Representative Peter King (R-NY), Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, finds himself at the center of a media-created firestorm — all because he wants to investigate the extent to which some American Muslims have been radicalized and examine how cooperative the Muslim community has been in rooting out extremists in their midst.
Why this has developed into such a wildly controversial matter says more about those who are threatening, smearing, and hysterically criticizing King than it does about radical Islam. When the left allies itself with extremist groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in order to wave the flag of political correctness in America’s face, you realize that the problem is bigger than simply rooting out extremism. The exaggerated, over-the-top, self-righteous posturing coming from media outlets like The New York Times bespeaks a refusal to face up to the challenge of radical Islam in America and how to combat it.
And if we’re not prepared to address the threat of extremism in our own country, how can we possibly fight it overseas?
Leftists and their Muslim grievance-monger allies are deliberately seeking to block efforts to discover the extent of the problem of terrorism by viciously attacking the New York congressman. They are opposing King in the name of some misguided belief that because terrorism comes from a specific religious group, we must blind ourselves to the danger, else we would be guilty of “bigotry.”
The hearings aren’t about bigotry. Nor are they about the Muslim faith. They are about a danger that President Obama, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and Attorney General Eric Holder have all talked about recently: domestically recruited and radicalized terrorists.
It’s not as if we have no examples of this phenomenon and King is just making stuff up as he goes along. There is a man sitting in the desert in Yemen right now — a man born and raised in the United States — who has inspired and radicalized American Muslims like the Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hasan and served as a “spiritual advisor” to 3 of the 9/11 hijackers. Anwar al-Awlaki preached at a mosque in San Diego for years before moving to Falls Church, Virginia. There, his anti-American sermons and calls for jihad against the West fell on receptive ears. Not only Nidal Hasan answered his call to violence, but it is suspected that 5 young American Muslims from Virginia, arrested in Pakistan as they were seeking to perhaps join al-Qaeda, were also under the spell of the radical cleric. His video sermons have inspired others, such as Faisal Shahzad, who attempted to bomb Times Square, and the Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
In fact, the list of radicalized, home-grown terrorists is a long one. The question isn’t why we are looking at the problem, but why anyone in their right mind would oppose the effort in the first place?
The attacks on Rep. King are as vicious as they are unfair. The New York Times, in an editorial dripping with self-righteousness, blatantly calls him a bigot. Says the Times: ”His refusal to tone down the provocation despite widespread opposition suggests that he is far more interested in exploiting ethnic misunderstanding than in trying to heal it.”
In fact, the Times won’t even grant King the benefit of the doubt regarding any radicalization of Muslims in America. It editorializes, “Mr. King, a Republican whose district is centered in Nassau County on Long Island, says the hearings will examine the supposed radicalization of American Muslims.”
The “supposed” radicalization of American Muslims? This is the CAIR position lock, stock, and barrel. The unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial promote the idea that Americans mistake extremists for devout Muslims and that preaching jihad against the West doesn’t necessarily mean that violence is being promoted. Any effort to say otherwise is met with cries of “Islamophobia” or “racism.”
In an article in the New York Daily News on February 28, CAIR accused King of all sorts of vile offenses, including “hold[ing] hearings on the alleged ‘radicalization’ of American Muslims” and lying about the lack of cooperation between the Muslim community and law enforcement when it comes to terrorism investigations.
Despite CAIR’s caterwauling, police and federal agents confirm King’s assertion. A New York Daily News article quoted local and federal law enforcement officials declaring that King was right about the lack of cooperation from Muslims in terror investigations, although they also point to similar attitudes toward tipping police from other ethnic communities. The point being, CAIR is wrong and they know it. Their goal is not to improve communication between Muslims and the FBI, but rather to stoke the flames of distrust so that their people see a greater need for a “Muslim civil rights group” to protect them from the police and the Feds.
Pages: 1 2
The Supreme Galooty, being a quick study, chose not to read Michael Savage's book "Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder," for having read the title was sufficient, efficient, and inexpensive – and althogether informative. I wonder that he even bothered to write anything after having composed the title. The title said all that needed to be said, and the truth of it is confirmed, prima facie, at every turn. And now we turn again….
Here Representative King (finally) takes an adversarial position vis a vis the jolly Musselmen in our midst, and all who have been paying attention in our poor impoverished Second World nation have opined that it is about time, and how can we square banning Islam with the First Amendment. All but those pesky liberals with whom we (most reluctantly) share this country. Instead, they glare askance at you and me while they pay the fare of the poor, impoverished suicide bomber trying to board the crowded bus on its way to Times Square.
commieblaster.com artical obama authorizes additional 80,000 islam followers to enter U.S. moneyasdept.org
Savage was close. Liberals are so-called right-brain "thinkers". In fact, they don't think, they stagger through life as "emotional's" driven by what feels good to them. They are the original "don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up" people. They are superficial and jump to feel-good conclusions. They excel in the arts and populate those professions but are otherwise mostly dead weight and a hindrance to conservatives who have to do life's 'heavy lifting'.
MaxEntropy.squarespace.com
Come to think of it, what ever happened to Jethro Tull? Not the rock band but Freeper who was posting doomsday threads here all through 1998 and 1999. After January 1, 2000, he literally fell off the face of the earth.
I believe most of the explanations that have been given for the liberals' pro-Jihad/sharia rants are incorrect. I believe the bedrock reason is: the abandonment of the Judeo/Christian ethic that teaches there is a difference between good and evil,right and wrong. The great Russian novelist,Dostoevsky,said""If there is no God,everything is permitted". Even jihad/shaia. Why not in a godless universe?
No, it is actually the blind trusting faith in unprovable contentions made by megalomaniacs that is the actual problem.
Whether a christian theocracy or an islam theocracy – the women & children suffer most.
The enlightenment has taken the teeth from the christian lion – we shall also remove those of the islamic tiger them we will all be safe.
Note: Atheist ethics are better substantiated than any based on a jealous, bloodthirsty god-father-figure. WE DON'T BURN WITCHES!
