Posted on 03/10/2011 6:47:30 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Republican Congressman Peter King has strengthened his security in the wake of "hostile phone calls" and threats from overseas, as he is getting ready to chair a hearing on Islamic radicalization in the United States today.
The Congressman's hearing on this important issue, though much overdue, is perhaps the first step towards recognizing that Islam is the culprit, not radical Islam. Islam by its mere existence is radical. "There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that's it," said Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and he's absolutely right.
Decades ago Marshall McLuhan observed, "The medium is the message." As the print and electronic media penetrate more and more every aspect of life, their influence increases greatly in shaping views and the behavior of the public. The power of the media is a mixed blessing. On one hand, it can serve to expose injustices, wrongdoings, and flaws. On the other hand, it is able to propagate misinformation and outright disinformation.
Manipulation and control of the media is of critical importance to the rule of totalitarian states. Free societies, although less subject to laundered information, are still at considerable risk of being selectively informed or misinformed outright. The overlords of the media can deceive the public more easily when political correctness is used as a subterfuge for the promotion of certain ideas.
A case in point is the media's portrayal of Islam, articulated by politicians and pundits -- the talking heads on television and radio, as well as the analysts who write for newspapers and magazines. Time and again we hear and read that Islam is a religion of peace, in spite of the fact that Islam has been a religion of violence from its inception to the present. This mantra, "Islam is a religion of peace" is repeated so often that it has become an indisputable statement of fact in the minds of many.
Even a cursory examination of Islam's history and Islamic texts conclusively proves the exact opposite. Islam was, and continues to be, a movement of unbridled violence.
Former President George W. Bush along with President Obama on several occasions have repeated the mantra and attributed the horrific violence committed under the banner of Islam to a small band of extremists. Both Presidents' assertion is either based on ignorance of the facts about Islam or their attempt at political correctness. Perhaps President Bush's reticence to speak about the true nature of Islam was due to his desire to avoid inflaming the already charged feelings by many about Islam and President Obama's appeasing the Muslim world is another story. In any event, truth is sacrificed and the public continues to cling to the false notion that Islam is a peaceful religion. People who dare to disclose the true nature of Islam run the risk of being castigated as bigots and hatemongers.
Meanwhile the courageous Congressman Peter King said: 'I'm not going to give in to political correctness.' Surrounded by a noticeably heavier security presence, Congressman King told CBS 2: "I'm getting a lot of hostile phone calls now, but the main threats I'm getting are from overseas." What more one can expect from "the religion peace?"
The pundits, the analysts and the politicians are doing a great disservice to the public, each segment for its own expedient reasons, by parroting the mantra regarding the peaceful nature of Islam. As a matter of fact, the so-called small band of Islamic extremists is the true face of Islam. Admittedly, from time to time and place to place, Muslims have shown a degree of tolerance for non-Muslims. This tolerance dates back to the very early years of Muhammad himself. Early on Muhammad was meek and proclaimed, "For you, your religion, and for me, my religion." This assertion lasted but a few years until Muhammad's movement gathered strength and Islam became the only alternative to death or heavy taxation. The imposition of 'jizya' was a clever ploy for filling the Islamic coffer to support its armies and to finance its further conquests.
The liberal media and pundits engage in willful misinformation and deception when it suits them. Terms such as "Political Islam," or "Radical Islam," for instance, are contributions of this group. These terms do not even exist in the native parlance of Islam, simply because they are redundant. Islam, by its very nature and according to its charter -- the Quran -- is a radical political movement. It is the liberal media and politicians who sanitize Islam and misguide the populace by saying that "real Islam" constitutes the main body of the religion; and, that this main body is non-political and moderate.
Regrettably, a large segment of the population goes along with these nonsensical euphemisms depicting Islam because it prefers to believe them. It is less threatening to believe that only a hijacked small segment of Islam is radical or politically driven and that the main body of Islam is indeed moderate and non-political.
