Monday, January 24, 2011

Ignoring Those ’Phobes in the Political Ghetto

We had such high hopes when Rep. King announced his plans to hold Congressional hearings about the problem of radicalized American Muslims. Not that we’d been paying real close attention (at least around here). However, the headlines and surface editorials sure echoed the new, Republican version of hopenchange when they talked about what the House’s Homeland Security chairman was planning. So how could we not think that perhaps there was going to be substantive, ringing change instead of merely the usual jingle of loose pennies?

Here’s what the newsboys were saying in December:

The incoming chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security said Sunday that he will hold hearings on the “radicalization of the American Muslim community.”

In an op-ed piece in Newsday, Rep. Peter King said such hearings are critical because al-Qaida “is recruiting Muslims living legally in the United States -- homegrown terrorists who have managed to stay under the anti-terror radar screen.”

The Long Island Republican said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press that the Muslim community “does not cooperate with law enforcement to anywhere near the extent that they should.”

“With al-Qaida trying to recruit from within their community it’s important that they cooperate,” King said.

A spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations said he fears King’s hearings will become an anti-Muslim witch hunt.

“We’re concerned that it’ll become a new McCarthy-type hearing,” said the spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper.

Some McCarthy this chairman turned out to be. As time went on he would begin to seem more like just another Manchurian Candidate wound up and set going by the Muslim Brotherhood. That's because as time went on the furor from the Left increased (as usual, the Right was lulled by headlines). Here’s a good overview from News With Views, written a week or so later as the noise-to-reason ratio increased:

MSNBC’s Ed Schultz, who called communist Van Jones a “great patriot” during the “One Nation Working Together” rally, has now decided it is his job to protect Islamic terrorists from being investigated by Rep. Peter King, the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. The ink was barely dry on a King op-ed calling for scrutiny into those networks when Schultz featured Muslim Democratic Rep Keith Ellison on his show, complaining in advance that the probe would be a “witch hunt.”

The choice of guests was no accident. Reporter Kevin Diaz of the Minneapolis Star Tribune notes that Ellison’s Minneapolis, Minnesota district “has been fertile recruitment ground for Al-Shabab insurgents in Somalia” who are under the influence of al Qaeda. So the witches apparently do exist.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism found that Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress who was just elected co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has been financially supported by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, who favor imposition of Islamic law on society.

[…]

One of those federal officials, Philip Mudd, associate executive assistant director of the National Security Branch of the FBI, said, “In Minneapolis, we believe there has been an active and deliberate attempt to recruit individuals--all of whom are young men, some only in their late teens--to travel to Somalia to fight or train on behalf of al-Shabaab.”

The hearings resulted in a report, “Violent Islamist Extremism, the Internet, and the Home Grown Terrorist Threat.”

A report into the Minneapolis problem by the cable channel HDNet described it as “a chilling threat to national security that has sparked one of the largest anti-terror investigations since 9/11.” It quoted FBI Special Agent Timothy Gossfeld as saying, “We have a principal, potential threat to national security right here on U.S. soil, actually, even within the state of Minnesota. So our director has already acknowledged the potential for individuals trained by al-Shabaab, under the influence of al-Qaeda, potentially being used to target the United States.”

Front Page gave some background on Rep. King. It was disturbing, to say the least. This was not the record I’d have expected from a ‘conservative’:

New York Rep. Peter King is under attack for his plan to hold hearings on the Muslim community’s lack of cooperation with the government to stop the rising threat of homegrown radicalization when he becomes chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. King’s investigation, though, is imperative, as even top Obama administration officials are warning of the frightening increase in acts of homegrown terrorism. King is being described as the real extremist for his past vocal support of the Irish Republican Army and is being accused of having an anti-Muslim bias.[…]

The true “baseless claims” are the ones made against King. He was an advocate of U.S. military intervention in the former Yugoslavia on the side of Muslims, has taken Pakistan’s side over India’s in their fight over Kashmir, and had a long relationship with the Muslim community of Long Island.[my emphasis - D] His record contradicts the accusation that he has an anti-Muslim agenda. His warnings are based in fact and they are echoed by top Obama administration officials.

What this ‘record’ compiled by Ryan Mauro shows is a man who is comfortable with terrorism. The IRA? Pakistan? But Mauro sounds hopeful about the hearings. Even with those past peccadilloes, many on the Right appeared to think Rep. King was going to expose some of the problems regarding Muslim terrorism in the U.S.

