As my story in “Mike’s Straight Bullitts” reports, “The stated goal of Rep. King is to explore radicalization of Muslims in America.” What can be the harm in that? According to The Heritage Foundation, at least 30 terrorist attacks against America have been foiled since 9/11/01. Sounds worthy of investigation to me.
Another paragraph in my article says that, “Religious and civil rights groups, along with Democrats, say Homeland Security Committee Chairman King is singling out Muslims, which could provoke a backlash against Muslims nationally, as well as aid in recruiting for radical Muslims.”
First off, Muslims ARE the ones trying to carry out these attacks. I haven’t heard of a Monk going around with plastic explosives in his underwear lately. And secondly, as far as stirring up recruitment is concerned, these folks want to kill us anyway. They are subject to radicalization whether Rep. King holds these hearings or not.
As Eric Cantor said, the vitriol against Rep. King is unjustified, and that the hearing’s purpose is simply to “assess how we can better work with the Muslim community in America to stop the spread of radical Islam.” It is NOT a witch-hunt, it is simply to see how we can better work with those in the Muslim community to help stop the spread the radicalization of these extremists.
As Rep. Cantor pointed out, the Fort Hood shootings were a result of radical Islam. Things that were not mentioned were the so-called underwear bomber, the idiot in Portland who tried to blow up as many people as possible at a Christmas tree lighting, the “shoe-bomber,” the list goes on and on.
It seems rather obvious to me that we need to get to the bottom of why there are so many Americans who are vulnerable to this radicalization, who is radicalizing them, where they’re coming from, and what can be done to stop it.
Then we get dingy-Harry Reid weighing in: he is “deeply concerned about these hearings, which demonize law-abiding American Muslims who make important contributions to our society, as I would be about congressional hearings to investigate Catholics, Jews or people of any other faith based solely on their religion.”
Harry, I can almost guarantee you that if the Catholic faith began to have radical offshoots that were targeting every religion that wasn’t Catholic, there would be congressional hearings on the matter. And it would have happened long before now.
In fact, if you recall, in 1993 we had a religious cult know as the Branch Davidians who were living in a compound in Waco, Texas. Granted, these were not necessarily the sanest people in the world, and yes, they did have a supply of LEGAL weapons. The search warrant obtained was not based on illegal weapons, but that they could be modifying legal firearms to illegal firearms.
So, basically, this religious group was targeted by the ATF and FBI for owning legal firearms and having killed nobody. Yet that situation ended up in a government raid which resulted in the deaths of 76 people, including 20 children. Yet liberals and jihadists feel that congressional hearings are over-zealous? Give me a break!
Chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, Jay Sekulow, perhaps said it best: “Without question, there’s a troubling factual pattern of American Muslims becoming radicalized and focusing on creating havoc here on U.S. soil. This hearing is designed to get to the bottom of what’s taking place in our nation — how al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are recruiting and manipulating American Muslims to attack the U.S. This hearing isn’t about profiling — it’s about protecting our homeland.”
In terms of J. Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, his assertion that the hearings will “send a further message that Muslims present a greater threat of terrorism than other religions.” Well, I’d say he’s right. At this point in time, they do.