We must recognize that Islam is political to the core. In Islam the mosque and State are one and the same -- the mosque is the State. This arrangement goes back to the days of Muhammad himself. Islam is also radical in the extreme. Even "moderate" Islam is radical in its beliefs as well as its deeds. Muslims believe that all non-Muslims, bar none, are hellfire bound and well deserve being maltreated compared to believers.
While I salute Congressman Peter King for having the courage to discuss the issue of Islamic radicalization in the U.S, I warn my fellow Americans: remain a spectator at your own peril. It is imperative that you take a stand and do your part in pointing out that Islam is the culprit and do all you can to prevent the Islamic fire from devouring our civilized way of life and our republic.
-- Imani is the author of the book "Obama Meets Ahmadinejad".
As Mr. King, a Republican, rose as a Long Island politician in the 1980s, benefiting from strong Irish-American support, the I.R.A. was carrying out a bloody campaign of bombing and sniping, targeting the British Army, Protestant paramilitaries and sometimes pubs and other civilian gathering spots.
In later years, by all accounts, Mr. King became an important go-between in talks that led to peace in Northern Ireland, drawing on his personal contacts with leaders of I.R.A.'s political wing, Sinn Fein, and winning plaudits from both Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, the former president and the British prime minister.
As Mr. King takes the spotlight this week with his hearings on the radicalization of American Muslims, "Vale of Tears" shows he has long been considering the dangers posed by radical Muslims, as well as what role a mere congressman can play in protecting his country.
WE need to stop Muslim immigration or we are going to end up like the UK and France. Now that they are in a pickle they are not sure how to extract themselves.
The importance of these hearings is monumental and prehaps even historical. This is the line in the sand and izzlum knows it. I hope he goes into the writings of the koran and hadeethaa and all the other hate literature of this cancer.
He has stood firm by not letting enemies “water down” the hearings by introducing side shows. We all know it that if that happened, the terrorists from the splc would spin this out of control and turn it into an anti Tea Party diatribe.
Pray for this man, because the work he is doing is of historical importance.
izzlum knows this, and Rep. King’s life and the lives of his family, are in great danger.
Lets stop acting like leftists when it comes to King. Instead of defending the indefensible, lets ask why our side was so stupid to put a past supporter of terrorism in the chairmanship of the Homeland Security Commitee. Anybody with a little knowledge of King knew he was a supporter and vocal backer of the Provos. For the last 15 years I knew this would eventually bite us in the ass. Instead of whining unfair, lets admit we were stupid for having King be a front man for anything to do with terrorism. Is there nobody else in the GOP who could have sat in this position. Instead our side selects the only representative who supported pub bombings in the past. This reminds me of the 90’s, when some of those selected to lead the correct impeachment of Slick were found out to have cheated on their wives also. The stupidity of our Congressional leaders never fails to amaze me anymore.
Don’t worry about King. If anyone tries to harm him, they will probably get a visit from the Belfast Nutting Squad.
Just reported on Fox....Keith Ellison crying during his testimony. Give me a break - did he shed those tears for every victim of his horrid sham religion? If he can’t reconcile his loyalty to Islam with what should be loyalty to America and Americans then he should resign.
You’d better get onto this thread fast and straighten out the misinformation. You were just telling us a few days ago that Islam is a peaceful religion, and it’s only a few fanatics we have to worry about. You said the vast majority of Americans understand this, so I guess you think Freepers are in the ignorant minority [i.e.: most of us think Islam, not radicalization, is the problem].
So here is a golden opportunity for you to sow your seeds of multicultural wisdom. Show up and explain how wrong we are, and that will display a modicum of courage and integrity on your part. I think you owe that much not merely to us, but to the Islam you know so well and defend (when you think no one is looking) so eloquently.
Islam is a cancer. The natural history and the prognosis for this disease, if left untreated, is clear. The treatments needed will be based on those for cancer. Will we have the stomach to understand and implement that?
Found the webmail link for Peter King....please join me in sending him a THANK YOU for his courage!
http://peteking.house.gov/email.shtml
With over a billion Muslims in the world, it stands to reason that there must be champions of a process to liberalize and de-radicalize orthodox Islam.