Alas, it appears that Rep. King has lost his way in the echo chamber of Washington’s sound bites and prevarications …

Today, Robert Spencer laid out the sad story, saying that King is “doomed to failure”:

Congressman Peter King (R-NY) told Politico Tuesday that “he’s not planning to call as witnesses such Muslim community critics as the Investigative Project on Terrorism’s Steve Emerson and Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer, who have large followings among conservatives but are viewed as antagonists by many Muslims.” Instead, King plans to call people with “the real life experience of coming from the Muslim community,” including Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN), as well as ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Muslim reformer M. Zuhdi Jasser.

I suppose Ayaan Hirsi Ali gives King some cred, but she’s hardly an American. Jasser is questionable at best. However, in the unkindest cut of all, King invites that fox-in-the-henhouse, his fellow politician, Keith Ellison. This is a spineless move, the kind of thing we’ve come to expect from the Invertebrate Class - i.e., the Republicans.

[You’ve heard a lot about the Political Class but that designation in reality belongs to Democrats alone. They’re tough, they know all the moves of in-fighting, and they’re focused on the goal: winning at all costs. Republicans, with rare exceptions (Allen West comes to mind), are members of the spineless Invertebrate Class. That’s why Obama can shove them around with impunity - and has done so repeatedly while they stand around asking meekly for crumbs from the White House table.]

In explaining the colossal fail which the Homeland Security Committee is about to bring off, Mr. Spencer quotes liberally from his co-author Pamela Geller’s recent screed concerning King’s royal mess:

Geller is absolutely right that these hearings are shaping up to be a waste, and worse than a waste. King is apparently rattled by the full-court press of Islamic victimhood rhetoric from Islamic supremacist spokesmen and pressure groups, and is allowing them to set his agenda, acquiescing in their Alinskyite marginalization of Steven Emerson, a peerless antijihad researcher, and other antijihadists who have nothing to apologize for or be embarrassed about in their work to expose and resist the advance of the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, but who are targeted in ongoing Islamic supremacist defamation campaigns designed to discredit and sideline them (including myself). He is at the same time calling fox-in-the-henhouse witnesses like Muslim Brotherhood-linked Congressman Keith Ellison.

Synchronicity! I hadn’t read Mr. Spencer’s metaphor when I chose that description earlier in this post. Obviously, it fits - perhaps it’s the chicken feathers all over Ellison’s record?

I’ve been watching Ellison for the last four years and he does not inspire Americans who are looking for a robust defense against Islam within our own borders . By the way, in that linked post, written in 2007 when Ellison was about to assume office, the tone was supposed to be satirical, or perhaps high irony. I didn’t ever expect him to be a voice for oppressed Muslim women but I couldn’t help pointing them out, even as I knew he’d be dancing to the fiddlers of the Muslim Brotherhood. [Yes, I know the Salafist MB doesn't approve of music because Al Banna Sayyid Qutb* was so traumatized by the 'lewd' behavior he witnessed at a church dance during his stay in the US in the 40s. Hey, Mohammed wasn't a music fan, either. Among their other shortcomings, these guys don't approve of public fun, unless you consider bombs and dead bodies 'fun'. Unfortunately, joy isn't the only thing they kill].

It’s obvious that Rep King is a moral coward. If any investigative hearings about Islam’s inroads into our country do not include Robert Spencer or Steve Emerson or Dr. Andy Bostom, or Steve Coughlin, then said hearings are a waste of tax-payer monies and Rep. King should be investigated himself.

This is a disgrace. These experts are not being called because they have publicly voiced the truth about Islam AND because their political convictions come from the Right - as Rep. King supposedly does. These experts on Islam can report with authority about the history and the strategies of this supremacist, utopian scheme, especially as it applies to America. However, these knowledgeable, professional experts will be ignored because the cowardly King is afraid of the Left. His fear far outweighs any interest he might have in the truth which Spencer, et al, could give him in great depth.

This farce will no doubt be carried on as though it were a genuine hearing. Meanwhile, the ‘phobes in the ghetto will be ignored, even though they tell the truth. Rep. King doesn’t give a fig about the ‘truth’; if you asked him he’d probably do a Pontius Pilate routine with a rhetorical question back at you. What King wants is face-time in the MSM. Obviously, he wants the approval of his keepers. He’ll have to work hard to get it.

