Goog "Devout muslims to homeland security", then snopes and many others.
Go to NASA.org, Boulden speech in Cairo and
Youtube Boulden interview with Al Jazeera.
I guess it all depends on who is checking where.
The 57 states is on record too but I'm not doing all your work for you. First I was a deserter, now a liar, and you still haven't given me your military bio--I gave you mine when you called me a deserter. You like to get the attention off the real issues, Need.

OK 57 States was a campaign gaff.

Arif Alikhan as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development is certainly a devote Muslim and possibly more. He is a member of "Muslim Public Affairs Council". MPAC's Senior Advisor, Maher Hathout, has close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and espouses Wahhabism. That is all I know . The connection is worth exploring given the position he will hold in the national security community.

Kareem Shora , appointed by DHS Secretary Napolitano on Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC),is Syrian . That is all I know about
Him .

So his assertion that the Obama Adm appointed Devout muslims to Homeland Security leadership is correct .

Smearcase already did a OP about the mission assigned to
NASA boss Charles Bolden . I believe Bolden when he said he was instructed to do an outreach to the Muslim world.

All 3 are true . 2 are significant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello D:

I'm glad you joined the discussion. It gets old arguing with the same people.

But, my argument doesn't change... Using your logic, because there are many guns around, YOUR gun rights should be curtailed... Or, because we gave the Miranda warnings to MOST people, YOUR rights should be violated....

It absolutely DOES have to do with freedom of religion. These American citizens want to put their mosque THERE. That is their RIGHT, just like it's YOUR right to put your church where ever YOU want to. Is it offensive??? Yes. Do they have the RIGHT to put it there? YES! Was the Nazi's march in downtown Skokie, Ill. offensive? Yes. To me, however, it's MORE offensive to see the Constitution torn asunder.

excon

---

Freedom of religion is a freedom to believe as you choose. This does not always correlate into actions. No one has said a certain religion can not be followed... there is a mosque several blocks away.

It is my understanding that it is the location, given the history of the site and those involved, that is of concern. No one has a "right" to build, they have a "right" to their religion. I could not build a church, mosque, temple, or synagogue anywhere I chose to. Nor, even if I could, would I personally be so presumptuous to consider building where I knew it would cause so many people distress, especially given that the objective of such a building is one to bring people together.

The example has been made of plenty of Japanese living in Hawaii, but people would not want a Buddhist temple built at Pearl Harbor. Much has changed in Hawaii, but it took many years after the attack and now there are many, many temples across the islands. Still you wouldn't find one at Pearl Harbor given the historical nature of the site.

This is the same situation with ground zero. It is all too fresh in the minds of many people, particularly those living in the city and the families of those who died.

It would almost be like Truman wanting to build a Christian church at Peace Park after the bombings. While there is a remnant there now, although not presented by the US, this occurred much later as part of a memorial for all to remember the horrific nature of what occurred.

Time heals... and perhaps in time, as part of a memorial to try and build a bridge of healing, understanding, and unification such a project would be viewed differently.

I just think it is not the right location, or perhaps the right time, given the circumstances. We will have to agree to disagree on this one... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DoulaLC

I just think it is not the right location, or perhaps the right time, given the circumstances. We will have to agree to disagree on this one....:)

---

Hello again, D:

I do NOT disagree with ANY of your personal sentiments. It is NOT the "right" location. It IS offensive. It's NOT the "right" time...

However, when it comes to the Constitution, it's ALWAYS THE RIGHT TIME. That's why our Founding Fathers WROTE the Bill of Rights. They wanted to make SURE that feelings didn't get in the way of rights. Most of our rights aren't very popular. The majority of 'em would be done away with if we could vote on them. Freedom is messy. And yes, some people use their freedom to confront others... So what?

I've said many times on these pages, that if we don't support the Constitutional rights we DON'T like, the ones we DO like will fall by the wayside too. So, when you look to see if someone has a RIGHT to do something or not, look to the Constitution - not your feelings.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, D:

I do NOT disagree with ANY of your personal sentiments. It is NOT the "right" location. It IS offensive. It's NOT the "right" time...

excon

---

Man are you guys screwed up! And all because you are trying to fulfill seventeeth century ideas of morality which were aimed at preventing the declaration of a national church and enforcing membership. Let's agree here ex, the idea that a mosque could be built on the site of the murder of 3,000+ people by muslim fanatics is offensive, not only to americans but to other nationalities who died that day and it doesn't offend your constitution which did not confer a right for any person to build a house of worship wherever they pleased, however pecularly it might be worded, otherwise I could come over there and erect a Church of the Great Rainbow Serpent on the site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Man are you guys screwed up! And all because you are trying to fulfill seventeeth century ideas of morality

