As House Homeland Security Committee chairman Peter King (R., N.Y.) opened this morning’s hearings on domestic Muslim radicalism, his ears must have stung from the nasty names he had been called.
“McCarthyite,” some charged. The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson believed King was fueling “irrational fears.” Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada worried that King would “demonize law-abiding American Muslims.”
Advertisement
Georgetown University Islamic-studies professor John Esposito called King’s hearing “a platform for Islamophobia draped in the American flag, reinforcing ignorance, stereotypes, bigotry, and intolerance in the name of national security.”
If King deserves such vitriol, so do key Obama administration officials who share King’s grave concerns about homegrown Islamic extremists and their threat to national security.
• “It is one of the things that keeps me up at night,” Attorney General Eric Holder told ABC News’s Pierre Thomas last December. “The threat has changed from simply worrying about foreigners coming here, to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens — raised here, born here, and who for whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become radicalized and take up arms against the nation in which they were born.”
• “The terrorist threat to the homeland is, in many ways, at its most heightened state since 9/11,” homeland-security secretary Janet Napolitano told King’s committee on February 9. “We are now operating under the assumption, based on the latest intelligence and recent arrests, that individuals prepared to carry out terrorist attacks and acts of violence might be in the United States.”
Napolitano added that a January report “from the New York State Intelligence Center, the fusion center for the State of New York, examining 32 major terrorism cases in the United States related to al-Qaeda-like ideology since 9/11, shows that 50 of the 88 individuals involved in those plots were U.S. citizens at the time of their arrests, and among those citizens, a clear majority were natural-born.”
• “Al-Qaeda and its adherents have increasingly turned to another troubling tactic: attempting to recruit and radicalize people to terrorism here in the United States,” deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough told Virginia’s Adams Center on Sunday. “How do we know this? Well, al-Qaeda tells us. They’re not subtle. They make videos, create Internet forums, even publish online magazines, all for the expressed purpose of trying to convince Muslim Americans to reject their country and attack their fellow Americans.”
• McDonough cited former Californian Adam Gadahn, now a self-described al-Qaeda spokesman. American-born Anwar al-Awlaki now ruthlessly directs al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, presumably from deep inside Yemen. McDonough also mentioned Omar Hammami, an Alabamian who joined the Somali terror group al-Shabaab and, McDonough says, “uses rap and hip hop in an attempt to reach young Americans.”
“I am taking the next logical step,” Representative King told me. “I am listening to the administration and acting on the information that they are giving us. Janet Napolitano came before my committee, and she testified about this threat. Eric Holder went on TV and talked about it. Denis McDonough spoke with me at home about his speech, and he encouraged me to go ahead with the hearing. He said, ‘We welcome the hearing and congressional involvement.’ If Eric Holder is staying up at night thinking about this, I think I should hold hearings, so that he can get a good night’s sleep.”
An investigation of a radical Islamic organization in the US is perfectly justifiable. Whether or not they are actively recruiting for terrorist actions, just their wanting to institute Sharia law is what should be investigated. Our Constitution was established without any mention of any foreign law such as Sharia, let alone Christian Laws under which a huge majority of American's were at the time of ratification and establishment. This should be considered as an attack upon the "Wall of Separation" (as liberals would like to cite when attacking Christians)in the attempted creation of a theocracy. Where is the ACLU??? The Southern Poverty Law Center???
Radical Islamist embrace the following creed:
Allah is our goal. The Prophet is our leader. The Quran is our constitution. Jihad is our way. Death in the service of Allah is the loftiest of our wishes. Allah is great, Allah is great.
Just imagine if the above creed was worded this way:
Jesus is our goal. The Lord is our leader. The Bible is our constitution. Crusading is our way. Death in the service of Jesus is the loftiest of our wishes. Yahweh is great, Yahweh is great.
That would be quite enough for the left wing appeasers of radical Islamists to aggressively pursue an investigation into supposedly "Right Wing Radical Christians",(of which there is no evidence) wouldn't it?
I have a great respect for Mr. King for his fortitude and perseverance in pursuing this investigation.