Not even Memeorandum is carrying any references to this story. That gives you some idea about how little the Political Class or its commentators care about Islam, radical or otherwise, in this country. They want circuses and infotainment - pace the Cordoba Initiative, which provided both.

We are rotted through and through. This perverse, wasteful launching of the new 112th Congress via the Homeland Security Committee hearings is simply further proof that it will be business as usual no matter who is in the chair.

Below is a listing of the members of the current Homeland Security Committee:

Majority Minority
Peter T. King, New York,
     Chairman
 Bennie Thompson, Mississippi,
      Ranking Member
Lamar S. Smith, Texas Loretta Sanchez, California
Dan Lungren, California Jane Harman, California
Mike D. Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas
Michael McCaul, Texas Henry Cuellar, Texas
Gus Bilirakis, Florida Yvette Clarke, New York
Paul Broun, Georgia Laura Richardson, California
Candice Miller, Michigan Donna Christian-Christensen,
Tim Walberg, Michigan      Virgin Islands
Chip Cravaack, Minnesota Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Joe Walsh, Illinois Brian Higgins, New York
Pat Meehan, Pennsylvania Jackie Speier, California
Ben Quayle, Arizona Cedric Richmond, Louisiana
Scott Rigell, Virginia Hansen Clarke, Michigan
Billy Long, Missouri William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina  
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania  
Blake Farenthold, Texas  

If your representative is listed, by all means use your citizen’s voice to bring what pressure you can to bear on these folks so that an honest and robustly truthful hearing can occur. Tell them to call on Spencer or Bostom or Emerson or Coughlin. If we do not speak up, then this travesty King has planned will be a sure thing. If we do not protest, then the Muslim Brotherhood will stay securely in the saddle.

They will ride Congress and all the branches of our bloated government all the way to the Ummah.

*[Thanks to Papa Whiskey for the "correx" re Al-Banna vs. Sayyid Qutb]


Hat Tip: MM in New York

17 comments:

Papa Whiskey said...

Yes, I know the Salafist MB doesn't approve of music because Al Banna was so traumatized by the 'lewd' behavior he witnessed at a church dance during his stay in the US in the 40s.

Correx: That wasn't Al-Banna, it was Sayyid Qutb.

Freyja's cats said...

My recommendation is to contact the current chairman of the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on intelligence, Mike Rogers.

Mike Rogers (R-MI) is a former FBI special agent and is very knowledgeable about counterterrorism. Mike is the FBI go-to guy in Congress. His official House website is here. Mike's DC office number is (202) 225-4872.

I don't think that the problem is Rep. Pete King.

Part of the problem is that Robert Spencer has allied himself tightly with Pamela Geller.

Pamela Geller is an anchorweight whose less-than-professional-and-courteous conduct is dragging the reputation of the whole bucket of pro-Israel counterjihad advocacy down into the watery depths.

She may be zealous and dedicated to her cause, and, yes, she is certainly entitled to fully use her First Amendment rights in very outspoken ways, but, in doing so, she is making it too easy for the Left to mark her as an extremist Zionist loon.

Rep. Pete King, as Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has to conduct hearings in such a way that he is serving the interests of America, and not the interests of Israel.

Any attempt for him to call a hearing and present Robert Spencer as a witness, would be politically foolish.

Pamela Geller has made idiots out of both herself and Robert Spencer. Their acrid rhetoric and Geller's outlandish cartoonery, plus Geller's penchant for dressing up in garb less-than-modest-and-conservative-garb, makes them come across to the public much more like fanatical Zionist robots than like professional, unbiased, loyal-only-to-America investigators.

The behavior of the Geller-Spencer duo is making them radioactive.

The Geller infection has spread to Steve Emerson, and is touching Andy Bostom, by association. (I'm not sure about Steve Coughlin.)

If the Jewish pro-Israel counterjihad squad (David Horowitz, et al) is not careful, even professionally-polished people like Frank Gaffney could suffer, by association.

My suggestion is that those American Jews concerned about Islam and Islamic terrorism, who want to preserve their reputations as loyal Americans and professional researchers, need to build a thick brick wall between yourselves and Pamela Geller.

And quick.

As far as Steve Emerson goes, his website does not exactly exude what I would call professional investigative cold objectivity. It hovers somewhere in between there and pro-Israel political advocacy.

