Muslim influence in US runs deep


A few weeks ago a box cutter was found on a commercial airline. It is illegal to have this on an aircraft.

This was a device used in the takeover of the aircraft on 9/11. All participants were Muslim and 19 were from Saudi Arabia.

On June 25, I was one of the first to board a plane leaving the John Wayne Orange County Airport and watched a TSA crew searching the seats and seat backs. They were not cleaning the trash left from the just exiting passengers.

The cabin cleanup crew was following me. This TSA crew was searching the aircraft.

I assume the TSA decided to search all aircraft, since somehow a box cutter was found on a plane. Commendable. The problem arises with who was conducting the search.

For those flying in and out of Seattle the last few years, you have noticed an increase in the number of Muslim women working in the airport? They are obvious because of their head scarf or attire.

What you don’t know is how many Muslim men are working there. Two of the four TSA employees searching the plane were Muslim women, wearing their head scarfs. The other two were males. I don’t know if they were Muslims.

Remember Juan Williams? Late of PBS and now working for FOX News? He got fired from PBS allegedly because he mentioned he felt apprehensive when boarding an aircraft with obvious Muslims aboard. It is the Muslim religion that provided the 19 Jihadists — and members of this religion are providing security to my plane?

There is a designed outreach to Muslims by President Obama and former Secretary of State Clinton. U.S. citizens pay full-ride scholarships to Muslim high school students to come to the U.S. Walla Walla High School had six foreign exchange students this past school year, three were Muslims.

The Muslim influence in the United States runs deep through the White House and to Saudi Arabia, home to the Wahhabi religious sect and its support of jihadists.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright was President Obama’s pastor and adviser for 20 years.

He was asked if he had converted Obama from Islam to Christianity. Wright’s reply was that he couldn’t tell.

The president’s actions answer this question. Even with Benghazi, one could say with his nonsupport, President Obama let the Muslims kill the Christians.

Craig Buchanan

Walla Walla



downhillracer says...

"They are obvious because of their head scarf or attire" is the absolute pinnacle of sheer ignorance and bigotry. Despicable.

Posted 10 July 2013, 2:32 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

A great exercise in observance Mr. Buchanan - never walk down the street looking at the stars.

Posted 10 July 2013, 3:04 p.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...





Posted 10 July 2013, 3:21 p.m. Suggest removal

downhillracer says...

This was a great exercise in xenophobic bigotry, nothing more, nothing less.

Mr. Tinto - let the ignorant and hateful have their say - it shines a light on them, much like a kitchen light illuminates the cockroaches as they scurry off into the darkness.

Posted 10 July 2013, 3:33 p.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

We enjoy freedom of speech in America, but we also enjoy protection from hate crimes. I have friends who are Muslim and who have visited Walla Walla. This does nothing, but perpetuate hate which lead to hate crimes. Hate crimes are illegal in this country.

In civilized societies there are lines that should not be crossed and the UB crossed a line by publishing Craig's letter. I've recently learned that he just retired from the high school. Who would let this animal work with kids?

Posted 10 July 2013, 3:39 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

You're right, VinoTinto, wrong-think should be just as much a crime as lynching. Let's make sure no one who engages in it is allowed to sully the ears or eyes of the rest of us by letting us know he exists. Not to mention, we can hire tens of thousands of new government employees to ferret out wrong-think and scrub it from our view. Hey, we can call the new agency the Ministry of Truth, and our newly scrubbed language Newspeak!

Posted 11 July 2013, 5:28 p.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

You've been on the Tea Cup ride for too long!!! Your brain cells are spinning out of control trying to connect.

Sounds like another syntax error!!! You're crazy as an incontinent BAT!

Posted 11 July 2013, 6:31 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

Agreed...this is a ridiculous and offensive letter. "It is the Muslim religion that provided the 19 Jihadists...". Okay, then it is the Christian religion that provided thousands of KKK members. And Anders Breivik killed 77 kids in Norway because he claimed to be defending traditional Christian values. Do we want a list of atrocities committed in the name of Christianity? I don't think so.

This kind of twisted logic works both ways. Blowing up airplanes is no more a "Muslim" act than slavery is a "Christian" act. Justifications for both actions can be found in their respective holy books, but these are perversions of their faiths committed by selfish, angry and/or confused individuals.

