If there’s one thing I could write about every day without fail, it’s liberal hypocrisy. You always hear about racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and Islamophobia — you know, all those contrived propagandized grievances that serve to advance a certain ideological and political agenda. But what happens when there are real instances of such discrimination, yet they just get a pass because the targeted group just doesn’t have political standing?
Case in point: this op-ed in the New York Post about “The Pentagon’s vile divided loyalty rules for Jews:”
“Congress is rarely called upon to dispel conspiracy theories. But it needs to teach the Pentagon to separate fact from fiction, because American Jews are routinely denied security clearances based on nothing more than a fear that they are Israeli spies.
Consider Gershon Pincus, a 62-year-old dentist and lifelong New Yorker who sought a way to serve as he approached retirement. He found a position at a naval dental clinic in upstate Saratoga Springs, and started work in July 2014.
All was going well until this past September, when Pincus was informed that he wasn’t eligible for a security clearance. The rejection was accompanied by a Statement of Reasons that concluded “foreign contacts and interests may be a security concern due to divided loyalties.”
Incredibly, the totality of the concern about Pincus was his contact with his 89-year-old mother and his middle-aged brother and sister, who had moved to Israel as adults.The charge of “divided loyalties” has a particularly repugnant resonance to American Jews. It’s usually whispered behind closed doors, and so it’s doubly disconcerting when it is the reason given for official government action.
What’s worse, the local military interviewer who conducted Pincus’ background check concluded that “there is nothing in his background or character that would make him vulnerable to blackmail, extortion, coercion or duress.” But an official at Office of Personnel Management headquarters in Fort Meade directed that Pincus be re-interviewed “to develop information related to potential Foreign Influence.”When the second interviewer reached the same conclusion as the first, the military overruled their recommendations and denied Pincus’ request for a security clearance.
What is most alarming about this story is how common it is. We don’t know how often the military denies security clearances, but a database cataloging the appeals brought by employees of military contractors reveals that over the past decade there have been more than 100 appeals challenging clearances denied because of tenuous ties to Israel.”
What is the basis for this? Yep, you guessed it, Jonathan Pollard. Just the same as the liberal progressive left invokes Timothy McVeigh as an example of “right wing extremism,” it appears Pollard has become the justification for these denials.
But, not for nothing — and I’m sure y’all know what I’m about to postulate — what if the same litmus test applied to, well, let’s say Muslims?
Can you imagine what would have happened if, after the friendly fire attack of one US Army SGT Hasan Akbar in 2003, there was a scrutiny of Muslims serving in the military? Oh, y’all forgot about what this fella did? Let me refresh your memory. Back in March 23, 2003 in Camp Pennsylvania in Kuwait, SGT Akbar of the 101st Airborne Division threw four hand grenades into three tents in which other members of his unit were sleeping, and fired his rifle at fellow soldiers.
Captain Christopher S. Seifert was fatally shot in the back, and Air Force Major Gregory L. Stone was killed by a grenade. Fourteen other soldiers were wounded by Akbar, mostly from grenade shrapnel. And what about in December 2009, when Army Major Nidal Hasan jumped on a table shouting “Allahu Akhbar” gunning down 13 Army Soldiers and DA civilians, wounding another 30?
In both of these cases, these individuals declared themselves as jihadists.
So using the “Pollard” test to deny requests for security clearances for some American Jews based on “divided loyalties,” what if the same were done to Muslims in the military? Oh no, there would be utter cries of Islamophobia and racism — although being a Muslim has nothing to do with race. We allowed Anwar al-Awlaki to give prayers in the Capitol as part of our “outreach,” but we do not conduct surveillance of mosques because it’s just not right, not politically correct.
I just have to ask, what is so right about denying American Jews security clearances because of suspected “divided loyalties?” Do we do the same for individuals applying for such clearances if they have family — say in countries on the terrorist watch list? After the heinous actions of Syed Farook should we deny Muslims employment at California state government offices? No, we do not, and folks would say doing that is absurd. So why is it we cast such a very broad net on American Jews because of the one incident surrounding one person, Jonathan Pollard? We say Israel is our best ally. Is that just a bunch of baloney and empty rhetoric? Could it be that America – more specifically the Pentagon, does hold some insidious and unfounded animus towards American Jews?
The situation we’ve described here is an example of “racial profiling?” How can it be unconscionable for one group but apparently acceptable for another? I’ve been through countless interviews for security clearances, and once held the highest clearance at TS-SCI. If the assigned interviewer makes the declarative statement in the background check “there is nothing in his background or character that would make him vulnerable to blackmail, extortion, coercion or duress,” then why would someone come in and overrule the investigators assessment — and base it on something as nebulous as “divided loyalties?”
Something stinks about this and it needs to be resolved. The Congressional Armed Services Committee Subcommittees on Oversight and Investigations need to look into this. I’m quite sure many of you who can provide instances of some folks in the Obama administration with “divided loyalties” — kinda like President Obama speaking at an Islamic center with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
It seems to me we’ve quietly declared one group a protected class…while we treat another as the enemy. We certainly have that equation backwards.