No, it is actually the blind trusting faith in unprovable contentions made by megalomaniacs that is the actual problem. (You are name calling people of Christian faith as unthinking, thus inferior thinkers to people like you)
Whether a christian theocracy or an islam theocracy – the women & children suffer most. (If religions are all the same, where’s your burka, mutilated genitals, sister wives, were you married and deflowered at 12? You went to college and drive a car?) The enlightenment has taken the teeth from the christian lion – we shall also remove those of the islamic tiger them we will all be safe.(Nature abhors a vacuum baby, fascist NWO, ‘new soviet man’,something else…pick your poison )
Note: Atheist ethics are better substantiated than any based on a jealous, bloodthirsty god-father-figure. WE DON’T BURN WITCHES! (disassociated attitudes, Wiccan, confused sexual identity?).
ISLAM STIGMATIZES ISLAM: OBAMA AND THE PETER KING HEARINGS
In a predictable reaction to Peter King's House hearings on Islamic radicalization in America, an obvious problem given the recent record surge in Moslems arrested for plotting domestic mass murder attacks*, Peter McDonough, deputy national security advisor to President Obama, said this: "Radicalization efforts prey on people who feel disillusioned or marginalized and that it is important not to fuel radicalization by stigmatizing Muslim Americans." Mr. McDonough and his clueless boss seem oblivious to the fact that it's ISLAM THAT STIGMATIZES ISLAM.
continued
…nice stuff, Apollo.
They're oblivious that Islam has had a public relations problem with the infidel world from its inception 1400 years ago-since its prophet disillusioned with peacefully spreading his faith and marginalized within the Meccan community for attacking its religion as sinful, personally damning and violently hated by God, picked up the sword to save his failing movement; picked it up in rage against all infidels who scorned him and cried: 'Believe in me or die! Believe in me or die! And if it pleases me to let you live I'll crush you with oppression!' Since that fatal day when Mohammed lost his mind and was radicalized into a killing machine for God Islam has become the terror and scourge of mankind-slashing, burning and murdering its way to power, glory and empire in imitation of its bloodthirsty, ruthless, predatory founder. Islam means endless war against mankind until it's conquered and subdued. It means lawlessness and immorality in pursuit of absolute power. And the number of Moslems who believe in it are legion.
Click my name to continue reading article.
I'm with your way of thinking, Apollo.
<a href="http://get4file.com/registration/101105"Make Money with Get4file.com – REGISTER!
The Hard Left "Spiritual Progressive" movement is front and center behind the scenes. They are pushing pointlessly for something they know not of.
Exposing them, via bright light, will help immensely. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
http://wwwtwosetsofbooks.blogspot.com/2011/03/upd…
The sad thing is, King has emasculated his own effort by canceling the testimony of important players in the anti-Jihad…including the great Ayan Hirsi Ali. If his efforts were at all serious, why wouldn't JW's Robert Spencer, the country's foremost expert on the stealth Jihad, be called to testify?
King is to be lauded for his courage in undertaking this effort in the first place, but by back-tracking on whose testimony he was soliciting, he risks allowing the proceedings to become a sham that go nowhere and thus undermine the anti-Jihad. The last thing we need is a whitewash.
Meanwhile, look at the number of Muslim demonstrators protesting his hearings before they've even strarted. How telling that no such numbers ever turn out to protest the almost-daily horrors of Jihadist mass murder. "Islam is peace"!!!
In this regard Chez, cannot he invite afresh those previously scheduled as well as "New" voices such as Robert Spencer? Since he sees that he will be vilified regardless he may as well do some good with these hearings. Conducting a hearing that is "dumbed down" is worse than having no hearing at all.
One would hope, Stephen. My guess is that King is going to continue bending over backwards to avoid even the perception of anti-Muslim bias…which, as you've rightly pointed out, hasn't helped him in the least with the Islamo-Left.
Your last sentence was dead-on.
Anyone seriously trying to comprehend the Islamic faith need only read the work of Larry Auster at “View From the Right”.
Obviously, Americans no longer holds any truths in common. Now, the highest guiding principle is a grotesque parody of civilized society called multiculturalism, whose real aim went unnoticed by the useful idiots, and whose true objectives, the destruction of Western Civilization, was never calculated into the equation.
Since America stands at a crossroads, it seems a foregone conclusion that immense social chaos is next in store, as this religion thrives in the chaos and division it’s presence ultimately creates.
Its….
Is he the same Peter King who was a fanatical supporter of the IRA terrorists in Ireland?
The same.
Of course large numbers of protesters come out to object. In order to contine on the path of random murder and evil perversion, one must try to keep it in the dark. Otherwise the exposure could be fatal and perhaps some genuine reason might enter into their heads. They definitely don't want that to happen.
Why it would be like the thief telling the police who he robbed and when he will again.
I'm afraid that protest is all these people really know how to do. They do not bring or cause peace like they say, but shout, insult, demean and bully anyone or anything that they believe stands in their way. You'll notice that they generally back down when they are outnumbered but if they are in a majority, they become vicious. The main difference in America and Europe is that as of yet, unless Hillary and Obama have their way with the small arms treaty, we are still allowed to own handguns. This, believe it or not, is something they know and it does deter them.
For decades, any mention of the COMMUNIST PARTY USA brought shouts of "McCarthyism" and worse, and today is no different! All debate is closed and the one seeking to expose them, and their fronts, their tactics, their motives, their treason, is made the target and turned into the villian! IT WORKS! Try saying or writing "Communist Party USA " and there will be shouts of "So 50's, Communism's over haven't you heard, seek help!" THEREFORE, THEY ARE FREE TO CONTINUE THEIR DECEPTIVE PRACTICES OF SEEKING TO OVERTHROW THE UNITED STATES! The reason I even started writing here years ago was to expose them. They are the vocal minority and they then get to claim they are speaking for the majority! No one can hear me screaming! THE ROOT TO MANY OF THE U.S. PROBLEMS, IS THE COMMUNIST PARTY USA. GO TO CPUSA.ORG AND LINK TO THEIR PWW.ORG AND YOU WILL SEE THAT THEY ARE ON THE FRONTLINES OF EVERY DEBATE AND ON THE SIDE OF EVERY ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES! IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN THEIR SIDING WITH ISLAMIC TERRORISTS SO KING ALSO NEEDS TO INVESTIGATE TERRORIST SUPPORTERS LIKE CODE PINK, UNITED FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE, AND THEIR AID AND SUPPORT FOR HAMAS AND HEZBOLLAH!!!