---

Hello again, clete:

Yeah, the Constitution is kind of quaint, ain't it? But, as I read it, I don't see anything old fashioned about its ideas. Here's the Amendment we're talking about. Seems to directly relate to TODAY'S problems, no?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You're probably jealous because you don't have such rights.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, clete:

Yeah, the Constitution is kinda quaint, ain't it? But, as I read it, I don't see anything old fashioned about its ideas. Here's the Amendment we're talking about. Seems to directly relate to TODAY'S problems, no?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You're probably jealous because you don't have such rights.

excon

---

You claim we don't have such rights, but I don't hear any arguments about freedom of speech or religion where I live. Our constitution has a similar clause about religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
Try this one on, Arizona couldn't happen here
A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State.
Further, our parliament has no power to make laws regarding the exercise of magna carta rights by individuals so no provision is needed regarding free speech

Hey exie I bet you would like to have this one in your constitution
The proposed law which appropriates revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government shall deal only with such appropriation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Hey exie I bet you would like to have this one in your constitution
The proposed law which appropriates revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government shall deal only with such appropriation.

---

Don't know about Ex, but I'd certainly love to see it.

I'm curious, how do you feel about this:

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...nJZUO86M6Txuw=

Hello Steve:

I don't FEEL anything. What's your point? Are you saying that we DON'T have to obey the First Amendment, because we FEEL a certain way?? I FEEL like I don't like guns - so what??

excon

Let me rephrase, what's your opinion of this? Is this an acceptable expression of the first amendment?

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...nJZUO86M6Txuw=

Hello again, Steve:

You haven't understood a thing I've been saying here. You have the right to express yourself. The particular OBJECT you use to express yourself doesn't make your expression illegal or not... For example, an artist can depict Jesus Christ in a sexual situation... A hippie can wear a shirt made of an American flag. You can fly your flag of choice.

In other words, I don't have LISTS of THINGS that can or can't be used for political expression. You do.

excon

Yeah but public pressure ;rights not relevant... has prevented the flying of the stars and bars throughout the country.

Hello again, tom:

You're mixing apples and oranges. Government doesn't have a First Amendment right. YOU do. So, if constituents put public pressure on their government officials to do what the constituents want, that is politics in action. It's what's SUPPOSED to happen. But, it has NOTHING to do with the Constitution, or the subject at hand.

YOU, on the other hand, have the absolute RIGHT to fly the stars and bars. If you cave to your neighbors pressure, that's on you.

excon

Maybe you can get that point across to all those people defending the right to have this mosque in a most insensitive place who are also first to call for infringing on our constitutional right by banning this flag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Maybe you can get that point across to all those people defending the right to have this mosque in a most insensitive place who are also first to call for infringing on our constitutional right by banning this flag.

---

Hello again, Steve:

Why do you need ME to do that?? Maybe if you stood up for ALL of our Constitutional rights, instead of the ones you like, you'd have credibility with this group, like I do. Why do I have credibility?? Because I don't have lists... In terms of the Constitution, we've talked about LISTS before. When asked if someone can excercize a Constitutional right, you don't read the Constitution. You consult your list.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

You consult your list.

---

I still don't know what list you're referring to, the one that says the mosque is OK as long as it meets zoning and building codes? The one that says speech zones are good and Fox News is evil? The one that says a preacher could be fined or jailed for hate speech for calling homosexuality a sin, while anti-semitic, jihad-loving professors are protected for calling for genocide? Which list?

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:6f6nqzFsFftrwM:http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:6f6nqzFsFftrwM:If you guys are going to start flag waving how about this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I still don't know what list you're referring to, the one that says the mosque is OK as long as it meets zoning and building codes? The one that says speech zones are good and Fox News is evil? The one that says a preacher could be fined or jailed for hate speech for calling homosexuality a sin, while anti-semitic, jihad-loving professors are protected for calling for genocide? Which list?

---

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, you're not the ONLY one with a list. I don't have one, though. That's why you LISTEN to me. I'm a PURE Constitutional Dude. I'm the guy the Tea Party should LOVE. I'm better than Judge Napalitono.

When I speak of YOUR list, I'm referring to the one you consult when asked if ______ should excercize a Constitutional right. Let me see if I've got it right. Gay people are on your list. Muslims are on your list. Detainees are on your list. Those are just for starters.

excon