I was fortunate to have grown up in a diverse community and attended high school and college with a wide array of African-Americans, Asians, Hispanics, Christians, and Muslims and I have had several gay friends and colleagues in my adult life. I am no better than the writer of this letter, but I have been lucky enough to have had relationships with these other "types" of people. Without personal exposure to people who are different from us, there is a human, tribal tendency to mistrust and misjudge these people as "other" than us. They are not "other." They are us.

Posted 10 July 2013, 4:54 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

It seems from your post that your bigotry and hatred stem from the Christians? Is that a correct statement - just reading your post?

Posted 11 July 2013, 1:38 p.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

Go play. The adults are trying to have a conversation.

Posted 11 July 2013, 2:02 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

Dude! Panderers, such as yourself breed and promote contempt, hypocrisy, racism and bigotry so be very careful you don't get bucked off your supposed high-horse because you could have a very short fall. Don't let your ignorance ruin your life!

Posted 11 July 2013, 5:36 p.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

Blah, blah, blah. Who cares what you think.

Posted 12 July 2013, 9:29 a.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

Just shows your immaturity and your illiterate posts.

Posted 12 July 2013, 9:47 a.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

No, it shows that I won't be bullied by ignorant people.

Posted 12 July 2013, 9:51 a.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

Read it again, namvet.

Posted 11 July 2013, 3:50 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

If PearlY doesn't mind I will revert you to her post as this person puts together a 1000% better post than I can and I totally agree with it. The only thing that I would add is that you are condemning a person for a letter but you are threatening to bring out all the facsimiles of the Christians. Do as I say not as I do?

Posted 11 July 2013, 5:43 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

Okay, namvet. I will explain it to you. My point was that individuals from all religions have done terrible things, claiming a religious inspiration. So if Mr. Buchanan points to terrible things a small number of Muslims have done and uses that to make claims about Islam, one could use the same faulty logic against Christianity and the terrible things some Christians have done. As I pretty clearly stated, these acts are perversions of their faiths, and not true reflections of Islam or Christianity. I was saying that it is wrong to draw such broad conclusions for either religion. Clear?

Posted 11 July 2013, 7:37 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

fatherof5 - So with that philosophy when you disciplined your children you re-enacted the occurence and then berated them not to do it again? If you re-read the letter Mr Buchanan is not grouping the entire religion but to be aware of your surroundings. (My interpretation). You mentioned different acts of violence but grouped them all with the Christians. If you were to walk through the same areas with a person with a KKK hat on or a Nazi uniform - that would not enhance your observation of the situation?

If you believe that this government has this country secure you also believe in the tooth fairy. You better read up on some of the problems that are taking place in the Middle East ( a lot of hand held signs with "We hate the United States"). Why does the government observe different people but only catch them after the fact. Such as the Fort Hood terrorist - the Boston Marathon Bombers - the shoe bomber (fortunately was apprehended with faulty bomb) when they had them forefront on the radar. It's nice to say we had them pegged to the loved ones as they bury there dead. I did not take anything from this letter other than to be observant and it has been proven that the southern border is the biggest gateway to terrorist activities in the United States.

Not everyone is quite as forgiving if there lives are shattered by a bomb or gunshot. It certainly doesn't hurt to be observant and aware.

Posted 12 July 2013, 9:22 a.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

Quit kitchen-sinking and stay on topic. Try and focus!

Posted 12 July 2013, 9:31 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

As an atheist, fatherof5, I do not consider myself (or you) qualified to theologically determine whether the 9/11 bombers, or Breivik, or the KKK are perverting their faiths or otherwise. To me, a religion is strictly what its adherents make of it. Today, Christianity seems a relatively peaceable and tolerant religion (unlike in some earlier times), while Islam seems pretty intolerant as it is practiced throughout much of the world. But I assume that many American Muslims came here either to escape that practice or at least prepared to abandon it.

In some sense, of course, we are all 'us' but unless you have lived for some time in another culture, you might underestimate the differences that culture can make. Our culture places a high value today on tolerance, and formerly on a variant of that: 'live and let live' or MYOB. As much as you may dislike Mr. Buchanan's letter, there's nothing in it to suggest he's about to haul out his machete or set up a gas chamber.