“The government has no business examining any peaceful religious group because a handful of adherents have broken the law."
Here is the rub. Libs steadfastly refuse to consider terrorism as anything but a law enforcement issue. Law enforcement cannot do anything until a law has been broken, and the current crop of Libs in the Administration pick and choose which laws they will enforce according to their political ideology. By contrast, the very nature of a military action is to pre-empt the enemy.
Why tone anything down? Muslim's aren't moderate, they don't police themselves, and they often say, they want laws different from our own.
Until Islam reforms into the 21st century, then I will consider it a death cult, and watch it like a hawk.
Until Islam reforms into the 21st century, then I will consider it a death cult, and watch it like a hawk.
It’s impossible for Islam to be reformed. It’s not a religion, it’s a militant theo-political ideology that seeks to subjugate the world into Islamic totalitarianism via the imposition of Sharia as its main goal and Islam only masquerades as being a religion to dupe the societies it intend to subjugate. Hence, because Islam isn’t a religion, it is impossible for it to ever become reformed.
Thank you for making my point. Since Islam can't be reformed, it's always going to be a death cult, and should be treated as such.
Make it illegal and any practitioners criminals.
if islam were reformed, it would not be islam. genocide, robbery, slavery, misogyny, pedophilia, and lies are part and parcel of islam. take those away, and nothing is left.
No, the reason Islam cannot be reformed is nothing to do with the fact that it is "not a religion". Islam is at least partly a religion because it contains ideas about a god, an afterlife and the supernatural. It cannot be reformed because they believe that every single word in their koran was dictated by God, via the angel Gabriel. This is distinct from the Bible which is supposedly only divinely inspired. It also says that anyone who disbelieves even a single word of the koran is not a muslim and therefore hated by God.
Actually, in contrast to religion, Islam is a theo-political totalitarian ideology. While it has religious features, it has many aspects that set it apart from true faith-based religions.
For instance, adherents of faith-based religions can freely question and challenge the texts and tenets of their religion. They can also freely choose to leave their faith-based religion or convert to another.
However, because Islam, in stark contrast to faith-based religions, requires total and complete submission to the will of Allah whereby all Muhammadans in effect becomes the slave of Allah, a Muhammadan is forbidden from questioning and challenging the divine texts and tenets of Islam, as in Islam that would be considered blasphemy, and if a Muhammadan leaves Islam or converts to a true faith-based religion, that would be murtaad (apostasy), and both offenses in Islam are capital offenses punished under the pain of death.
Hence, Islam is not a faith-based religion because it severely restricts the freedom of conscience and replaces faith with coercion and peer pressure. In addition, the main purpose of Islam is to subjugate the world into Islamic totalitarianism via the imposition of Sharia by any means. Hence, like marriage is an institution in true faith-based religions, jihad and dhimmitude are institutions in Islam.
In addition, all true faith based religions recognize the relationship between religion and secular authority. For instance, Christianity has its “render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” However, in Islam there are no such differences between the spiritual and temporal environments, as Islam also all seeks to control all politics and to become the state.
Further, Islam subordinates individual rights to the collective, whereas true faith based religions, on the other hand, bestow certain inalienable rights to all individual humans beings and places those human rights above that of the collective. Hence, the Christian-Judeo Western world has its Declaration of Universal Human Rights, and the Islamic world, on the other hand, has its competing Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which contains draconian punishments, such as floggings, stonings, amputations, and beheadings, while also endorsing the slaughter of unbelievers.
Additionally, in stark contrast with true faith-based religions, Islam is a dualistic system relative to the unitary system of all true faith-based religions. It divides the world between the believers and the unbelievers and then employs one set of rules and ethics for believers and another completely different set of rules and ethics for unbelievers. Faith-based religion’s unitary system, in stark contrast, applies the same set of rules and ethics for all human beings regardless of race, color, creed, gender, or nationality.
Thus, Islam is far closer to Communism than it is to religion, as like Communism, Islam seeks to dominate the world, and the end result of both ideologies is totalitarianism. Hence, Islam is a militant theo-political totalitarian ideology and it only masquerades as being a religion to dupe the societies it intends to subjugate.
Of course, over a billion Muhammadans believe it is a religion, but that doesn’t mean that we have to recognize it as being a religion.
Moreover, if you look at the evolution of Islam it is easy to see that after the Hijra, Muhammad’s migration from Mecca to Medina in 622 CE, Muhammad abandoned religion when he turned to jihad, politics, and conquest and it was this transformation of Islam from the realm of religion to the realms of jihad, politics, and conquest that finally set the stage for Islam to become very successful after 13 prior years of miserable failure, as a short 100 years after the death of Muhammad, Islam had already conquered most of the known world from Portugal to India.
Not only that, but according to the doctrine of abrogation, which is universally accepted in Islam, all the earlier peaceful verses of the Koran that originate from the time when Islam was a religion before the Hijra and shortly thereafter have all been abrogated by the latter issued verses they conflict with and that command Muhammadans to wage jihad against unbelievers for the spread of Islam. Hence, although Islam may have initially started out as being a religion, Muhammad clearly morphed it into something else entirely different from religion altogether.