While Emerson does not suffer from the same political activist radioactivity that Geller generates, he still comes across to an average non-Jewish American like myself as biased towards Israel -- at least in the way his website is designed.

Rep. King has to be careful about how he goes about setting up these hearings -- both politically and from a constitutional perspective.

I do not know King personally. But my druthers is to contact his office and discuss it with his appropriate staff member, first, and also to contact the appropriate staffer of the House Homeland Security Committee, and gently make inquiry.

And also to call Mike Rogers, and get his take on these hearings.

Some readers of my comments will not appreciate my candid opinions. Full disclosure: I am neither Jewish nor Arab. I am a boring, vanilla American located in the Midwest. My allegiance is not to any grain of sand in the Levant. Jewish American boosters for Israel are not going to like all of my opinions. I'm just calling it like I see it.

I'm a "just the facts, ma'am" sort of person. Investigate first. I recommend getting the facts, in this and all matters, before encouraging the blogosphere to hyperventilate.

Dymphna said...

I recommend getting the facts, in this and all matters, before encouraging the blogosphere to hyperventilate.

A good idea, one that the writer would be well-advised to follow in the future, before hyperventilating about another person's flaws.

Leaving your two main targets aside, I suggest you investigate Steve Coughlin's excellent work on the MB. He is well-known to many members of Congress as a knowledgeable expert in the areas of terrorism and domestic infiltration. In fact, he's given a number of briefings on the subject to members of Congress.

Calling on Ellison to testify when he represents a district that is particularly infamous for the numbers of young Somali-Americans who are recruited from Minnesota and sent to Somalia for terrorist work is farcical. To have him there is a slap in the face to all those who work against the Islamification of our country, especially
considering that Ellison took his oath of office on the Koran. The laws laid out in there are incompatible with our Constitution.

As to Ms. Geller's appropriate style or lack of it (you're entitled to your opinion) I don't think what she does or does not do, say, wear, etc, affects the scholarship of, say, Dr. Bostom.

You give her more influence than I think even she would claim.

Your animus is misplaced; your claim to be a "boring, vanilla American" is a bit disingenuous considering the arsenic-flavored rant with which you preceded that disclaimer.

Just as you "call it like I see it", others have the same liberty in fisking your comments. No one is as totally without merit as you claim Ms. Geller to be.

It's a muchness to rip someone apart as you have done here and then stand back and claim these are just your "opinions" but others' ideas re action are a call to "hyperventilate".

I'm leaving your comment up despite my doubts that it meets our rules re civil discourse. Guess I'll sleep on it and see if your remarks look as bad in the light of day as they do right now.

One thing I know for sure: nothing you said moved the conversation forward. In fact, your comment reminded me of talks I've had with teenagers in which they tear someone apart and when taken to task for it, draw back in surprise and claim, "I was just sayin'..." -- while rolling their eyes...

Freyja's cats said...

Dymphna,

I'm not saying that YOU are hyperventilating.

But it is my opinion that Pamela Geller is.

I am not saying that Pamela Geller is "totally without merit."

Some of the information she provides on her website is useful. But the way she presents it, IMHO, is problematic.

Some people like her no-holds-barred style.

There are a lot of people, though, who don't.

Her style might work *politically* in some corners.

But her style definitely does not come across to a law enforcement investigator or a neutral judge as being without bias.

Geller's runs a blog that clearly has a political agenda.

Her rhetoric is sarcastic to the point of being acrid.

When I read her blog, I almost feel like I'm reading a right-wing Zionist version of Heidi Beirich of the SPLC. Both scream "anti-semitism" and "hater" and similar epithets. It's like a couple of bad-tempered playground bullies flinging mud at each other and bloodying each other's noses. Makes me want to crawl under my desk and stick my fingers in my ears.

I'm just not into rhetoric of demonization. To me, it gets into the way of the facts I'd like to be reading.

Robert Spencer, by aligning-at-the-hip with with Geller, thus politicizes his research, by association and by absorption of some of her style.

Steve Emerson is not a "target" of mine. He has done a lot of commendable investigative work. He has worked for many years on the problem of Muslim terrorism, going way back before most of America had it on their radar screens. He's done an enormous amount of legwork and invested many brain-hours in working to secure America. I hold Emerson in high regard, and I applaud him.

However, there is a detectable pro-Israel bias evident in his website presentation. Sometimes a bit of rhetoric creeps that gives a political cast to his work.