If the Muslim Community is doing nothing wrong, then they have nothing to fear.....Like I always hear the sound bite from people "If your not doin' anything wrong you have nothin' to worry about."
It's time to bring it out of the closet and pull our heads out of the sand and do something about it!
Well researched, Mr. Murdock, and I agree with both you and Rep. King.
Seems the ProgLibDems have a different view of what a "hearing" entails than I do -- witness the ProgLibDems view: "professor John Esposito called King’s hearing “a platform for Islamophobia draped in the American flag, reinforcing ignorance, stereotypes, bigotry, and intolerance in the name of national security.”
A "platform"? Democrat hearings are nothing but "platforms"! Recall their hauling up bankers, automakers, tobacco and oil execs, and recall how the hearings were nothing but platforms to rail against them and reinforce ignorance, stereotypes... and intolerance in the name of "bogey-manning corporate Americans".
My view is like yours, Mr. Murdock -- Americans need to hear the witnesses, draw their own conclusions, and if the hearings educate people with a cry for a Paul Revere awareness of a threat, then so be it. If witnesses can somehow rebut the fears we're led by events to hold, then so be it, as well.
There is only one thing which is guaranteed not to be discussed at these hearings, or any other hearings: the Quran.
It is the Quran, and the Quran only, that is responsible for the worldwide terror. If you don't believe me, apply this test:
Listen and find out who quotes the Quran accurately. Ellison and CAIR and the MSA and all the other front groups may refer to it (rarely) but never quote it accurately.
Then listen to Maj Hasan, Bin Laden, the Times Square Bomber, the Blind Sheik, the PLO, Al Awaki, and the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, and you will find: they quote the Quran perfectly, every time.
I've read the B'ahai texts, the Dhammapada of the Buddhists, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, the scriptures of Zoroaster, the Old and New Testaments, the Book of Mormon, even the published texts of Scientology. And there is nothing--NOTHING--in the history of the world, in terms of religious books, that calls its followers to violence like the Quran. Nothing.
But this will not come up in the hearings. We will talk around it, but never about it.
I think it is worth pointing out that a substantial number of terror plots foiled by our law enforcement are due to tips and information provided by Muslims.
While I agree with the spirit of these hearings and believe that extremists in the Muslim community do pose a threat to our security, Muslim terrorists do not hold a monopoly on violence against fellow Americans and other peoples.
When the FBI released a memo describing the extremist threat posed by some returning veterans and white supremacist groups, instead of supporting the FBI pursue terrorism whoever the source, Republicans criticized the efforts of our law enforcement for political reasons.
I suspect these hearings will amount to nothing and be a complete waste of resources and time while alienating law abiding Muslims all for the sake of cheap political points at the risk of our long term security.
Since we conservatives are so keen on individual responsibility, perhaps we should walk the walk and start holding individuals responsible for reprehensible acts as opposed to holding communities responsible.
We should build goodwill with Muslim Americans because they are our first line of defense and hope for their continued support in stopping further attacks by terrorists.
All people have to do is read the Koran and study the life of Mohammed. He was a military leader who legitimized violence to promote his version of the truth.
I completely agree with "reaganite" above. We both have read the Qur'an. It is just as he says--a text about power and war. The same applies to the haditha-only in spades.
It is unfortunate that 99.99 percent of Americans will not take the time and trouble to read these terriiying primary sources, cover to cover. They will not know their enemy,
and that is dangerous.
Mr King is a hypocrite extraordinaire. For someone like him who openly supported the IRA terrorists by word and by money to kill British citizens by the hundreds a couple of decades ago to instigate a witch hunt against American citizens without any proof, even statistical, of wrong doing shows extraordinary opportunism and total lack of integrity.
How come problems in minority communities are always an "internal" issue? I mean that the critics of Mr. King invariably state that radicalization is to be handled within the Muslim community. This is so much poppycock. Radicalization of Muslims has been a national, and world, priority since 9/11.
The only reason that it has taken so long to addrress this is that we've been afraid to offend the delicate Muslim sensibilities. So why are Muslims treated with kid gloves? The answer is radicalization. Are Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, Pagans and Hindu's treated with such reverence and trepidation? No.
These hearings should have started on 9/12/2001, but we've been societal cowards!
