Over at Outside The Beltway, Doug Mataconis has declared that Herman Cain has committed a mortal sin and said he would be very reluctant to appoint any Muslims to his Cabinet. More specifically, he would require an extra oath of loyalty before he'd appoint them.
On the surface, Mataconis has a point. That extra oath would be utterly pointless. Let's take the case of Major Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood shooter. When he committed treason when he killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded another 32. When he did that, he violated both his oath as an officer in the United States Army and his Hippocratic Oath as a doctor. Both were apparently inferior to his duty as a Muslim to wage jihad against the infidels. Does anyone think that a third oath would have checked him?
Further, in radical Islam, there's a whole tenet that says that it is OK to lie and deceive the unbelievers in order to protect and promote Islam. Given that, another oath -- or a thousand oaths -- wouldn't achieve a damned thing.
However, in Cain's defense, he's raising a point that ought to be addressed -- the loyalties that radical Muslims hold that transcend our laws, our ways, and even our nation. That is a very serious danger. Perhaps not at the level of presidential appointments, but in some very real, very dangerous senses.
For example, the above-mentioned case of Major Hassan.
Or, perhaps, the case of FBI Special Agent Gamal Abdel-Hafiz, who has stated that he cannot in good conscience investigate his fellow Muslims.
Or, in a sign that the problem of radical Islam is far from just a US concern, this report out of Londonistan.
The danger here isn't one that Cain and his oath would address. In Hassan's case, a lot of people saw danger signs that he was turning towards radical Islam. In Agent Abdel-Hafiz's case, there was conflict over how to handle his refusal. And in London, it is being reported that actual examples of radical Islam are being covered up.
In each case, the concern is "political correctness." The fear of being called a racist (which shows how knee-jerk the term has become, as "Muslim" is hardly a race) and a bigot and prejudiced and hateful and discriminatory and... well, all those things that liberals like tossing around. (And FASCISTS, too! Forgot that one!) The warning signs are there, they are being observed -- but the observers are too frightened to act or speak out.
And they're not afraid of the radical Muslims, but their own fellows who offer them no physical danger, but threaten them in abstract ways.
As I said at the outset, Cain's proposal is fundamentally absurd. But it does raise some very valuable points that we need to discuss.
After all, we wouldn't want Attorney General Eric Holder to call us "cowards" for not having these discussions, would we?
On the surface, Mataconis has a point. That extra oath would be utterly pointless. Let's take the case of Major Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood shooter. When he committed treason when he killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded another 32. When he did that, he violated both his oath as an officer in the United States Army and his Hippocratic Oath as a doctor. Both were apparently inferior to his duty as a Muslim to wage jihad against the infidels. Does anyone think that a third oath would have checked him?
Further, in radical Islam, there's a whole tenet that says that it is OK to lie and deceive the unbelievers in order to protect and promote Islam. Given that, another oath -- or a thousand oaths -- wouldn't achieve a damned thing.
However, in Cain's defense, he's raising a point that ought to be addressed -- the loyalties that radical Muslims hold that transcend our laws, our ways, and even our nation. That is a very serious danger. Perhaps not at the level of presidential appointments, but in some very real, very dangerous senses.
For example, the above-mentioned case of Major Hassan.
Or, perhaps, the case of FBI Special Agent Gamal Abdel-Hafiz, who has stated that he cannot in good conscience investigate his fellow Muslims.
Or, in a sign that the problem of radical Islam is far from just a US concern, this report out of Londonistan.
The danger here isn't one that Cain and his oath would address. In Hassan's case, a lot of people saw danger signs that he was turning towards radical Islam. In Agent Abdel-Hafiz's case, there was conflict over how to handle his refusal. And in London, it is being reported that actual examples of radical Islam are being covered up.
In each case, the concern is "political correctness." The fear of being called a racist (which shows how knee-jerk the term has become, as "Muslim" is hardly a race) and a bigot and prejudiced and hateful and discriminatory and... well, all those things that liberals like tossing around. (And FASCISTS, too! Forgot that one!) The warning signs are there, they are being observed -- but the observers are too frightened to act or speak out.