And it cannot be denied that the rather hostile letter he sent to Rep. Peter King upon learning that King is not scheduling him to appear as a witness, demonstrates a bit of...well,...hostility.

Emerson even admitted as much, and apologized for it, in his follow up letter after receiving King's response to his initial letter.

As far as I'm concerned, Emerson's contributions to counterterrorism are laudable. I consult his website regularly. I would just caution him on the tendency for politicization to creep in. (It may not even be his own words; it could very well be one of his staff's writing.)

In fact, Peter King wrote to Emerson that he had been hoping that Emerson would help him with his preparation for the hearings.

In my opinion, that would be perhaps an even more useful contribution than if Emerson testified.

As for Andrew Bostom, I, as with Emerson, do not consider him a "target." He, too, makes valuable contributions.

Part of the problem comes in where Pamela Geller utilizes Bostom's or Emerson's material on her own blog, and then lumps her own atomic pepper sauce on top of it.

Her douse-the-opposition-with-hydrochloric-acid style is starting to get associated with them.

And part of the problem is that Robert Spencer tries to live in both worlds.

Unfortunately, when Robert Spencer tries to put on his "expert" hat, the public (and certainly CAIR et al) are learning that he is the sidekick of that "Zionist loon."

(That is not my term for Geller: that is just how other people across the country describe her to me.)

That's the reality. Persons who want to promote themselves in courts-of-law and congressional hearings as unbiased and fair-minded investigators, can't be switching back-and-forth between that persona, and the persona of a political activist.

Perhaps King wants to grill Ellison, and put him on the hot seat. Perhaps he would like to get Ellison on the record. That might not be a bad thing.

Freyja's cats said...

ps:

Regarding the King v Emerson dust-up, I would encourage everyone who hasn't yet seen it, to read this article on Politico.

This article by Ben Smith appears to print the back-and-forth letters between King and Emerson.

(Note: I have not verified the text that Smith published with either either King or Emerson.)

I hope that, once folks have read that article, that you will understand why I am encouraging everyone to cool off and let the dust settle.

Call Me Mom said...

For myself, I was not terribly impressed with Rep. King in the single interaction I had with him. (A teleconference type of deal for bloggers a while back.)
He seemed to me to be a very polished politician with all that implies. If I were looking for conservatives in Congress, I would not be looking at him.
That said, I tend to agree with this post.

It seems to me very much as though this will be touted as a serious look at the dangers of Islam in America. Then it will be spun into "They looked and found nothing (or not much) to be alarmed about, so you should all go back to sleep. It's just a lot of hype-you know-like Y2K was."

I won't find that reassuring.
The reason we didn't have a Y2K meltdown is because programmers across the nation and the world were working their fingers off to fix it beforehand.

( I am also flabbergasted that anyone would put Sheila Jackson Lee on such a sensitive committee.)

I suppose testimony from Brigitte Gabriel or Walid Shoebat would be equally objectionable to those who are to be the subject of this"investigation".

Perhaps this should become the new standard in criminal investigations across the board:The judge and jury can only hear testimony from witnesses who have the approval of the alleged perpetrator of the crime.

Sure, that makes sense.

hotcargirl said...

Hello, I am a lurker of sorts living in CA. Appreciate the valid information which GoV provides. Some time ago I read that you even attracted a reader from my hometown (or rather near) Berkeley, CA. Talk about outreach! Being a native of San Francisco--I know how difficult it is to get a message such as this through in the hard-core liberal environment.

The threat of the ideology of Islam is very real and extremely urgent. As a former flight attendant and individual who has lived in both Asia and France--I've come face to face on more than one occasion with it's victims: Mutilated women, frightened children and emotionally abused men.

What prompted me to comment? Freyja's cats' initial comment.

@Freyja's cats--your comments pertaining to Pamela Gellar amply describe why I (along with others) cannot utilize--or rather--comfortably recommend her to others who are not quite as familiar with the threat that the ideology known as Islam poses to the West (and East). As a former flight attendant--I know well how a message can be killed by a well meaning but overzealous messenger. This is not meant to "single" out Ms. Gellar but, her "je ne sais quoi" of deliverance lacks professionalism and is a major Achille's heel for those who are all for the promotion of Islam along with it's heinous connotations.