In cases where suspected terrorists have been brought to the attention of U.S. officials, the largest single source of information has been Muslim-Americans.
http://sanford.duke.edu/centers/tcths/about/news_…
With all due respect Jim, that article reads like apologia to me. It's impossible to extrapolate too much from a fall in arrests from 47 to 20 over a single year. If the number rises to 35 this year (for example), why do I doubt that this organization would boldly tout "[a dangerous escalation of terrorist activity in America]".
I hope I'm wrong about the group, but between its roots in the university culture and the apologia of the article in question, I have serious doubts that it's not compromised by a political agenda…(I know I must read like a cynic….it's because I am).
At least in this study, you get facts, of which you are certainly free to make what you will.
Jim,
According to the article, there were only 2 terrorist arrests in 2008. That was the lowest level in years. Should we have extrapolated then that terror was on the wane? The very next year, the number shot up to 47, the highest level ever. A year later, the number is down to 20, on the high side since 9-11. And yet the thrust of the article is that this single-year drop from a historic high could be a telling indicator that terrorism is on the wane.
Then notice this statement, which is base apologia that could easily have come from CAIR or another Muslim advocacy group…
"But Americans should take note that these crimes are being perpetrated by a handful of people who actions are denounced and rejected by virtually all the Muslims living in the United States.”
Hardly re-assuring coming from a supposedly 'terrorism/homeland-security' think-tank. I don't remember any survey on terrorism in which "virtually all the Muslims living in the United States" participated. This kind of rhetoric is farcical and clearly exposes an apologetic agenda.
That kind of rhetoric is SANE, because (unlike our little frightened buddy below) it keeps terrorist acts in perspective, a perspective borne out by simple math. You'd rather the rhetoric was accusatory and threatening? In a country of our size, and given the relative ease and surprise with which a terrorist attack could take place, it's almost a wonder more don't. The facts–empirical, observable–not speculative, not intuited, not "pre-emptive"–say the vast majority of Muslims in this country are law-abiding. You can't argue the numbers.
In the same way we don't go around blaming Italian Americans for the mafia, we don't need to go around accusing Muslim Americans of "not doing more." It's unAmerican, frankly.
That's not to say "Don't be vigilant." That's not to say "Don't study the situation" or "Don't monitor certain activities." But, good Lord, let's get a grip and put this stuff in perspective.
"Sane"? It's not even accurate. No one can legitimately claim to know that "virtually all Muslims living in the United States" denounce and reject Jihadist violence. "Virtually ALL"??? And don't forget, generic denunciations of terror are so often qualified with support for specific groups like Hamas and Hezbolah.
On the other hand, I have no problem whatsoever with the statement that "the vast majority of Muslims in America are law-abiding" But let's not fall into the trap of confining our definition of extremism – which is what these hearings are about – to terrorist violence. If we broaden the category to include all those who are proponents of Sharia, that "vast majority" would no longer be nearly so vast. I wonder if they'd even be a majority. Polls in Britain among Muslim immigrants over this question have been very alarming…(40% support Sharia).
These hearings are absolutely appropriate and long overdue.
The advantage the United States has over Europe is that our Muslim population was essentially welcomed and assimilated. We are a nation of immigrants. Our nature is more vehemently democratic. And it's much easier to find a job here. In Europe, where it is much more difficult to find work, they were essentially ostracized and ghettoized–and therefore kept to themselves, became resentful of the natives, thus more easily radicalized, because that radicalization was a way to bring them power. Europe blew it.
Again–not to say don't investigate, don't be vigilant. Many of things you guys say about Islam are true. But as Americans, we want to be a beacon for all–we don't want to appear as though we are enacting bin Ladin's words–that we are "against" Muslims. We don't want to repeat Europe's mistakes.
JIM: "The advantage the United States has over Europe is that our Muslim population was essentially welcomed and assimilated. We are a nation of immigrants."
RESPONSE: All very true. But whereas we once encouraged assimilation into the "melting pot", we are increasingly emulative of Europe and Canada in building the "mosaic" (multiculturalism), encouraging group identity, particularly in the universities.
JIM: "Our nature is more vehemently democratic. And it's much easier to find a job here."
RESPONSE: Again, true…but changing. Our unemployment rate is now higher than Germany's…the first time that's been true in decades.
JIM: "In Europe, where it is much more difficult to find work, they were essentially ostracized and ghettoized–and therefore kept to themselves, became resentful of the natives, thus more easily radicalized, because that radicalization was a way to bring them power. Europe blew it."
RESPONSE: This is the typical liberal narrative. It is not ENTIRELY devoid of truth, but is in fact a false narrative. The Muslim immigrants in the 60s and 70s were – in most cases – more assimilated than their children who were born in Europe. Why is that? Have European attitudes hardened so during the last 30 years of multicultural indoctrination in the schools and newsrooms? Hardly. Back then, most immigrants worked (instead of collecting welfare), and basic survival dictated reaching out and interacting with their infidel hosts (considering the limited number of immigrants).
Fast forward 30 years…the numbers of Muslim immigrants are so great (5 million in France alone, 9% of the population and growing), that in many respects, the communities are self-contained. Muslims can now get a Muslim lawyer, see a Muslim doctor, buy from a Muslim shop-keeper, even deal with a Muslim social-worker or a Muslim parole officer. Entire sections of cities are predominantly Muslim; some neighborhoods, veritably Muslim-only (outsiders enter at their own risk). In short, it's absolutely erroneous to blame the absence of integration solely on the host societies; there is a strong strain of hostility for integration within the communities themselves….having much less to do with discrimination than with attitudes of supremacism and contempt towards the host society.
JIM: "Again–not to say don't investigate, don't be vigilant. Many of things you guys say about Islam are true. But as Americans, we want to be a beacon for all–we don't want to appear as though we are enacting bin Ladin's words–that we are "against" Muslims. We don't want to repeat Europe's mistakes."
RESPONSE: A noble attitude indeed, but where does it end? At what point will our efforts to perpetuate our own ethics, laws, and constitution become an impediment to Muslim aspirations (a Sharia-compliant society)?…i.e., at what point will preserving our own identity reflect that we're "against Muslims".