The bitter, implacable, deeply ingrained tribalism of some other cultures might shock you. Which is precisely why I am appalled at the pandering of both parties, but principally the Democrats, to the whole notion of race-based interests. After 175+ years of hard and often deadly work toward a truly color-blind society, our 'leaders' have turned on their heels and are racing back into the swamp.

Posted 11 July 2013, 5:17 p.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

Pearl, you make lots of assumptions about topics you know nothing about. I'm sure your Klan is very proud of you. Now go iron your hood.

Posted 11 July 2013, 6:25 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

For all my supposed ability to make assumptions, I can't even begin to imagine what makes you so hateful.

Posted 11 July 2013, 6:59 p.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

How did you come to the conclusion that I'm hateful when the only hate presented in this section is from the author, NamVet and YOU. If you think that civilized people are not going to call you out on your uncivilized letters and comments you're wrong.

What amazes me is what a bunch of whiners the conservatives are. "Whah a liberal hurt my feelings, whah, whah".

Excuse me if I don't praise your opinions when they are wrong and PLEASE SPARE US THE PHONY OUTRAGE!!!

Posted 12 July 2013, 9:34 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

You didn't hurt my feelings, VinoTinto. For whatever reason, you clearly understood nothing of what I was saying. I did my best to communicate it and failed, so that's that.

Posted 12 July 2013, 10:11 a.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

These are just comments in the heat of the moment Pearl. I'm sure you're a lovely person and if we ever had a face-to-face, I'm sure we would find that we have a lot in common. We are both Americans and and want the best for our country. Peace out, have a good weekend.

Posted 12 July 2013, 10:52 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

Same to you.

Posted 12 July 2013, 11:24 a.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

Beautiful comment Fatherof5.

Posted 10 July 2013, 5:33 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

Sure can tell who voted for the Community Organizer Mr. Obama!

Posted 10 July 2013, 7:16 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

Namvet, what these people seem to have in common is a desire not to tarnish a whole group of people over the actions of a few. Like me, they are offended by the notion that we shouldn't invite Muslim students to study at Wa-Hi on the basis of their personal faiths or that in the United States of America there should be a religious test to see who can apply to work in an airport.

I don't know how they vote, but is there something in these writers' desire for fairness, civility, and religious tolerance that makes you assume they couldn't be Republicans?

That's pretty interesting.

Posted 10 July 2013, 8:02 p.m. Suggest removal

briandohe says...

Fatherof5, thank you. I'm again disappointed that the U-B prints each and every letter. Does the editor edit?

Posted 10 July 2013, 7:25 p.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

Not only does the editor NOT edit, he puts this trash front and center. This is embarrassing to the community. Is this really how you want the world to view Walla Walla?

Posted 10 July 2013, 7:59 p.m. Suggest removal

chicoli says...

Mr. Buchanan's concatenation of ideas is a textbok example of a false and bizzare paranoid elaboration around a common theme that is believed, and firmly maintained in spite of incontrovertible proof to the contrary. This is one possible interpretation of a clinical systematized delusion. The other interpretation is to derive that Mr. Buchanan's nasty commens were concocted deliverately, therin the intrisically malicious and poisonous mentality of the originator. Moreover those ones supporting his assertions are simply riding on the band wagon of a folie a deux. I do not know Mr. Buchanan's age, but at any age is good enough to reconcile our common spirituality with the human condtion of all races.

Posted 11 July 2013, 9:59 a.m. Suggest removal

bricknercj says...

Replace "Muslim" with "angry, paranoid bigot," and "head scarf" with "trucker hat," and you'll know how a lot of the rest of us feel.

Posted 11 July 2013, 10:36 a.m. Suggest removal

Jo99362 says...

Wow. Looks like someone needs to go back to college and learn about the History of Islam. Not all Muslim women wear the hijab, nor is it required, but it's a choice to be modest depending on which Sunni school of thought that they follow. Just like Christianity and the different types of christians who choose to wear a headcovering (Amish, Mennonites, etc.) not because they are terrorists. President Obama says he's christian, why should I question that? Oh, right, because he's black??? Muslims are not race specific religion.