They take advantage of discrediting not just her but her message and that's not good. Why? Women are still being stoned to death, gays are being murdered, children mutilated--oh and of course, the suicide bombers keep on keepin' on. Yesterday was Russia, today God only knows. My point? People are dying. Have died (never, ever should ANYONE forget the massacre at Beslan on the day of knowledge in 2004) and shall continue to be slaughtered until enough of us are made aware of this pressing danger.

From the Coptic Christians in Egypt to everyday people who just want to be free--the threat is among us and persists: All because of a wholly debased medieval movement. It needs to be reformed or be eradicated. My personal opinion is actually with the latter but that's another story. I have encountered far too many of its victims worldwide for more than twenty years. My post is not to offend anyone but to merely acknowledge that like Freyja's cats--I too, understand the danger of having a good message being compromised by a messenger. Rep. Mike Rogers seems like a place to start. Thank you for you post!

Hesperado said...

"these knowledgeable, professional experts will be ignored because the cowardly King is afraid of the Left."

Ordinarily, I would take issue with this assertion; but having read Spencer's documentation of King's previous sentiments which were at least approaching the vicinity of being hard-hitting, it seems clear that King has backed away from his own promised position -- which, logically, would indicate some factor such as what Dymphna speculates. (Even so, that said, the previous King, based on his previous statements, would not be a robust anti-Islam advocate, but someone probably somewhere to the left of a Daniel Pipes -- a point on the spectrum which currently remains about as good as it gets for us.)

Ordinarily, though, the failure of the vast majority of Republicans to be effectively pro-Islam is not due merely to cowardice or greed (the latter making them either anomalously stupid, or evil, neither of which hypothesis is acceptable), but rather because they, like nearly all other carbon-based beings in the West, have become true believers in PC MC with regard to Islam.

Hesperado said...

On the Spencer & Geller issue ("Spencer & Geller" sounds like a brand of cigar, or a Vegas magic act competing with Penn & Teller), I agree with some of what Freyja's cats (FC) says, but FC always has to ruin his or her analyses with his or her obsession about Jews. It's more Geller's manner and image that causes problems (among other things, one imagines that before each anti-jihad "event" she participates in, she spends an inordinate amount of time picking out her wardrobe -- "what shade of orange in Spring goes best with outrage at honor killings, and whose shoes shall I wear...?")

The only rational reason why someone as otherwise astute as Spencer would join himself at the hip to Geller is that he saw in her a showman with lots of social connections, capable of galvanizing PR (and she saw in him a wagon to hitch to, in order to augment her own career). Spencer's astuteness, however, is evidently not perfect, as he failed to see that that social boost he got through Geller is encumbered by her eccentric foibles, as otherwise (sans the veiled misojudy) well-described by FC.

It would be unlikely that Spencer has remained with Geller merely out of loyalty, since he's shown numerous times in the past a readiness to burn bridges with people he formerly supported and praised to the skies (e.g., Diana West).

One other flaw in FC's speculations: I believe Geller might well be the reason, in fact, why Spencer has cut off ties with Bostom (though the particulars may be forever kept hidden from us peons by the "Gentlemen's Club"). I would bet that Geller has not availed herself of Bostom's essays, linked to him, or given him a hat tip, in the last year since the big Spencer-Bostom fallout.

The Hesperado

Green Infidel said...

And without Pamela - what would we know about Rifqa Bary, Barry O's citizenship, his likeness to Malcolm X or the extent of the Grand Mufti-Hitler alliance? And how much publicity would the now Rep. Allen West have gained?

Yep, sometimes the girl takes it too far - but sometimes it's better to take things too far than not take them at all.

Zenster said...

hotcargirl: (never, ever should ANYONE forget the massacre at Beslan on the day of knowledge in 2004)

Thank you, hotcargirl, for keeping alive the memory of this uniquely Islamic atrocity. If the 9-11 atrocity was insufficient, the wanton slaughter of so many totally innocent children as a political statement should have begun tolling the death knell for Islam.

Nothing of the sort has happened.

I doubt it would be very productive for me to go on at any length regarding the deep contempt in which I hold members of the Republican Party. It is millimicrons less than that which I reserve for America's Democratic Party.

Republican's deserve a special measure of wrath as they have always wrapped themselves in the flag and nowhere has that ostensible patriotism been missing-in-action more than within the fight against Islam. Were Republicans worth a tiny fraction of their salt, the outspoken proclamations of Rep. Allen West would be the norm and not any sort of exception.