If the Islamic ethos and America's are fundamentally incompatible (and I firmly believe they are), then conflict is inevitable, whether we seek it or not. Avoiding it essentially means capitulation.
The deal is Jim, if you understood Islam and it is obvious that you don’t, you’d realize that those so-called Muhammadans that snitched out Muhammadan terrorists aren’t Muhammadans at all, but instead apostates from Islam. Sure they may maintain a Muhammadan identity, but that’s only to hide their apostasy, as apostasy is a capital offense in Islam. No true Muhammadan ever rats out another Muhammadan.
Furthermore, it is obvious that like most clueless Americans that don’t understand Islam, you are transfixed only on terrorism as being the totality of the threat from Islam. However, terrorism is but one form of jihad, and as a form of jihad it is the least ubiquitous form of jihad employed by the Islamic world. As the stealth and deceptive non-violent variety of jihad is exponentially employed far more prevalently.
In fact, the reason today you are so clueless with respect to Islam is a testament to the power of the stealth and deceptive non-violent variety of jihad in influencing your incorrect perceptions and impressions of Islam.
Whatever. I think what you know about Islam could probably fill a thimble, as well, but I can say I'm less than impressed with the religion of Islam. And the big reason for that is that Islam never underwent the Enlightenment that Christianity did. But I think many of adherents want that same separation–and if they want to do that and call themselves Muslim, that's fine with me.
So these people may be "apostates," but they probably still identify as "Muslim." All of us in this country are Americans first–Christians/Jews/atheist/whatever second. If these people are loyal and law-abiding citizens, that is good enough for me.
The purpose of terrorism is not to scare people–it's to get people to BEHAVE as if they are scared. That's how Mr. King is acting; that's how this site acts. Instead, let's try to act like we've got a pair, shall we?
And the big reason for that is that Islam never underwent the Enlightenment that Christianity did.
And the reason for that is because Islam is not a religion like Christianity even though you stupidly equate it with Christianity. Islam is a theo-political totalitarian ideology that seeks to subjugate the world into Islamic totalitarianism via the imposition of Sharia as its main goal, and it only masquerades as being a religion to dupe the societies it intends to subjugate.
But I think many of adherents want that same separation–and if they want to do that and call themselves Muslim, that's fine with me.
Proof positive that the stealth and deceptive non-violent jihadists has been very successful in shaping your misperceptions and misimpressions of Islam.
So these people may be "apostates," but they probably still identify as "Muslim."
No those that snitch on Muhammadan terrorists identify as Americans, which is why they snitched out Muhammadan terrorists, but nonetheless still maintain a Muhammadan identity again because apostasy in Islam is a capital offense. Not to mention also that should their identities as apostates from Islam become known, it could also possibly bring shame upon their families still living in the Islamic world and maybe even bring violence upon them.
The purpose of terrorism is not to scare people–it's to get people to BEHAVE as if they are scared. That's how Mr. King is acting; that's how this site acts. Instead, let's try to act like we've got a pair, shall we?
Terrorism is very effective because it causes people to focus only on the violence or the potential for violence, while at the same time ignoring altogether all the stealth and deceptive non-violent jihad taking place right under their noses. Indeed, most Americans today, including you, are totally transfixed only on the violent aspects of terrorism, while at the same time you are completely unaware that far more stealth and non-violent jihad is being employed to subvert our country and that is far more damaging in the long run.
Finally, Mr. King is acting to expose the problem, however, he is so misguided and blinded by political correctness that it appears his water-downed hearings will do more harm than good.
Oh my gosh! You mean someone is putting a "stealth jihad" on me without me knowing?! LOL
Sounds like they got to you, ObamaYoMoma. Check under the bed!
"…Islam never underwent the Enlightenment that Christianity did."
Good perception. Then it should not be treated as if it were like modern-day Christianity.
"But I think many of adherents want that same separation"
You just refuted your above statement. If Islam has not undergone an Enlightenment, then banking on its adherents' wish for separation of religion and state is anachronistic.
The plain fact is, the majority of Muslims take their religion seriously, just as the majority of Christians did in the Middle Ages. What is unthinkable to us today was commonplace in the past, when for example a father would hand over his son to the Dominican friars to be burned at the stake if the child had confessed disbelief in the tenets of the faith. In Islam this mode of thinking and acting accordingly is still extant, hence, for instance, the honor-murders that make the daily news in European countries.
They are medievals, the majority of them, so don't act like they were moderns.
“he largest single source of information has been Muslim-Americans.”
if that assertion is true, it is easily explained, and irrelevant. the muslim “extremists” do not associate with, or confide in, infidels. that leave only muslims having the information. naturally, on the rare occasion one is turned in, the informant would have to be a muslim. the valid question is why are they not all being turned in by the “peaceful” muslims. the easy answer is that they are all on the same side, just disagree about tactics. the “radical” muslims want to kill us now, at the cost of their own lives. the “moderate” muslims want to kill us later, after breeding themselves into a majority, without risk to themselves. the “peaceful” muslims are the real threat, and the only reasonable answer is to send them all to a country they dont hate.
The exaggerated, over-the-top, self-righteous posturing coming from media outlets like The New York Times bespeaks a refusal to face up to the challenge of radical Islam in America and how to combat it.
Calling it a challenge of radical Islam makes it seem that moderate Islam is the solution. However, with the exception of Dr. Zudhi Jasser, there is no moderate Muhammadans. In fact, while Jasser considers himself to be a devout Muhammadan, the truth is in the eyes of all devout Muhammadans, Jasser is an apostate that should be executed. In fact, Jasser was thrown out of his own mosque. Hence, if the solution is moderate Islam and Jasser is the only so-called moderate Muhammadan, then lord help us all.
And if we’re not prepared to address the threat of extremism in our own country, how can we possibly fight it overseas?