Posted 11 July 2013, 3:43 p.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

Many Arab Christian women still cover themselves. Where does this clown think Christianity began?

Posted 11 July 2013, 4:22 p.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

OMG Buchanan is right, they're everywhere.

Did you notice that Polk the pedophile's head is covered? Is he a Muslim too, or just a creepy white man? Someone needs to get to the bottom of this fast!

Posted 11 July 2013, 4:32 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

What is 'racist' about being aware that more devout or conservative Muslim women wear a hijab? It's tied in a distinctive way, and who else besides Muslim women wears such headgear.

That being said, is the point Mr. Buchanan makes really so off the charts?

"All koalas are Australian, but not all Australians are koalas." In fact, very few Australians are koalas, but it would be inefficient to look for koalas among non-Australians.

At the moment, virtually all organized international terrorists targeting air transport are Muslims, even though relatively few Muslims are terrorists.

It is rational to be concerned about the extent of possible radicalism in the Muslim population and whether it can effectively be screened for in such sensitive positions. Our government has proven itself willing to turn a blind eye to obvious signs of extremism in the military (Exhibit A: Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood mass murderer), so why should we believe that they can screen well in TSA?

A 2011 Pew poll of American Muslims found that 60% of American Muslims themselves were concerned about a possible rise of Islamic extremism, and 21% of them said there was a 'fair amount' to 'a great deal' of support for Islamic extremism among Muslim Americans. Are they bigoted against themselves?

According to the same poll, one out of every hundred American Muslims believes that suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilian targets are 'often justified to defend Islam from its enemies,' 7% say it's sometimes justified and 5% say it's rarely justified. Five percent have very favorable or somewhat favorable views of Al Qaeda. Only 70% have very unfavorable views of Al Qaeda.

fatherof5, do you believe a poll of non-Muslim Americans would find that only 70% have 'very unfavorable' views of Al Qaeda or would it be closer to 95%? Would 13% accept at some level the targeting of civilian populations and suicide bombings to defend their faith?

It is almost certainly more dangerous to hire Muslims for sensitive security jobs than non-Muslims (more susceptible to Islamist ideology or to pressures on family members here or abroad), just as it is more dangerous to hire people with bad credit scores (more susceptible to bribes) or people with anger management problems (more likely to go postal). 'Fairness' is irrelevant to statistical risk analysis.

This is a tremendous hardship for the vast majority of American Muslims who are well-integrated into our society and loyal to it .

But I really don't think it does American Muslims any favors to shout down people who raise concerns about whether we are doing the right thing by 'affirmative action' hiring of Muslims for sensitive security positions, and frankly, the last few times I've been through airports, it has seemed to me that at least hijab-wearing women were represented there in higher numbers than one would expect from their proportion of the population.

Posted 11 July 2013, 4:56 p.m. Suggest removal

Jo99362 says...

"It is almost certainly more dangerous to hire Muslims for sensitive security jobs than non-Muslims"

Hmmmm, so government should not hire evangelical christians because they are more likely to bomb abortion clinics, therefore, they would have pressure from their christianity ideology and/or pressure from their pastor to act on their faith?

Or we should not hire any Asians because of WWII and ancestry ties to communism and computer hacking???

Or all those Native casinos a revenge plot?

Posted 17 July 2013, 3:26 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

It is almost certainly more dangerous to hire evangelical Christians to guard abortion clinics than non-believers.

Whether it is more dangerous is not the only consideration for hiring, and if you re-read my original post, I never said Muslims should not be hired. I just said it was probably more dangerous. That it gets some people so freaked out to even hear such a basically simple statistical guess amazes me.

As for Asians, your comparison makes no sense. Asian generally refers to a racial grouping. Your racial background doesn't say much about your beliefs, the way your religion or ideology do. (Besides, lots of Asians fought on the Allied side in WWII - Chinese, Burmese, Indian, Filipino, etc.)

The casinos a revenge plot? Hmmm. Hadn't occurred to me, but you might have something there.

Posted 18 July 2013, 7:53 p.m. Suggest removal

downhillracer says...

"It is almost certainly more dangerous to hire Muslims for sensitive security jobs than non-Muslims"

Unbridled racism and sheer xenophobic ignorance on display. Shameful.

