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Fort Hood murderer was a Homeland Security advisor on Obama transition team.
>
> >http://www.opiniontimes.com/nidal-hasan-homeland-security-connection/
>
> << Barack Obama on Friday �urged Congress to refrain from beginning
> investigations into the shootings committed by Hasan at Ft. Hood prior
> this is revelation. �Obama asked Congress to "resist the temptation to
> turn this tragic event into the political theater. . . . �The stakes
> are too high.>>
>
> I remember hearing a black woman commenting after the O.J. Simpson
> acquittal that even if there was a photo of O.J. with a bloody knife
> standing over Nicole's body, that jury would have acquitted him.
> Likewise, just how much evidence do we need to conclude that BHO's
> "government" is traitorous?
I have the impression that it's pretty common in Iraq for people who
join or pretend to join the government to commit violence that we hear
about. It doesn't seem reasonable to blame "political correctness" for
that sort of thing, or the leadership of Iraq or the U.S., such as
Obama or Bush. So why should we when it happens here? It's just not
possible to identify the "bad guys" ahead of time in all cases.
Whenever there's a lack of competence, people want to make it into a
moral issue. However, organizations can be made of smart, decent
people, and fail because of the way those people interact.
Charles Bell
> On Nov 15, 7:28�am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > I remember hearing a black woman commenting after the O.J. Simpson
> > acquittal that even if there was a photo of O.J. with a bloody knife
> > standing over Nicole's body, that jury would have acquitted him.
> > Likewise, just how much evidence do we need to conclude that BHO's
> > "government" is traitorous?
>
> I have the impression that it's pretty common in Iraq for people who
> join or pretend to join the government to commit violence that we hear
> about. It doesn't seem reasonable to blame "political correctness" for
> that sort of thing, or the leadership of Iraq or the U.S., such as
> Obama or Bush.
You are comparing the culture in Iraq to that in the U.S. and think
that the U.S. should be more like Iraq.? Or is that to say you agree
with PC logic that all cultures are equally conducive to individal
freedom, or that if they are not, it should not matter? I should think
one thing ought to be obvious in the U.S. military, as it is generally
in Western European military -- an individual leaves his personal
ethnic and religious allegiances behind. Not only did Hasan not do
that, he was very obvious about it. He is reported to have considered
his nationality as Palestinian though he was a native-born American to
Palestinians [conceptually, not legally, leaving in doubt the proper
consideration of American citizenship to merely native-born
Americans]. I am clear that the germination of this corruption within
the military by postmodernist cultural diversity was in the Bush era
and before, but the fact that Obama shows no compunction that such
Islamic terrorism by the military within the military happened is what
makes him traitorous.
> So why should we when it happens here?
It is identifiably morally corrupt.
> It's just not
> possible to identify the "bad guys" ahead of time in all cases.
By just the facts that we already know about Hasan, it most certainly
was possible in his case. Obviously, merely being a muslim is not
sufficient for exclusion, as that may, in fact, be beneficial in some
ways -- the only possible positive motivation for recruiting and
retaining Hasan -- but consider this fact alone:
Col Terry Lee, a retired officer who worked with Hasan at the military
base in Texas, alleged Maj Hasan had angry confrontations with other
officers over his views.
"He was making outlandish comments condemning our foreign policy and
claimed Muslims had the right to rise up and attack Americans," Col
Lee said. "He said Muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor and
that we should not be in the war in the first place."
Obama as Commander-in-Chief should be seeking the heads of the
military officers and defense department civilians who allowed this to
happen, but instead he is seeking to brush the matter under the rug.
Piet de Arcilla
> On Nov 15, 4:27�pm, Piet de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 7:28�am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > I remember hearing a black woman commenting after the O.J. Simpson
> > > acquittal that even if there was a photo of O.J. with a bloody knife
> > > standing over Nicole's body, that jury would have acquitted him.
> > > Likewise, just how much evidence do we need to conclude that BHO's
> > > "government" is traitorous?
>
> > I have the impression that it's pretty common in Iraq for people who
> > join or pretend to join the government to commit violence that we hear
> > about. It doesn't seem reasonable to blame "political correctness" for
> > that sort of thing, or the leadership of Iraq or the U.S., such as
> > Obama or Bush.
>
> You are comparing the culture in Iraq to that in the U.S. and think
> that the U.S. should be more like Iraq.?
If we don't blame Bush for Iraqi violence, even though he made a
concrete decision (to invade) that led to it, why should we blame
Obama for this similar violence, when he made no particular decision
that led to it?
It used to bother me to hear that Bush took us to war "on false
pretenses" etc. etc. and thus was a traitor. But that was on much
firmer ground than calling Obama a traitor due to nebulous accusations
of political correctness.
Charles Bell
> On Nov 15, 6:21�pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > You are comparing the culture in Iraq to that in the U.S. and think
> > that the U.S. should be more like Iraq.?
>
> If we don't blame Bush for Iraqi violence,
President Bush acted against the interests of the islamo-fascists.
Obama acts in the interests of the islamo-fascists
Piet de Arcilla
You're begging the question.
Charles Bell
I am being very clear. You are the one sneeking around implying
things that are not true.
x.
xx.
xxx.
xx.
x.
1Z
> On Nov 16, 12:57 am, Piet de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 15, 9:18 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Obama acts in the interests of the islamo-fascists
>
> > You're begging the question.
>
> I am being very clear.
Question-begging is about supporting claims, not about stating them
clearly.
Charles Bell
I already supported my claims in this thread, and Arcilla side-stepped/
ignored them in order to make implications of his own built around the
conclusions in my support rather than the support itself.
Tomm Carr
>
> Looking at your "mug" shot I'm sure I saw you somewhere.
> Not sure if it was in New Jersey or Ohio.
> And no it wasn't in a department store during the Christmas season.
It could only have been in '05 or early '06. Then it would have been at
a truck stop as that was when I was driving OTR flatbed. Or, if you're a
forklift operator, maybe you (un)loaded me. ;-)
Ken Gardner
"Tomm Carr" <Tomm...@Gmail.com> wrote:
>> I haven't yet seen any confirmation that the Obama people knew anything
>> about this guy or had anything to do with him participating on the panel.
> That's true. The membership of these panels was probably controlled by the
> university, not by the Obama team. It does, however, make one wonder about
> the selection process used.
Me too. To clarify, I was not trying to let the Obama people off the hook,
just suggesting that this might be a case of gross incompetence rather than
the usual willful anti-Americanism. Although it certainly may be both. :)
> Possibly they looked no further when they found out a candidate was in the
> military. In all fairness, I don't think (before this incident) I would
> have looked an further. I guess I thought the US military had tighter
> control over its membership, especially in the officer ranks, than it
> turns out they did.
Not exactly, if General Casey's recent comments about "diversity" are any
indication.
>> Remember, their vetting process wasn't exactly restaurant quality to
>> begin with even for Cabinet members.
> No, their vetting process seems to be working just fine. From comments of
> top advisors, it would appear that they got exactly who they were looking
> for.
Well....yes. Good point.
> Us: Did you know this guy is a Marxists???
> Obama: Well, duh!
Right, way too much of that in this Administration. They are doing it on
purpose.