Extremism is another political correct myth. The jihad ideology in Islam is not extremism within Islam. In fact, the jihad ideology, which is the obligation for all Muhammadans to wage jihad against unbelievers for the spread of Islam couldn’t be anymore mainstream in Islam as not only is it taught and advocated by all sects within Sunni and Shi’a Islam, but it is also taught and advocated by all schools of Islamic jurisprudence in both Sunni and Shi’a Islam as well. Hence, the notion that the jihad ideology in Islam is somehow extreme is an absurd assumption and a political correct myth.
Nor are they about the Muslim faith.
Anyone that calls Islam a faith, doesn’t have a clue what Islam really is. Islam requires total and complete submission to the will of Allah, as each Muhammadan must become the slave of Allah. Furthermore, Islam was spread primarily by the sword and most of the Muhammadan’s descendents were converted through the coercion of harsh and degrading dhimmitude.
In true faith-based religions, adherents can question and even challenge the texts and tenets of their religion and even freely leave the religion or convert to another religion if they so desire. In Islam, the first case would be blasphemous and the second case would be apostasy, and both offenses in Islam are capital offenses punished under the penalty of death.
In reality Islam is far closer to a totalitarian ideology like Communism than it is to any faith-based religions, as Islam, like Communism, seeks world domination, and the end result of both Communism and Islam is totalitarianism.
who has inspired and radicalized American Muslims like the Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hasan and served as a “spiritual advisor” to 3 of the 9/11 hijackers.
Maybe Anwar al-Awlaki has inspired American Muhammadans to become violent jihadists, but the notion that there is a specific radicalization process per se that leads Muhammadans into becoming violent jihadists is ludicrous. The reality is the so-called imaginary radicalization process is a Muhammadan upbringing, as Muhammadans are indoctrinated into a dualistic system cradle to grave whereby there is one set of rules and ethics for Muhammadans and a completely different set of rules and ethic for non-Muhammadans.
Not to mention that the non-violent stealth and deceptive variety of jihad is far more prevalently employed than the violent variety of jihad and also it is far more damaging in the long run than the violent variety of jihad.
A few examples of stealth and deceptive non-violent jihad in action would be the money weapon, whereby the Saudis and the Gulf States spend billions of dollars to buy off the Middle East Studies Departments in colleges and universities throughout the USA and the EU. In fact, the coordinated campaign to stop the watered down King hearings on radicalization is another example of the stealth and deceptive non-violent jihad in action. Indeed, promoting Islam as a faith is another example of stealth and deceptive non-violent jihad in action. Anything that misleads non-Muhammadan unbelievers is stealth and deceptive non-violent jihad, and the opposition against the King hearings is a testament to the effectiveness of their stealth and deceptive non-violent jihad.
–continued
But Reid is “deeply concerned” about the hearings “which demonize law-abiding American Muslims who make important contributions to our society.”
Muhammadans don’t make contributions relative to their excess baggage, as the GWB administration doubled the size of the federal government and federal budget after 9/11 ostensibly to protect the homeland from Islamic terrorist attacks, but in reality to continue accommodating mass Muhammadan immigration with all its excess baggage by creating a false sense of security.
The truth is if you look around the world everywhere mass Muhammadan immigration has occurred in the West, the vast overwhelming majority of Muhammadans have flat out refused to assimilate and integrate like other immigrant groups and instead formed Muhammadan no-go zones ruled by Sharia as parallel societies and in direct contravention to the laws of the states in which they reside.
Islam is not on trial.
Yeah…but Islam should be on trial, and that’s what’s wrong with Congressman King’s watered down hearings.
King makes no such insinuation that American Muslims are “giving aid and comfort” to terrorists.
Well he should. Indeed, without millions of Muhammadans living in America with there thousands of mosques and madrassas to give the 9/11 violent jihadists aid and comfort and to provide cover for them, the 9/11 terrorist attacks would never have been possible.
Finally, my greatest fear is the watered down King hearings will do as much damage as when Bush like a loon declared Islam to be a so-called Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists. It fooled millions of Americans and very apparently the author of this lame article.
Thank you sir, I have learned a lot reading your writings.
Both the Radical Left and the Islamic Jihadists have a common enemy – the Conservative Right. What is the saying: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The problem with this friend is, it will devour the Left. It will not be controlled.
These hearings need to go forth. If the Left don't like it, they can stick fingers in their ears and listen instead to the latest escapades of one of their own, Charlie Sheen.
"The hearings aren’t about bigotry. Nor are they about the Muslim faith."
YES, THEY ARE!!! And they should be, because Islam is a totalitarian dictatorship that creates violence wherever it goes.
Quran 9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
9:112 "The Believers fight in Allah's cause; they slay and are slain, kill and are killed."
8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."
This is why Muslims don't want an investigation of the jihad.
The left fears the meeting because they are afraid that the truth will be exposed. There is a growing threat to our country by Immans who preach destruction to us.
I have heard that sharia allows no detectives. Instead of being based on first hand witness, their cases are decided on who is accusing and who is the accused. No one important shoud ever be slighted. Or hinted at maybe being slighted.
If this is so, then sharia has some problems existing in this country….
Eugene Robinson is the one who offers no support for his baseless and erroneous assertion.
King=McCarthy? Stanislav Levchenko, a KGB defector, stated to my question posed to him on the Jim Bohannan Talk Show in the late 80's, that McCarthy was correct in his hunt for Communists due to the fact that the Soviets were seeking to infiltrate all levels of government and were proud to do so "in the land of their main enemy!" My focus was on Communist Party USA front groups that were being used by the Soviet KGB to take over Central America! BARACK OBAMA was one of those KGB DUPES! PLEASE GOOGLE: "Obama Sundial 1983." This is an article Obama wrote while at Columbia on CPUSA front groups that were aiding the SOVIET KGB! THOSE 80'S FOLLOWERS OF THE KGB ARE OUR LEADERS OF TODAY! IF THE COMMUNIST PARTY, AND THEIR FRONTS, INCLUDING EXPOSING BARACK OBAMA, ARE NOT PART OF KING'S MISSION, IT WILL BE A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME!!
