Muslim-apologists scrape to discredit the Homeland Security hearing on domestic radicalization

Melvin Bledsoe at son Carlos's graduation before Islamism
"God help us, God help us!" pleaded Homeland Security Committee Hearing witness Melvin Bledsoe, the father of Muslim-radicalized, Memphis teen, Carlos Bledsoe, accused of murdering one U.S. soldier and wounding another in attacking an Arkansas military-recruiting office.

Yesterday, as the US House Committee on Homeland Security held a hearing to expose Islamic radicalization within America's mosques (which disproportionately affects Jews and Jewish targets, from the terror attacks at the El Al counter at L.A.X., to the Seattle Jewish Community Center shootings) both leftists in the hearing as well as the Muslim Brotherhood-influenced media commotion surrounding it- attempted to de-rail the message exposing anti-Semitic, Saudi Wahabist extremism hijacking Islamic institutions and teachings.

Witnesses at Homeland Security Committee hearing on
Muslim radicalization.  From right L.A. Sheriff Lee Baca;
 radicalized Somali-American's uncle Abdirizak Bihi;
father of  Carlos, a radicalized Tennesean Mr. Melvin
 Bledsoe; AFDI's Dr. Zuhdi Jasser
DemoCast compiles relevant commentary regarding the leftist circus made of Rep. Peter King's House hearing about radicalization in the Muslim community.

Weeping and Other Hysterics: Have Muslim Apologists Nothing More to Offer? by Raymond Ibrahim 3/14/11

From Congressman Keith Ellison's emotional breakdown to Congresswoman Jackie Speier's accusations of "racism," last week's hearings on Muslim radicalization have made it clear that those who oppose the hearings have little of substance to offer. Still, the tactics used by such apologists—namely, appeals to emotionalism and accusations of racism—are influential enough that they need to be addressed and discredited once and for all.     . . .

Based on these initial hearings, it is clear that the apologists have little to offer. As Jennifer Rubin writes at the Washington Post, "The Democrats' unhinged rhetoric and wild accusations did more to undermine their opposition to the hearings than anything King could possibly have said." Yet crying tears or "racism!" is emblematic of a greater problem: politicians trying to appeal to the people's emotions, not their reason—an approach that has historically had horrific consequences.
For starters, though it would have been unheard of generations ago and seen as a sign of instability, public crying is the latest rage for politicians. A 2007 Associated Press report puts it well: "Tears, once kryptonite to serious presidential candidates, today are more often seen as a useful part of the political tool kit"— and are thus indicative of an increasingly therapeutic society, one more interested in a show of catharsis than facts.

Yet, tears aside, if we wish to be objective for a moment, Ellison's testimony—culminating with his choking up and leaving the hearing—contributes nothing to the topic of Muslim radicalization in America. Instead, it raises more questions about Ellison—a former Nation of Islam leader, mouthpiece for the Muslim Brotherhood front-group CAIR, and critic of the U.S. Constitution.

Indeed, arguing that "suit-and-tie" Islamists have penetrated Western societies and are manipulating the legal system to their advantage—including by imposing aspects of Islamic law, winning special privileges for themselves, and, of course, shutting down criticism of Islam—Daniel Pipes has singled out Ellison as representing a far greater threat to Western civilization than Osama bin Laden

Did Ellison feign an emotional breakdown during his opening remarks and leave the hearing to evade follow-up questions from Peter King and others—concrete questions about Muslim radicalization that he preferred not to respond to—or were his tears sincere? Either way, it is not clear which is worse: a dime-a-dozen obfuscating politician, or a politician whose emotions so dominate him that he cannot carry out his responsibilities.

Rich Lowry: "The mindless left still won't face the truth"
The outraged reaction to Rep. Peter King's hearings into the radicalization of the domestic Muslim community was so mindless, it bordered on a collective self-lobotomy. If the congressional committee devoted to homeland security -- which held hearings on "The Future of FEMA's Grant Programs Directorate" among sundry other topics during the past two years -- can't examine why some Muslims born and raised in the United States wage war on their own country, we might as well turn off the lights on our common culture.

If there's an association between terrorism and Islam, it's not King's fault. It's the handiwork of Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, who allegedly shouted "Allahu akbar" while gunning down 13 people at Fort Hood, and all the other homegrown extremists who have perpetrated or attempted mayhem in the name of Allah.
King called two witnesses who had heartrending stories to tell, Melvin Bledsoe and Abdirizak Bihi. Bledsoe's son Carlos converted to Islam in college, changed his name to Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, and stands accused of killing a US solider at an Arkansas recruiting center. After becoming radicalized, Bihi's nephew was killed in Somalia in 2009.
Bihi maintains that Muslim leaders in the Minneapolis area urged him not to warn law enforcement about his nephew's disappearance. "They threatened me, intimidated me, and not only me but whole families," Bihi told the committee.

Democrats evinced very little curiosity about Bledsoe or Bihi. For them, the very act of calling these gentlemen to testify represented the threat to America.
Mark Memmott of the beleaguered National Public Radio, published on NPR's News Blog:

At Hearing On 'Muslim Radicalization,' Father Warns Of 'Extremist Invaders'
... Also this morning, Melvin Bledsoe of Memphis testified about what happened to his son — Carlos Bledsoe, until he converted to Islam and changed his name to Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad.
Islamic extremists preyed on his son and programmed him to hate Americans, Bledsoe said. Carlos is accused of killing one U.S. soldier and wounding another in an attack on an Arkansas military recruiting center.

"Americans are sitting around, doing nothing about extremists ... radical extremists ... as Carlos' story [and others] ... turn true," Bledsoe said. "This is a big elephant in the room."

"We are losing American babies. Our children are in danger," he continued. "This country must stand up and do something about the problem. ... Tomorrow it could be your son, your daughter.  ...
 "We must stop these extremist invaders from raping the minds of American citizens."

(Video courtesy: C-Span)

Homeland Security Committee Press Conference, post Radicalization in the Muslim Community hearing

Republican House Homeland Security members and three witnesses (Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, Melvin Bledsoe, and Somali-American Abdirizak Bihi) spoke to reporters about the committee's hearing on radicalization in the U.S. Muslim community.

Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post
I was at the Herzliya Conference in Israel last month and heard a panel on the issue of radicalization. It had an all-star lineup: Dr. Boaz Ganor, executive director, International Institute for Counter-Terrorism; Ayaan Hirsi Ali, fellow resident, American Enterprise Institute; Judith Miller, contributing editor, City Journal and Fox News contributor; and Dr. Shmuel Bar, director of studies, Institute for Policy and Strategy. The session can be viewed here. It is a fascinating program and well worth the time to view. The explanation for how Muslims migrate from peaceful, religious lives to ones of violence is essential to understanding and thwarting the danger we face.
Diana West in World Net Daily:  Rep. Peter King's real 'crime'
King has been accused of many things for holding these hearings, but this "crime," which I consider a patriotic duty, is never mentioned by his critics. Part of the reason may be that this "crime" isn't consciously understood as such by King's critics or even by King himself, so carefully hidden is it behind euphemism and misdirection, and so heavily armored is it by a complex defense of emotional reflexes.
Of course, not holding hearings at all would have quickly absolved Peter King of his true "crime," the transgression he's been pilloried for like Red-hunters of an earlier generation. That is the "crime" of exposure, which, to the left, "un-American" or "anti-American," is the greatest offense of all. Front groups, boring from within, subversion – all require undisturbed cover, not questions, not discussion, not sunshine. The New York lawmaker might not know it, but he's been caught in the act.  And that's why he's getting crucified.

No comments:

Post a Comment