Posted 11 July 2013, 5:06 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

You think that is racism and xenophobia, but given the Pew poll I mentioned, even a fair number of Muslims would probably agree with me.

Do you agree it's more dangerous to hire low credit score people? Is it racist to suggest that, too?

I'm not advocating refusing to hire Muslims. I'm simply pointing out that when any demographic differs from another demographic on some variable (such as even slightly more favorable views of Al Qaeda), and the variable is related to the employment (as views of Al Qaeda surely are to airline security), then hiring from that demographic is more dangerous. We can decide that additional risk is minimal, and ignore it, and assuming we're hiring American Muslims, I would be perfectly comfortable with that, but it is simply ridiculous to say there is NO added risk, unless you have total confidence in the federal government's screening capabilities. And that would be foolish.

Posted 11 July 2013, 7:13 p.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

Pearl, quit playing dumb and acting like its not racist. You're just being stupid and small, so very small.

Get a freakin' grip on reality. YOU ARE WRONG!

Posted 11 July 2013, 5:37 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

I'll make one last effort to explain to you how statistical risk works.

Take group A and group B. Out of every 1000 members of group A, 999 are safe and 1 is dangerous. Out of every 1000 members of group B, 998 are safe and 2 are dangerous.

The difference between 998 and 999 is trivial; in other words, the difference between the safe segments of those populations is so small as to be meaningless.

The difference between 1 and 2, however, is not trivial. It means the risk is double for group B, compared to group A.

I've had family members freak out about the fact that, due to family genetic history, we have double the risk of a certain medical condition. If that medical condition were common, they'd be right to worry. Since it is a very uncommon condition, I urge them to forget about it. But what I can't honestly tell them is that there is NO added risk. That would be, as you so vigorously put it, WRONG.

The population of American Muslims has a larger (though still small) percentage who are open to the ideas of the current prevailing threat to air travel safety than the non-Muslim population. That IS reality.

If we were talking about threats to IRS offices, or threats to college sororities, or threats to inner city bodegas, we'd be looking at entirely different demographics. That is also reality.

You know, the core emotion of bigotry is the firm and absolute conviction that you, as a human being, are intrinsically SUPERIOR to somebody who differs from you in some essentially trivial way, while insisting on grossly exaggerating that triviality. It wouldn't hurt you to give that some thought.

Posted 11 July 2013, 7:38 p.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

Pearl, I don't need a mixture of your psycho-babble coupled with cutting and pasting sound bytes from the internet, so please TELL ME LESS!

The discussion is about Craig's Buchanan's disgusting and vile letter which you agree with. Why don't you both slither back to your snake pit and hiss at the world.

Posted 11 July 2013, 9:12 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

VD - you should really get back underneath your mothers apron and quit thinking that you can interject anything intelligent in a conversation. Your pathetic!

Posted 12 July 2013, 9:51 a.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

That means very little to me coming from you. Why are you so irrelevant?

Posted 12 July 2013, 9:58 a.m. Suggest removal

chicoli says...

I guess namvet loves the word "pathetic". It might sound "educated" to him. He uses it at nauseum, mostly when he is comming unglued, so watch out, my friend. He is actually copying and pasting it from Tid Bits!

Posted 12 July 2013, 11:02 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

namvet60, I have no influence over VinoTinto to plead with him to stop the name-calling and insults. But perhaps I do with you.

As a favor to me, would you aim for the high road? From personal experience I can vouch that it's a little slippery; I've surely lost my footing from time to time, but the air is clearer and the view much better.

Posted 12 July 2013, 10:01 a.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

Again - The haters are whining when civilized people stick up for themselves.

Looks like PearlY and NamVet need a hug or a box of kleenex. Go snivel somewhere else.

You both agree with Craig and you're both vile human beings.

Posted 12 July 2013, 10:05 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

So, we're "vile human beings"? It would be safe to say, then, that you hate us.

As long as that hate manifests only as handing out tissues, I don't consider it dangerous. Is it? Should you be counseled, shunned, censured, fired from your job, called an 'animal' or otherwise punished for hating people you've never even met? That's the prescription you offer for those like Mr. Buchanan whom you believe 'hate' some group or other, based on far less than a clear statement that they consider that group uncivilized animals and 'vile human beings'.