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews noted last night, “If you had had hearings on this 20 or 30 years ago, and said, ‘I’m a Protestant guy and I’m going to hold hearings on the radicalization of American Irish, and I’m going to look [for those] who might be supporting the provisional wing of the IRA, that would have been seen as a pogrom.” In fact, that sort of McCarthy-esque sleuthing may have rounded up King himself, as the New York Times reports today:
“We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry,” Mr. King told a pro-I.R.A. rally on Long Island, where he was serving as Nassau County comptroller, in 1982. Three years later he declared, “If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the I.R.A. for it.” [...]
[T]he I.R.A. was carrying out a bloody campaign of bombing and sniping, targeting the British Army, Protestant paramilitaries and sometimes pubs and other civilian gathering spots.
Stewart also aired a clip of King on CNN from 1995 in which he said, “I will say tonight what I’ve said for the past 25 years is that the moral standing of the IRA is equal to that of the British army.” “Wow!!” Stewart remarked, “wait until Congressman Peter King gets a hold of terrorist sympathizer Peter King!
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/09/peter-king-te…
It is unfortunate the King has this baggage and seems the only one willing to take this on.
I agree that terrorism is never the answer and should never have been lent any tangible support.
However damage he has done to himself, this does not change anything concerning the need to have these intentions exposed publicly and have these questions answered and then addressed.
But surely you see King's very credibility, hence his reasoning, on the matter is shot.
Does anyone think decent Americans are somehow against investigating all possible avenues for preventing terrorist attacks? The problem is that you must do so while not compromising our enshrined values. Bin Ladin's whole idea, stated explicitly, was to get USA to 1. go broke going after him, and 2. Chew ourselves up from the inside. Why do so many conservatives insist on giving bin Ladin what he wants? Sorry but the way King speaks is not too far removed from the "blame the Jews" rhetoric of Germany 1938.
"But surely you see King's very credibility, hence his reasoning, on the matter is shot."
Well,no. We all are allowed a few misjudgements/errors in life without our credibility being entirely shot. If this was the actual standard, no one would be allowed to enter public service.We would all end up "shot".
" Does anyone think decent Americans are somehow against investigating all possible avenues for preventing terrorist attacks? "
The key word is "decent" and I believe there are those who prefer no investigation.
"The problem is that you must do so while not compromising our enshrined values."
There is no indication, whatsoever ,that our "enshrined values" will be compromised.That presupposition is frankly uncalled for.
"Bin Ladin's whole idea, stated explicitly, was to get USA to 1. go broke going after him, and 2. Chew ourselves up from the inside. Why do so many…….
..Cconservatives insist on giving bin Ladin what he wants?"
What utter nonsense.Heh. This will hardly break us on account of expense-nor will this process "chew" us "up". We have conducted many investigations since the inception of this nation and apparently recovered just fine.
" Sorry but the way King speaks is not too far removed from the "blame the Jews" rhetoric of Germany 1938. "
Sorry, but this is nothing at all like the rhetoric of Germans concerning Jews. Firstly, Jews never carried out attacks or mass murdered Germans, nor did they bomb German embassies, attack and kill peace keepers in the hundreds ,or explode German vessels.In addition, Jews never indoctrinated their students to kill the infidel or subvert the host government.
This event is so dissimilar to what took place in Germany that I am quite amazed at your attempt here. It is disgraceful and, frankly, stunning.
ont:
On the contrary, our spending on "defense" is breaking us; at least spending on the other two shibboleths that are breaking us, Medicare and Soc. Sec., give us something in return. We have no idea what our spending in the ME has given us; in fact it can't be measured. I'm not even saying there aren't some positives (we deposed a dictator, Iraq held elections) but cost/benefit? it's a sinkhole.
As for chewing us up–personally, I find it charming that conservatives are tiring of our wars, now, but there were people who thought sending our sons to Iraq en masse was maybe not the best way to go about defeating Islamists. I believe those people were called "anti-American terrorist coddlers" by people who are NOW saying "You can't nation build over there."
Indeed, you'd think we are already vigilant in investigating radicals in our midst, but Mr. King apparently wants to put on some sort of little show.
Predictably the “left” is pushing the line that King is the new “McCarthy.” It is the “old” “tired” communist line to turn the tables. Study the transcripts of Alger Hiss. He was brilliant and rather than answer the judge’s or prosecutor’s questions he either a) asked them questions or b) claimed “abuse” or evaded the questions. Of course the guilty ones were the judges and prosecutors. Also study the House Committee on Un-American activities hearings. Same thing. Different lines but same tactic. Study Louis Budenz, “The Techniques of Communism.” He has an entire chapter devoted to phraseology—also known in the communist agenda as “Aesopian Language.” He would now have included phrases like "McCarthy" and "racist." McCarthy was right as evidenced by the recent release of the Venona files.
We have a new “McCarthy” (King) which probably means he is a) right b) brave and c) has plenty of evidence. As soon as you see the word “McCarthy” you know who is behind the attacks. Lies. Abuse. Deceit. Eventually violence. The tactics never change. THE ONLY MAJOR CHANGE NOW is that the left has joined hands with the radical muslims as detailed in Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left by David Horowitz.. Don’t fret about 9/11. Don’t fret about Time Square.
Which McCarthy are we talking about? The one holding up the blank piece of paper claiming to have names? The one who couldn't provide evidence for his claims? Who died in shame?
You conservatives are in love with stuff that conforms to your view despite having no actual evidence. All that matters is that is "feels right." Support for the Iraq War being perhaps the costliest example. Unfortunately for you this is a nation of laws and if you want to make accusations you should be prepared to offer evidence. The whole reason Mr. Limbaugh–de facto leader of conservatives–is so successful is that (unlike a real politician) he never once has to be accountable for his patent b.s. Today's lie supplants yesterday's. Today's inane prediction supplants yesterday's.
Search this site's archives for inane Obama predictions. The fact that none came true simply doesn't matter to people who have no respect for FACTS.