“What do you Freepers think about Keith Ellison’s big show at the hearings this morning?”
I say it was an Oscar-worthy example of taqiyya at its finest. I say “boo hoo hoo - cry me a (bleepin’) river.
I DID think that the black businessman’s traumatic story of losing his college student son to Islamic brainwashing, and now prison for terrorism, was very sad - my heart goes out to him and his family, and he was brave to come forward and be so outspoken about the real danger that radical Islam poses to our country.
” If he can’t reconcile his loyalty to Islam with what should be loyalty to America”
Of course he can’t. I fear most Americans are reluctant, or loathe, to face just how very different Islam is from any other “religion”.
No Muslim should hold public office here because their religion calls for no separation of mosque and state - the mosque IS the state. It’s more a political ideology than a true religion in that sense. Therefore, when Ellison was sworn in (on the Koran), he could never honestly swear to uphold, preserve, protect and defend our Constitution, due to the clear conflict between their religion of total submission to Allah/sharia law and our constitutional republic with all its freedoms. This would be true for any Muslim, elected or appointed. To take the oath of office for them is to use taqiyya - lying that is condoned, even encouraged, by Muhammad to fool the infidel(s) and further the mission of Islam to reign supreme over all nations.
I wish you would have been there to query him on this. Perhaps he could explain his oath of honesty (in between sobs).
Jamese, this is now the fourth invitation I’m extending to you to repeat on an actual Islamic thread what you’ve so far confined to ‘birther’ threads. Namely, your liberal-letter-perfect defense of Islam. If you really believe it, then why confine it to threads not related to Islam? Why not put it out there for broader FR consumption?
I’ll make it easy for you. Multiple choice. Do you believe:
(1) Islam is a bloodthirsty cult that requires, according to the quran, its adherents to cut the throats of infidels, or
(2) Islam is a mainstream, peaceful religion hijacked by a minority of extremists. I.e.: that it’s the moral equivalent of Christianity, save for a handful of radicals that enable Islamophobes to unfairly malign it.
Given the hours you spend harassing people on eligibility threads, surely you can spare a few seconds to clarify this point. Even your sole defender, Kenny Bunk, admits you’ve gone overboard on the shadenfreude. [I.e.: you’ve done a whiz-poor job of concealing your gloating over the courts’ refusal to rule on the Natural Born Citizen issue.] How about a veneer of balance? It’s not asking too much, is it?
Jamese, this is now the fourth invitation I’m extending to you to repeat on an actual Islamic thread what you’ve so far confined to ‘birther’ threads. Namely, your liberal-letter-perfect defense of Islam. If you really believe it, then why confine it to threads not related to Islam? Why not put it out there for broader FR consumption?
I’ll make it easy for you. Multiple choice. Do you believe:
(1) Islam is a bloodthirsty cult that requires, according to the quran, its adherents to cut the throats of infidels, or
(2) Islam is a mainstream, peaceful religion hijacked by a minority of extremists. I.e.: that it’s the moral equivalent of Christianity, save for a handful of radicals that enable Islamophobes to unfairly malign it.
Given the hours you spend harassing people on eligibility threads, surely you can spare a few seconds to clarify this point. Even your sole defender, Kenny Bunk, admits you’ve gone overboard on the shadenfreude. [I.e.: you’ve done a whiz-poor job of concealing your gloating over the courts’ refusal to rule on the Natural Born Citizen issue.] How about a veneer of balance? It’s not asking too much, is it?
It was nice talking to you but I’m going back to the topic of my thesis now, which is my primary posting interest.
Take care.
Either you are dishonest and inconsistent, or you could very well answer the multiple choice question by going with (2). Your dodge doesn’t surprise me. You like pimping for Islam when you’re confident of not getting caught, but you don’t dare do it in a more open and honest way.
Btw, as a Lutheran, what do you think of the ordination of practicing homosexuals?
Oh, and btw, not to dispute your intelligence, but (1) and (2) are mutually exclusive. I understand that cognitive dissonance is a specialty of liberals, however, and contradictions/irrationality/illogic are their stock and trade.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.