Posted 12 July 2013, 10:23 a.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

LOL! You are obviously an egocentric person Pearl. I don't care enough about you to hate you, I am indifferent towards you. It really doesn't matter though Pearl because I am pretty confident that we will never meet.

I'm pretty sure I'm not going to get fired, being the boss and all. It's a hoot to read all of these preconceived notions about me because I'm actually thriving ... thank you very much!

What is absolutely priceless and totally cray cray, is how you spew hate and then play the victim trying to get sympathy. WHAH!

Posted 12 July 2013, 10:34 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

Imagine how worked up I could get you if you DID care about me. And how do you know we haven't met?

Posted 12 July 2013, 10:50 a.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

Oh stop, now I'm starting to care : )

Posted 12 July 2013, 10:53 a.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

Thank you PearlY - I keep trying but I tend to slip every once in a while. I will put on my white hat and dance a softer tune.

Posted 12 July 2013, 12:13 p.m. Suggest removal

tpeacock says...

As my Stats professor always said in starting up a new class; There are lies, damned lies, and then statistics.
Statistics are great snapshots of the past, used to determine (possibly) future events, but if all rules are not adhered to, then the process is a complete and utter waste of time.
Hatred, bigotry, and party politics are a lot easier to identify!!

Posted 16 July 2013, 10:06 a.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

PearlY, at the heart of Mr. Buchanan's letter was more than an observation of statistical probabilities and you are smart enough to know it.


You want us to acknowledge that there is a greater mathematical probability that a random Muslim person could be more sympathetic to a radical Islamic ideology than someone with no connections to Islam at all. 1941, was there a greater probability that a random Japanese-American might be more sympathetic to Japan's war efforts than a random Norwegian-American from Minnesota?

The answer to both scenarios is obviously yes. There do exist Muslims who are sympathetic to an extreme Islamic ideology and there likely were a small number of Japanese people living in America in 1941 who had sympathies toward the country of their birth. So the probability, small as it is, is probably higher than in people with no connections to those cultures at all.

But let's continue with this line of thinking...

There is also a greater probability that a random southern white Christian will dress up in in sheets and burn a cross on someone's lawn than there is that a random Hispanic living in Reno would do so.

There was a greater probability that a German-American or an Italian-American citizen in the 1940s was secretly rooting for the Axis Powers, as compared to a Native American.

So what? What are the tangible, practical implications of this? What is the difference between "no support for a radical cause" and "almost no support" when it comes to how we treat and how we think of an entire race or religion?

Should we write letters to the editor implying that southerners are dangerous? Should we ban the sale of white sheets to white folks in Mississippi? Should we have interred all of those Japanese-American citizens during WW II? Should we have interred the German-Americans too? Should we prevent Muslim students from studying in our schools? Should we have a religious test to see who can work in our airports, train stations, football stadiums, and bus terminals?

No. That's not right. That's not America.

Those women wearing hijabs searching that airplane have done nothing to deserve our scorn or prejudicial behavior to them any more than a white woman in the south deserves to be called a racist simply because she is white. Muslim students who come to Wa-Hi should be made to feel every bit as welcome as any other student. The implication of this letter is otherwise. The letter implies Muslims should not be working in our airports and that they should not participate in our foreign-exchange programs.

PearlY, you don't need to play the role of contrarian here. These ideas are just wrong. You don't agree with them. The heart of this letter is wrong. Admit it.

And then, of course, the letter concludes that our president "let Muslims kill Christians." Really? You are too smart not to see why this is both ridiculous and offensive.

Posted 11 July 2013, 9:04 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

I do tend to get carried away with contrarian-ship sometimes.

I agree with you that Mr. Buchanan's ideas are wrong, because I assess the risk from what he is concerned about as trivial, and there are countervailing goals I believe are important enough to accept the risk - precisely the goals you describe so eloquently about how we want our society to work.

But I also do not believe he necessarily deserved the opprobrium slathered on him. For one thing, he may be seriously mistaken in his assessment of the risk involved - a correctable error, and for another, his risk threshold may be much lower than mine. By 9/13/2001, I would have been perfectly comfortable hopping back on a plane if any had been traveling (although I might have avoided scheduling any meetings in Chicago's Sears Tower). I know others who won't fly to this day and no amount of statistical analysis will sway them.