And they're not afraid of the radical Muslims, but their own fellows who offer them no physical danger, but threaten them in abstract ways.
As I said at the outset, Cain's proposal is fundamentally absurd. But it does raise some very valuable points that we need to discuss.
After all, we wouldn't want Attorney General Eric Holder to call us "cowards" for not having these discussions, would we?
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
2012 Presidential Race, The War On Terror
Comments (14)
Well, what Cain is proposin... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Chico | June 14, 2011 1:31 PM | Score: -9 (17 votes cast)
Well, what Cain is proposing is blatantly unconstitutional - "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
I guess that would be a problem.
1. Posted by Chico | June 14, 2011 1:31 PM |
Score: -9 (17 votes cast)
Posted on June 14, 2011 13:31
2. Posted by Jim m | June 14, 2011 1:38 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Asking people to swear an extra oath is stupid. What we need is proper vetting. We need to get over the pc crap that says you have to ignore a persons religious beliefs when investigating them despite the fact that islamic terrorists are motivated by those very beliefs.
2. Posted by Jim m | June 14, 2011 1:38 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on June 14, 2011 13:38
3. Posted by Jeff Blogworthy | June 14, 2011 1:56 PM | Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
I did not get the impression that Cain's "oath" is something to be taken literally. In fact, he never used the word "oath," Romney did.
Getting an impression for an individual during an interview is hardly an oath. On the other hand, this is what Romney said.
I take it Romney refers to the standard-issue oath of office. In which case, what is the problem with Cain? He would not be asking for anything higher than that, would he?
I think this is a gotcha question in any case, so they can set up charges of discrimination. I'm sorry Cain had such a difficult time with the question. I think he was only trying to find a diplomatic way around what he said. He should have just stuck to his guns. I would most certainly have a problem with having a Muslim cabinet member, and such a person would have to persuade me that he is a loyal citizen. But that is the same measure for everyone, isn't it?
To call Cain's position here an "oath" is quite a stretch, unless he has stated something more explicitly of which I am unaware.
3. Posted by Jeff Blogworthy | June 14, 2011 1:56 PM |
Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
Posted on June 14, 2011 13:56
4. Posted by Bob | June 14, 2011 2:12 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
How many Muslims have been in the Cabinet up to now? If Cain appoints no Muslims, how will that stack up against Clinton, Bush and Obama?
There are plenty of Christians, Jews and atheists (and other believers and non-believers) whom I wouldn't want surrounding the President during decision sessions. The fact that Cain would be wary of Muslims is a plus in my book. He is not saying he would require anyone to believe in anything other than their duty to support and defend the US Constitution.
4. Posted by Bob | June 14, 2011 2:12 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on June 14, 2011 14:12
5. Posted by Chico | June 14, 2011 2:16 PM | Score: -12 (14 votes cast)
What we need is proper vetting. We need to get over the pc crap that says you have to ignore a persons religious beliefs when investigating them despite the fact that islamic terrorists are motivated by those very beliefs.
There is extensive vetting for high executive positions and security clearances. Jay Tea is just ignorant of the the full spectrum of the issues here (what a surprise). Cain is just pandering to the Know-Nothing teatards, who love the Constitution, except when it interferes with them messing with people they don't like.
On the one hand you have Maj. Hassan, who I think was more like Jared Loughner than OBL: a mentally ill guy who became a psychiatrist to fight his own demons. There was that other Muslim soldier who fragged his leaders back in 2003, just like several non-Muslim soldiers have done since then. Jay had to drag in a 2005 story about the FBI agent from Daniel Pipes, which is about as credible as using a David Duke article in a discussion about social problems in the African-American community.
On the other hand, you have several Muslim U.S. military KIA in the wars, Ambassador Khalilzad serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Muslim CIA officers and contractors that Gary Berntsen wrote about in his book Jawbreaker about chasing Bin Laden to Tora Bora, and the thousands of Muslim U.S. citizen and other military and contract interpreters and advisors, without which the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan would collapse.
I think this is a gotcha question in any case, so they can set up charges of discrimination.
Yeah, because we know that Cain is gonna be the next president.