"The hearings aren’t about bigotry. Nor are they about the Muslim faith."
"YES, THEY ARE!!! And they should be, because Islam is a totalitarian dictatorship that creates violence wherever it goes."
Well, no, they really won't be but, yes, they should be. There should be a national discussion about the political ideology with religious trappings that is Islam and what that means in conjunction with our hard-earned human rights.
For instance, no rational and whole human being could look upon the injustice meted out to women under Islamic rule without complete antipathy.
We have fought the battle already concerning humans being regarded as chattle and the rightous won. There is no need to turn back for another look.
By pretending that there could be no real conflict between citizens of modern Western states and the followers of an ideology that adheres to practices going back to ancient times, our gutless Western leaderships have thus far only worsened the resentments and distrust.
Cont:
Prez Obama has stated that if the going gets tough, He will stand behind Islam. That is just great, what a thing to hear. Where does that leave the vast majority of the nation if that is the case? We need an answer to that-yesterday.
If Muslims wanted to emigrate to this nation and behaved as the Amish, then no harm, no foul, but instead, they are pushing every button they can and they actively plot to harm us. How is that to be tolerated ? How does one look favourably on a neighbour plotting your murder , or calculating your enslavement ? That is an absurd expectation.
' TAQIYYA '
Do your own research about it if you don't know what this means.
Islam IS EVIL. PERIOD.
Islam strives for world domination.
The Quran commands Muslims to exercise jihad.
The Quran commands Muslims to establish shariah law.
The Quran commands Muslims to impose Islam on the entire world.
Islam is not merely a religion, it is mainly a totalitarian ideology.
Islam wants to dominate all aspects of life, from the cradle to the grave.
Shariah law is a law that controls every detail of life in a Islamic society.
From civic- and family law to criminal law.
It determines how one should eat, dress and even use the toilet.
Oppression of women is good, drinking alcohol is bad.
The core of the Quran is the call to jihad.
Jihad means a lot of things and is Arabic for battle.
Islam means submission, there cannot be any mistake about its goal.
Islam and freedom, Islam and democracy are not compatible.
They are opposite values.
Mohamed's "wife" was six years old.
That makes Mohamed a PEDOPHILE!!!
And you want to base a "Religion" on this a z z -holes rantings?
Are you INSANE?
Suppose our justice department learned of a group of devout Muslims living in a compound under the spell of a radical imam. Suspicions arise that the leader might be having sex with youngsters and possesses illegal arms. An attempt to arrest the leader is met with gunfire. A siege of more than 180 days ensues until a tank breaks through the front door and smoke bombs set the rickety wooden structure on fire, burning alive 74 Islamic men, women and children.
Would the Left say it was the imam's own fault for being extremist?
Caught you lying once today Front Page. http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/09/ahmadinejad-ma…
Makes me question the honesty of this story.
Do the research from others then. You'll find the same info.
I'm quite sure the story is legit I'm trying to draw FP's attention to a problem they have with the story in the link I posted.
People in this country get investigated all the time. But, here's the rub; you generally don't have anything to worry about unless you're breaking the law. If you're not breaking the law, then you have nothing to fear. Our laws are created to stop lawbreakers. Perhaps that's why they protest everything so much. It's also funny that the Muslim congressman is standing right there with them. They do seem to have their own form of protective prejudice. Or as the saying goes, "Thick as thieves."
The New York Times is known as the old gray lady.
Apparently the old gray lady has become senile.
" Muslim clerics and worshipers in this country have been vocal in their rejection of jihadist rhetoric and violence.”
Yeah sure. Whatever.
See the books by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr about Soviet espionage in the U.S. in the 1930s and 40s, e.g., EARLY COLD WAR SPIES and IN DENIAL: Historians, Communism, & Espionage.
You guys say "They'll try to subvert our own liberal laws in order to bring about the caliphate (or whatever)."
I say "If their Sharia does not run against our laws, and in fact functions in arbitration the way, e.g. Jewish and Catholic law do, then we have to allow for it. We can't make a distinction."
You think Sharia is all-or-nothing. It may, or may not be. But once it runs afoul of our national, state, and muni. laws–it's over. THAT is precisely the realm we should be vigilant. The idea that we're a bunch of blind fools is a silly conceit unsupported by facts.
ever heard the term useful idiot? your friends have no intention of allowing sharia to “run afoul” of our laws. they intend to replace our laws with sharia, and never allow “our laws” to run afoul of sharia. peter king is barking up the wrong tree, trying to investigate “radical” muslims. the “radical” muslims are the one and only chance we have to survive. they are trying to wake us up by killing as many of us as they can, before the “peaceful” muslims immigrate and breed themselves into the majority. if it werent for “radical” muslims, it is certain that the “moderate” musims would succeed in defeating us, enslaving us, forcibly converting us, or extracting jizra from those few of left after the brave are murdered, and the cowards convert to islam. we should be grateful to the “radicals” for sacrificing their lives to wake us up, lest we continue to invite millions of muslim invaders, and continue to help them breed by enrolling them in our generous welfare system. the only answer is to send them home. anything else results in surrender to islam. “check under the bed,” says the useful idiot, fully knowing that the real threat is our being overwhelmed and out-populated by invading “peaceful” muslims, who will take over the country then the time is right–for them. useful idiots will not get an exemption from the great massacre that will follow.
the radical vs moderate islam lie continues. there is no radical islam, and no moderate islam. there is only islam, and it cannot be reformed. take away the chief tenets of islam, murder, genocide, misogyny, slavery, lies, and pedophilia, and there is nothing left. we should be grateful to the "radical" muslims. they are the only chance we have to wake up before we import and help breed enough "peaceful" muslims to defeat us.
Make Money with Get4file.com – REGISTER!
Attractive part of content. I just stumbled upon your blog and in accession capital to assert that I acquire actually enjoyed account your weblog posts. Anyway I will be subscribing on your augment or even I fulfillment you get entry to constantly quickly.