I may be misunderstanding his letter, but the impression I had was that his complaint was that our current system actively favors Muslims with tax-supported student exchanges and over-representation among airport personnel. He was opposing discrimination in FAVOR of Muslims, not necessarily demanding discrimination against them. Neutrality is a third option.

By the way, I know plenty of liberals who would happily claim that any random white woman from the South, North, East or West, and any random white man, too, is a racist. Several Universities in fact have academic departments set up around just that premise.

(And thank goodness, we didn't inter anybody in WWII. Interning them was bad enough.)

But, fatherof5, hypothetically, what if the proportion of Muslim Americans who viewed Al Qaeda favorably was 25% or 50% instead of 5%? Can you seriously argue that those would be statistics we could safely ignore?

As for the statement about Obama, well, I just considered that standard opposition hyperbole. You may not have noticed, but it's been a lot of years now since presidents were last typically spoken of respectfully by their political opponents. I don't personally engage in that kind of name-calling, and maybe you don't, but can you imagine VinoTinto speaking respectfully of Bush?

Posted 11 July 2013, 10:37 p.m. Suggest removal

downhillracer says...

You did misunderstand his letter. It is simply a rant of an angry, scared individual who spends entirely too much time listening to social and media influences that don't have his best interests in mind. Still hung-up on Reverend White? Still think the President is a secret Muslim? And let's throw in a little Benghazi for good measure. Good grief.

Posted 11 July 2013, 11:57 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

Well, I don't happen to share Mr. Buchanan's specific fears about Muslim women searching airplanes, but Rev. Wright is a definite low point (if you can call 20 years of attendance at a church preaching bigotry and hatred a 'point') in Obama's background.

I seriously doubt you'd give a pass to someone who belonged for 20 years to an racially or religiously exclusionary country club, for instance, even though a country club is far less reflective of someone's core beliefs than a church. In fact, didn't you have some pretty harsh words for Paula Deen, even though her bigoted expression was ancient history and possibly even just a single incident under great pressure?

Obama himself ultimately threw Wright under the bus and acknowledged Wright's views were unacceptable. I'm not obligated to believe he spent 20 years as the man's close friend and congregant and never knew how ugly some of Wright's views were before 2008.

By the way, I don't believe Obama actually does share Wright's views. I think he joined and stayed in that church for cynical purposes of political advancement.

No I don't think Obama is a secret Muslim. Given that his family background, education and early political allegiances were much like mine, and having read a lengthy interview he gave on the subject in 2004, I'm pretty sure he's an agnostic or atheist like me. But no national politician would or could admit to that directly yet. In his interview, he described his spiritual views in much the same way I would if I were running for state-wide or national office.

As for Benghazi - well, the jury's still out on that and we may never know the verdict, but 'good grief' describes the Obama Middle East policy pretty darn well.

Posted 12 July 2013, 7:20 a.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

PearlY, I did mix up "inter" and "intern," which would likely be noticeable to the person being either interred or interned.

As for your hypothetical question, if half of all Muslim Americans viewed Al Qaeda favorably - or for that matter if half of white Americans viewed the KKK favorably - we would, indeed, have a problem. Thankfully, the numbers don't bear that out. And more significantly, the very small number of attacks on this country by Muslim Americans since the "War on Terror" began 12 years ago is a tangible indicator that "they" - as I wrote in my first post - "are us." If they were really aligned with Al Qaeda, we would have seen dozens of bombings, but that hasn't happened.

Posted 12 July 2013, 8:17 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

My hypothetical was just that; I never suggested the numbers were any different than what they are - about 5% allegiance, therefore it stands to reason we've seen relatively small numbers of home-grown terrorist attacks or foiled planned attacks. The number IS in the low dozens, though. The Washington Post reported in June 2011 that there had been 51 attacks or attempts, and obviously there've been several since then.