5. Posted by Chico | June 14, 2011 2:16 PM |
Score: -12 (14 votes cast)
Posted on June 14, 2011 14:16
6. Posted by JLawson | June 14, 2011 2:28 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
At this point, Chico, he's got as good a shot as anyone. (And with the feelers Obama's putting out - 'My family would be fine with just one term...' it could be there's going to be a real scramble on the Dem side, too. If so - there's going to be blood in the water from all the backstabbing.)
Personally, I think what they ought to do is take them to the racetrack they use for the Preakness, load 'em all up to 400 lbs with heavy backpacks, then start them off around the track.
First 4 that make it throughthe gate go on to the next debate. The rest have to leave political life forever.
And any that suffer heart attacks and die on the way get posthumous appointments as Czars in charge of Veterans Cemeteries.
What the hell, it's all a horse race anyway at this point - might as well make 'em run!
6. Posted by JLawson | June 14, 2011 2:28 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on June 14, 2011 14:28
7. Posted by Jeff Blogworthy | June 14, 2011 2:28 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
You're right about one thing, Jay. Oaths mean nothing to liars who will say anything to advance their radical ideology. Obama was perfectly comfortable swearing an oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States.
7. Posted by Jeff Blogworthy | June 14, 2011 2:28 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on June 14, 2011 14:28
8. Posted by Steve Crickmore | June 14, 2011 2:38 PM | Score: -8 (8 votes cast)
Cain backed away from his previous broad statement that he would be "uncomfortable with a muslim in his cabinet", by specifying that he would not appointing any muslims in his cabinet, who "were trying to kill us". Well yes, that's comforting!
And don't">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2011/06/13/gop_debate_cnn/index.html">don't forget Newt who
8. Posted by Steve Crickmore | June 14, 2011 2:38 PM |
Score: -8 (8 votes cast)
Posted on June 14, 2011 14:38
9. Posted by Jeff Blogworthy | June 14, 2011 2:40 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
FYI This is the oath of office to be sworn by all cabinet members:
"I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
9. Posted by Jeff Blogworthy | June 14, 2011 2:40 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on June 14, 2011 14:40
10. Posted by Steve Crickmore | June 14, 2011 2:42 PM | Score: -5 (5 votes cast)
My bad, the previous link corrected is .
10. Posted by Steve Crickmore | June 14, 2011 2:42 PM |
Score: -5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on June 14, 2011 14:42
11. Posted by Sep14 | June 14, 2011 4:23 PM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Well we haven't had a muslum/christian? President until recently and he is the bestest evah!
The Country has had a marvelous success rate for 200+ years without Islamic input so why screw with it now?
Oh, I know. To win the hearts and minds of jihadi everywhere, proving how small sighted liberal minds are.
11. Posted by Sep14 | June 14, 2011 4:23 PM |
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Posted on June 14, 2011 16:23
12. Posted by Brucepall | June 14, 2011 4:37 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Mr. Tea,
In 2008 I was in Guam - so I didn't have the opportunity to vote for our President in that election. 2012 will be a different story. I'm a registered Independent, and I'm motivated about changing the face of Washington in the upcoming election. If Cain wins his party's nomination... I will proudly pull the lever for him when I cast my vote; and so will a whole bunch of my family and friends here in Savannah.
Semper Fidelis -
Brucepall
12. Posted by Brucepall | June 14, 2011 4:37 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on June 14, 2011 16:37
13. Posted by Jeff Blogworthy | June 14, 2011 8:09 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
I have another religious litmus test. No nominees who worship at the Church of Gaia.
13. Posted by Jeff Blogworthy | June 14, 2011 8:09 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on June 14, 2011 20:09
14. Posted by Patrick T. McGuire | June 14, 2011 10:42 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Two points here. First, Mataconis doesn't like anything Cain says or does so it's no surprise that he took this position. If Cain stated that Saturday followed Friday, Mataconis would probably criticize that as well.
Second, this whole matter came up because Cain was asked a specific question and he gave an honest, candid answer without any "um", "er" "well..." or "uh" thrown in. Whether you agree with his position (I do) or not, you have to give him credit for actually answering the question instead of evading it.
14. Posted by Patrick T. McGuire | June 14, 2011 10:42 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on June 14, 2011 22:42