Translate

Monday, July 23, 2012

Mohamed Elibiary and the Alleged Infiltration of Our Government

Hat tip PJ Media


Michele Bachmann is taking a lot of heat for the letter she and a few other congresspeople sent to the Dept. of State complaining about Muslium Brotherhood influence within that department. Contrary to how others have characterized the letter, Bachmann et al did not actually accuse the person in question (Huma Abedin) of being disloyal.

State is not the only department that has been infected, however. This past week, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) got into a heated exchange with Janet Napolitano in a House committee hearing over Mohamed Elibiary and his access to sensitive DHS computer information which he downloaded and publicized in an effort to embarrass Governor Rick Perry. Though Gohmert may have raised memories of Joseph McCarthy with his aggressive manner, there is every reason to be concerned about Elibiary.

And who is Mohamed Elibiary, you ask?
http://pjmedia.com/blog/mccarthyism-and-mohamed-elibiary/

So Janet Napolitano brings into DHS a man who participated in a 2004 event in Dallas honoring none other than the Ayatollah Khomeini? And you wonder why Gohmert treated her so harshly-especially since she did not answer his straightforward questions?

For all you UC Santa Cruz Community Studies and History of Consciousness majors who have been taught  all about Joe McCarthy but never heard of the Ayatollah Khomeini, he was the fanatical mullah who ruled Iran while they were kidnapping and holding our diplomats hostage for 444 days back in the days of Jimmy Carter (another one of your heroes). And this guy Elibiary honors him in 2004 in Dallas?

So before we condemn Bachmann for her letter regarding an advisor to Hillary Clinton (in which she did not accuse the person of disloyalty), let's put this entire issue into proper perspective.

4 comments:

Siarlys Jenkins said...

The proper perspective is that Michelle Bachmann is a religious bigot slinging mud, then pulling back and intoning, I didn't SAY they ARE, I was just asking...

Anonymous said...

Gary do you suggest we use extra background checks and close supervision on Jews working in the US military and intelligence agencies since many Jews such as Jonathan Pollard, the Rubenstiens, and AIPAC have stolen sensitive and classified information and passed them off to third parties?

Remember Gary all Jews are de facto citizens of Israel.

Gary Fouse said...

Anonymous,

I don't know who the Rubensteins are unless you are referring to Julius and Ethyl Rosenberg. I am unaware of your charge against AIPAC stealing sensitive information. Jonathan Pollard betrayed our country in favor of Israel and I have no sympathy for him or the Rosenbergs though the Rosenbergs were clearly musch worse.

I seriously doubt all Jews consider themselves citizens of Israel. I think you mean that all Jews have the right to immigrate to Israel under Israeli law. I have encountered many Jews who are fierce opponents of Israel. I think you must consider Jews as one big monolithic group, which they are not, and may indicate that you don't much care for Jews.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Actually, Pollard appears to have stolen much more comprehensive and valuable information, than the pitiful information about one lens that David Greenglass claims he passed to Julius Rosenberg.

Like Pollard, the Rosenbergs were, at the time, spying for a U.S. ally. Unfortunately, by the time of their trial, it was an ally no longer. Pollard got a much longer sentence than he would have, if not for Caspar Weinberger telling the court that several U.S. informants inside the USSR had been executed based on Soviet moles in Israel passing along information Pollard gave to Mossad.

Weinberger was wrong. It was the Aldrich-Ames team, and Hanson, who directly informed the USSR of the identities of American informants. But at the time of Pollard's trial, these spy operations had not been discovered.

Anonymous may have a valid point. The rabid notion that ethnic Arabs and Muslims are, ipso facto, presumed hostile to the United States, is not much different from putting forward that the danger of Jews spying for Israel is sufficiently strong to exclude Jews from security clearance.

I don't support that notion, I'm not sure Anonymous does either, and I don't support the harangue about Muslims in the State Department either.