But pointing out that the hypothetical is a hypothetical is an evasion of the question: IF the hypothetical were true (which, again, it is not), would your rejection of, for lack of a better term, profiling in airport employment still be the same? If half of white Southerners aligned themselves with the Klan versus 5% of Northerners, would you be happy to learn that the WW School District had decided to actively recruit teachers from the South? Wouldn't you at least be interested in knowing what steps they were taking to screen out Klan members, and wouldn't that interest be sharpened by the statistical difference between North and South?

Posted 12 July 2013, 9:55 a.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

fatherof5 - might I interject that it hasn't happened yet. I feel that being aware and observant keeps that statistic low at this point.

Posted 12 July 2013, 10:11 a.m. Suggest removal

chicoli says...

"Interject" does not sound right here. Why don't you just plain "say" it, for heavens sake? Any way, whatever you say kind of sounds "vanilla" and irrelevant after all!

Posted 12 July 2013, 11:21 a.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

Let me see - to interject: to interrupt with a comment: to say or insert something in a way that interrupts what is being said or discussed - which is exactly what I was doing between posts from two other individuals. I have more class and professionalism than some other posters!

Posted 12 July 2013, 12:28 p.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

Hookah, PEH-LEASE!!!

Posted 12 July 2013, 1:44 p.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

I admire the work Bush has done and is doing in Africa.

Posted 12 July 2013, 9:20 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

Good job!

Posted 12 July 2013, 10:02 a.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

Why don't you try to say something positive about Obama?

Posted 12 July 2013, 10:07 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

I admire the affection and respect he and his wife show each other, and consider her a class act. I think he's sincere, although horribly misguided, in believing that the transformation he's trying to effect in America is good for its citizens. I think it's impressive and probably wasn't easy that he came out of Chicago politics with practically none of the dust of its corruption sticking to him.

How's that?

Posted 12 July 2013, 10:30 a.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

It's a start, but did you notice how I said one positive sentence about Bush and didn't mention any negatives.

Posted 12 July 2013, 10:36 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

You're a hard guy to please. No extra points for three positives, even if one was qualified?

Posted 12 July 2013, 10:47 a.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

OK, you're right. This is good, we're moving a little closer to the center.

Posted 12 July 2013, 10:55 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

Yeah, there's some truth to that honey/vinegar thing my babushka taught me. Although she never explained what you did with flies after you caught them.

Posted 12 July 2013, 11:21 a.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

Babushkas are good flies are bad.

Posted 12 July 2013, 2:15 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

I knew if we plugged away at it long enough, we'd find common ground, and there it is!

Posted 12 July 2013, 6:32 p.m. Suggest removal

chicoli says...

Leave it up to us, VinoTinto! We have plenty of negatives to say about GWB. You're too kind, my friend!

Posted 12 July 2013, 10:55 a.m. Suggest removal

carcrazy says...

Leave what up to you paco? It seams like you have become the king of snarky lately.

Posted 12 July 2013, 6:49 p.m. Suggest removal

chicoli says...

Carcrazy, you heavenly you! Like an apparation, always arriving through thin air with nothing relevant to offer and never commiting to anything of value. You're still the champion of intelectual sterility. For some reason I smell vindictiveness and sulfur in your comments as if I've done wrong to you. As you're so intelectually ethereal I doubt anyone could ever pin you down long enough to be able to wrong you in any way. It SEEMS like you've become the king of "slickiness", if I may!

Posted 18 July 2013, 10:37 p.m. Suggest removal

carcrazy says...

Physician, heal thyself!

Posted 19 July 2013, 11:04 a.m. Suggest removal

chicoli says...

Your comments are so predictable and boring, and your intelect so ethereal ( as in ether) they just put the whole town to sleep!

Posted 20 July 2013, 3:08 p.m. Suggest removal

carcrazy says...

Blah, blah, blah.

Posted 20 July 2013, 11:26 p.m. Suggest removal

barracuda says...

Wow......... All of this on my vacation........... This has been enlightening and is a great read (albeit some sad content) to come home to, and I didn't contribute to it.... I still say it is better than the comic section of the UB!

Posted 15 July 2013, 6:36 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

I wondered where you were, barracuda. Everyone else except you and Imjustsayin were here. :)

Posted 15 July 2013, 7:21 p.m. Suggest removal

barracuda says...

With all of the attitude in here, I am glad to be sitting this one out!

Posted 15 July 2013, 8:28 p.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment