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.

Arab journalist, Khaled abu Toameh challenges, "What Does "Pro-Palestinian" Really Mean?"

In recent years there has been a significant rise in the number of non-Palestinians who describe themselves as “pro-Palestinian” activists. These people can be found mostly on university campuses in North America and Europe.

What is striking is that many of these “pro-Palestinian” activists have never been to the Middle East, let alone the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. In most cases, they are not even Arabs or Muslims.

What makes them “pro-Palestinian”?

Click read more for article published by Hudson New York

In their view, inciting against Israel on a university campus or publishing “anti-Zionist” material on the Internet is sufficient to earn them the title of “pro-Palestinian.” But what these folks have not realized is that their actions and words often do little to advance the interests of the Palestinians. In some instances, these actions and words are even counterproductive.

It is hard to see how organizing events such as “Israel Apartheid Week” on a university campus could help the cause of the Palestinians. Isn’t there already enough anti-Israel incitement that is being spewed out of Arab and Islamic media outlets?

If anyone is entitled to be called “pro-Palestinian,” it is those who are publicly campaigning against financial corruption and abuse of human rights by Fatah and Hamas. Those who are trying to change the system from within belong to the real “pro-Palestinian” camp.

These are the brave people who are standing up to both Fatah and Hamas and calling on them to stop killing each other and start doing something that would improve the living conditions of their constituents.

Instead of investing money and efforts in organizing Israel Apartheid Week, for example, the self-described “pro-Palestinians” could dispatch a delegation of teachers to Palestinian villages and refugee camps to teach young Palestinians English. Or they could send another delegation to the Gaza Strip to monitor human rights violations by the Hamas authorities and help Palestinian women confront Muslim fundamentalists who are trying to limit their role to cooking, raising children and looking after the needs of their husbands.

Here is an idea: Let’s substitute Israel Apartheid Week with Palestine Democracy Week, where Palestinians would be urged and encouraged to demand an end to financial corruption and bad government.

The “pro-Palestinian” activists in the West clearly do not care about reforms and good government in the Palestinian territories. As far as these activists are concerned, delegitimizing Israel and inciting against “Zionists” are much more important that pushing for an end to financial corruption and violence in Palestinian society.

Telling the world how bad and evil Israel and the Jews are does not help the Palestinians as much as demanding good government and encouraging the emergence of young and “clean” leadership in the Palestinian territories.

If the “pro-Palestinian” camp in the West were investing a similar amount of its anti-Israel efforts in promoting moderation and civil society among Palestinians, it would be doing them a great service.

Shouting anti-Israel slogans or organizing Israel Apartheid Week in the US and Canada does not necessarily make a person “pro-Palestinian.”

But promoting good government and reform in the Palestinian territories does make one “pro-Palestinian.”

Being anti-Israel does not necessarily turn one into “pro-Palestinian.” On the other hand, promoting coexistence, peace and good government would be more beneficial to the Palestinians.

The Palestinians do not need students and professors on university campuses to tell them that Israel is bad. They have already had enough of this incitement from Hamas, Fatah and other Arab media outlets and leaders.

It is time for the “pro-Palestinian” camp in the West to reconsider its policies and tactics. It is time for this camp to listen to the authentic voices of the Palestinians – those that are shouting day and night that the Palestinians want good leaders and an end to lawlessness, anarchy and financial corruption.

Video of Herb "I lost my country" London on America's liberal media electing Obama

Dr. Herbert London, president of the Hudson Institute, a Washington-based conservative think-tank, is a noted social critic and author of America's Secular Challenge: The Rise of a New Religion.

PowerLine reports:

"Dr. London took the results of November's election harder than we did, and wonders whether this country has undergone a profound change for the worse. Herb wrote this provocative essay for Power Line:

The results are in and my candidate lost the presidency. Since I love this country, I wish the newly named President Barack Obama every success. But this was an election unlike any other. I don't think the Republicans merely lost an election, I believe many of us lost a country.

This was a land that once rewarded hard work and enterprise. A place where one's word was his bond. America was the land of opportunity. If you can't do it here, you cannot do it anywhere. We were a people to be envied, not only because we had the highest standard living, but because we had the greatest degree of stability.

Americans were notoriously optimistic because we counted on tomorrow being better than yesterday. We were an open people dependent on fair play and a free market bounded by a standard of virtue. With all the blemishes in our past and breaches in our own ethics, we were a model of civic rectitude. "Dems that gives, gets;" those who wish to bilk the system will be discovered and isolated.

There was a time not so long ago when people did not depend on government to bail them out of financial difficulty, a time when the nanny state bred apprehension, not affection. Now, it seems, in the new America almost everyone wants a free ride. The non-tax payer wants a rebate from the taxpayer. The poor man wants everything the rich man has and he wants the rich man to give it to him.

Enemies of the nation, it turns out, are not enemies at all; we merely defined them as adversaries. Had we been clever in the past, we could have defined them out of existence. All we have to do is engage in "soft power," diplomacy and clever negotiating skill. Surely those who want to kill us will be persuaded that swords should be converted into plowshares. It's odd, but Osama bin Laden doesn't seem to embrace this position.

The America of now is one where Orwellian logic rules. Redistribution of wealth is fairness. Taxes are patriotic. The free market should be a regulated market. Big government is good for you. Politicians know what kind of health care is best for you. Choice should be limited, except when it comes to abortion. Power comes from being powerless. Progressive education is designed to promote progress toward socialism. Race doesn't count unless a person of color tells you it counts. Higher education gets lower each year. Those who create our problems should be asked to solve them. Religion should be a private matter that does not inform public morality. Liberal is radical. Free speech is selective speech. Courage is impetuousness.

Yes, Americans - many Americans - want change. The level of dissatisfaction runs deep. But the national cri de coeur hasn't a direction. That's what makes it so dangerous. Americans live better than at any moment in our collective history, notwithstanding the meltdown on Wall Street, yet despair is ubiquitous. Admittedly observing 401K accounts disappear as soap bubbles will make anyone angry. Nonetheless, it is a privilege to live in the land of the free, a privilege now regarded as an entitlement.

It was once wrong to use community groups such as ACORN to steal an election. It was once wrong to conceal one's past in order to invent an identity. It was once wrong to use the instrument of government finance to satisfy a constituency and then claim an unregulated market is what ails us. It was once wrong to lie in a campaign and still is except when the media panjandrums avert their gaze for the lies of a favored candidate.

Surely we face threats across the globe that cannot be easily forestalled. Arguably the most significant threat is from within in the form of an unregulated government, a government large, intrusive and seductive. This is the new American government that promises everything and demands very little from its citizens. "Shop until you drop" is the national anthem. After all, you don't have to fight if you don't want to and you don't have to sacrifice if that's too much for you. All you have to do is visit malls and keep opinions to yourself. Opinions are important since Truth Squads want to be sure you don't criticize the chosen candidate.

Where is my America, the place of fair play, individual rights, the rule of law and respect for private property? Was the past merely a dream from which I have awakened? Can that America of exceptionalism return? Can it find its way back into the public consciousness?

I have my doubts. Now the change agents scream "everything will be different." Alas, they are right. It appears as if everything will be different, most especially the end of an America I loved.