Such inaction in the face of so much incontrovertible evidence begins to take on an actionable aspect that needs to see a huge number of America's political elite answering in open court for such an abject betrayal of their country.

hotcargirl said...

Zenster: Thank you, hotcargirl, for keeping alive the memory of this uniquely Islamic atrocity. If the 9-11 atrocity was insufficient, the wanton slaughter of so many totally innocent children as a political statement should have begun tolling the death knell for Islam.

Nothing of the sort has happened.

You're welcome, Zenster. It is extremely troubling how the ideology of Islam seems to thrive and grow with each and every murder and mutilation it encourages. What happened to those children and the entire town was beyond repulsive. I find it incredibly disturbing how something so grotesque as an attack on a children's school (in the name of Islam) can continue to fly under the radar in the West. The rapes, executions and mayhem perpetrated upon the children (and adults) was one more sordid tragedy attributed to the long, violent history of Islam. Whenever I find a way to bring it into a discussion I do.

That event as well as how India was torn asunder by it (Sita Ram Goel is one of the best writers on this subject I've come across) along with the hell that the Greeks had to live under after the fall of Konstantinoupolis in 1453. I recently purchased a book on the Greek War of Independence for a class (written by David Brewer). I cannot get beyond Chapter 2. Dark, bleak reading. I am not even Greek. I'm not Indian or Russian either. I am an American who is also a very concerned free citizen of the West at the lax attitude toward this cult of death. It sounds strong but that's what it is.

I cannot describe it as such though to most since far too many are blinded by self-destructive p.c. haze--especially here in CA. It is of some relief there are others here in the U.S. as well as Europe who are not only awake but are fighting back against this savage ideology. The key to making as many aware about it's true nature is fine tuning an irrefutable message which can simultaneously subvert the current p.c./m.c. mentality here in the West.

Watchful said...

Beslan was explained away, by the New York Times, as an atrocity perpetrated by those engaged in a Chechen nationalist civil war. The issue was discussed in a front page news article (not an editorial) and the Times rejected the idea idea that that this was an attack by Islamic "radicals."

Hesperado is correct. And the mainstream media will twist their accounts into pretzels in order to preserve their PC MC beliefs. One can say that PC MC is their religion or at least it substitutes for such.

Hesperado said...

"One can say that PC MC is their religion or at least it substitutes for such."

It's much more than a religion: it's simply reality; PC MC is like the air we breathe, the sun on a sunny day, the givens we rightfully take for granted. That's how it's experienced. It's not experienced as a "position" or a "doctrine" that has to be defended. It's simply the way it is, and anyone who postures themselves to oppose it is regarded not merely as incorrect, but strange, even insane, in addition to being bigoted if not evil for opposing the axioms of progress.

Again, I hasten to add (for this detail usually gets lost), this wouldn't be much of a problem

1) were PC MC not dominant and mainstream;

2) had it not over the last half century (in varying degrees) become believed in the hearts and minds of the majority throughout the West (both "elites" and ordinary people);

and

3) were it not substantially contiguous with good aspects of our Western tradition of Graeco-Roman & Judaeo-Christian universalism.

The Hesperado

Watchful said...

Hesperado,
That was very well stated. I agree.

Yesterday, in conversation with some relatively open-minded people, I said that PC MC was just axiomatic for most the people in our liberal part of the country. I had to explain the meaning of "axiomatic" which says something about the liberal dumbing-down of our educational systems.

Watchful said...

We need to devise strategems to help deal with the PC MC worldview.

I'm just brainstorming here but perhaps we could say that Islamic ideology (or Shariah) victimizes Muslims most of all. The political left loves the right kind of victims.

Nevermind that we know that Muslims passively or actively agree with or abet Shariah--we could practice a little taqiyya of our own.

We need as many useful approaches as we can devise. Most of us have occasion to speak with others about some aspect of the issue--at least upon occasion. Every one of us can whittle away at the problem from around the edges, even when it's only planting seeds of doubt in the minds of the naive PC multiculturalists.

Hesperado said...

Watchful,

"perhaps we could say that Islamic ideology (or Shariah) victimizes Muslims most of all. "

I understand your logic here, but that tactic I fear would only tend to reinforce the need (already too strongly in place) to continue invitingin millions of Muslim immigrants, all the more urgently so if they are "victims" of the Islam of their countries.