Erick Stakelbeck: Expert on Terrorism?

It just may be that this young man is excellent at what he does, but I have been unable to determine his CREDENTIALS.  His bio tells me nothing at all about what experience or academic training suit him for his position.  Is he merely just another voice within an insular circle of people who get told what they want to hear?  Is he an innovative voice bringing cutting edge perspectives to complicated issues?  Is he an independent thinking man who is self-trained?  Is he a journalist by formal training, by faith, by practice?  Former intelligence officer?  Special Ops?

Whatever the answer, I do find it peculiar that his own biography does not speak to his credentials.  That’s an unusual approach in an arena in which credentials are such an important aspect of the work.  “Terrorism” is a complicated business.  The analysis of it requires more than the ability to recap headlines and read teleprompters.  What do you think?

Here is the link: http://www.cbn.com/Authors/cbnnews/Erick-Stakelbeck/

Here is the bio:

Erick Stakelbeck has been a correspondent and terrorism analyst for CBN News since 2005. He covers the global war on terror, U.S. national security, the Middle East, and the growth of radical Islam at home and abroad for the CBN News Bureau in Washington, D.C. He is also host of the Stakelbeck on Terror show on CBNNews.com.

Erick is a sought-after authority on terrorism and national security issues with extensive experience in television, radio, print and web media.

He produces and reports feature stories for CBN’s nationally televised news programs on issues such as Al-Qaeda’s worldwide operations; Iran’s nuclear program; the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; Hamas, Hezbollah and existential threats to Israel’s security; and Islamic radicalism in the United States and Europe. He has interviewed numerous lawmakers and international diplomats, as well as Islamic terrorists.

Erick has made hundreds of appearances as a commentator on leading national television and radio programs. His appearances include: The O’Reilly Factor, The Sean Hannity Show, Your World with Neil Cavuto, Fox Weekend Live, Fox and Friends, America’s Newsroom with Bill Hemmer and Martha McCallum, America Live with Megyn Kelly, Lou Dobbs Tonight, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, and a weekly segment on the Savage Nation radio show with host Michael Savage, among others.

Erick has worked as a senior writer and analyst at the Investigative Project on Terrorism, a counterterrorism think tank founded by terrorism expert Steven Emerson. His articles on Islamic extremism, global terrorism and national security have appeared in the Wall Street Journal Europe, Weekly Standard, Washington Times, New York Post, New York Sun, Jerusalem Post, and National Review Online, among other publications.

He has delivered addresses at several public forums, including speeches before members of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the International Israel Allies Caucus Foundation, the Dallas Council on Foreign Relations, ACT for America and Christians United for Israel (CUFI), among others, on terrorism and Middle East-related issues.

Erick previously served as a regular contributor to both David Horowitz’s Frontpage Magazine.com website and Michelle Malkin’s HotAir.com.

Erick is a graduate of Holy Family University in Philadelphia. His blog, “Stakelbeck on Terror,” can be found at CBNNews.com.

Remember When Somalis Were “White”

Anthropologists really should attend more meetings of the Aryan Nation.  There is a clear and present danger to the myth makers.  This is a time sensitive issue and scholars must proceed with all deliberate speed.  The recent skirmishes in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean (formerly the Ethiopian Ocean) has threatened to pop the lid on one of the oldest scams in the pseudo-science business of race-baiting.  Some reactionary “whites” all over the world have taken to derisively labeling the Somalis in exactly the same anti-African terms used for Blacks all over the planet.  In their anger and frustration at being called to account for things like stealing fish and illegally dumping nuclear waste, these people have gone off the deep end and lumped Somalis with the rest of the folks in Africa — and even many of the people in Yemen and the southern Arabian peninsula.  They ignored the murder of two Italian journalists who were investigating this very same story.  (Perhaps those Italians were from the South and a bit too swarthy for authentic empathy.)  They’ve ignored the pseudo-scientific lessons of their youth which lauded the accomplishments of dark-skinned “white” Hamites who were architects of Nile Valley civilizations.

Carleton Coon, the dean of American white-supremacist anthropologists, is turning over in his hell pit.

Somali Racial Type:


“FIG. 1 (2 views). A Somali from the tribe of Mahmud Grade, British Somaliland. This Somali represents the closest approximation to a white man found among his people. The extreme narrowness of his head and face, the straight nasal profile, and the prominence of his chin, mark him as less negroid than many of his fellows. At the same time his skin is nearly black, his hair curly but not frizzy. The type to which this Somali belongs is ancient in East Africa, as shown by the excavations of Leakey in Kenya. It is a specialized, locally differentiated Mediterranean racial form.”

[Carleton S. Coon. The Races of Europe. MacMillan, 1939]


New York Times – Having It Both Ways on 9/11

Let me begin by saying that I was married at Windows on the World on the 107th floor of the WTC only 17 days before the building went down. I worked less than 10 minutes (in Brooklyn) from the building and have since had the distinct honor of dining in a restaurant, Colors, created by the former workers of Windows on the World. I have clear recollections of going to Windows with my wife to indulge in the tasting menu prior to the wedding. I remember eating far too much to make a sound decision about what to serve for the wedding – and I remember drinking Echelon’s Zinfandel wine. I remember our wedding video and photos (taken by the great Chester Higgins). I remember my anguish and the uncontrollable sobbing of my wife for months and months. I remember the fragility of my sense of personal strength in looking at those images and reliving the uncertainty and danger and powerlessness of that day.

And now, this morning…this blessed day where the sky is as clear as it was on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, the New York Times has penned an editorial that is hell bent on obfuscation, confusion and denial. In “Our Porous Air Defenses on 9/11,” the editors conclude, “someone will still have to explain why the military, with far greater resources and more time for investigation, could not come up with the real story until the 9/11 commission forced it to admit the truth.”

The truth is that neither this administration, nor the one headed by William Jefferson Clinton, will be held accountable for its use of resources and its incompetence. We are presently in an environment where a Vice President, with a financial interest in war making, assails the defeat of a Democrat as an opportunity for a “terrorist” network. Meanwhile, the US spends billions of dollars each month fighting a war it has already won. The truth is that 9/11 had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. Moreover, the current war in Iraq is not really about rebuilding that country as a democracy which serves the best interests of Iraqis. The very idea is preposterous. While Iraqi fatalities rise at alarming numbers each day, American GIs have enough free time to plot early morning rape and murder excursions. US troops have done a tremendous job of staying out of harm’s way – for the most part. And, so from the perspective of those beyond these borders, Washington’s desire to insert itself in the region has as much to do with oil and Israel and China as with any silly notions of political freedom.

Is it even possible that an administration which has stolen two successive presidential elections can contemplate authentic political representation? Perhaps more importantly, how much does it matter when the Democrats are so clearly opposed to affirming a position, running electable candidates, or resolving the fundamental contradictions of what is a laughably fractured “party.”

Americans are subsidizing a war predicated on the notion that long-term safety is contingent on a favorable outcome. The voters of this nation were told, before 9/11, that the nation’s best and brightest minds were doing an outstanding job of keeping the nation safe. They were told after 9/11 that, somehow, the best and brightest made a series of recurring, fundamental mistakes that resulted in mixed messages, missed signals and the death of thousands. The Times doesn’t smell a rat. Instead, they’re simply calling for an explanation for the military playing a shell game with facts. One cannot simultaneously claim to be the best and the brightest (at everything, all the time) and also be subject to doing stoopid shit on a regular basis. One can, however, expect the New York Times to look to someone else for an explanation.