Texas Congressman calls for "hearing on the radicalization of Christians"

It's not just the KOS, it's our government in official documents. There's the FBI's summary of terrorism in the U.S. 1980-2005, which listed 318 "terrorist incidents". The biggest culprits were Puerto Ricans of various factions, who committed over 90 incidents. The next largest category was eco-terrorists: tree-huggers who sabotaged logging equipment, and PETA activists who raided mink farms, wrecking the cages and freeing the minks. Moslems? They came in well down the list, with only 19 "incidents". Of course, one of these was the 9-11 attack. But for the FBI the whole of the 9-11 attack counts as just one incident, equal in its tally to one raid on a mink farm.
Moslems committed just 6% of the terrorist attacks, but they accounted for 94% of the fatalities (over 3000). Funny how all the non-Moslem terrorists rarely kill anybody. Dozens of mink farms attacked, but no fatalities. Yet for the FBI these were terrorist attacks, each equivalent in the tally to the whole of 9-11.

ROFL, Canto!

You wrote: 'It is even perhaps likely there are more actual incidents of Christian terrorists ... than of Muslim terrorism in the US, thanks in good part to government efforts to nip Muslim terrorist plots in the bud.'

Answer this question and you'll see how utterly daft your statement is.

Would it be possible to set up a website called 'Christian Watch' that was filled day after day with news from all corners of the globe about Christians fighting to establish Christian Theocracies, Christians murdering their religious opponents (and each other for not being Christian enough), of the author(s) of such a website receiving death threats from Christians who didn't want their nefarious religious war being too closely examined? Eh...!!?? Well ....!!

I sometimes despair of those who post a couple of anti-jihad comments and then blow something like this out their a**!

PS. There *is* a site called 'Christian Watch', but its content is mild-mannered stuff like, Octopus Fossil Shocks Evolution World.

Too cute for words, and not a kalashnikov in sight. :)

What is his e-mail, does anyone know. Let's write him and tell him to go for it. And to quit being racist about blue eyed people.

It appears that unless you live in his zip code coverage, he is unable to talk to you. However, his website does list a phone numbers to call:

(202) 225-7508 or 713-383-9234

During a Wednesday House Homeland Security Committee hearing on “The Radicalization of Muslim-Americans,” Green wondered why the chairman had only focused on one religion.
......................................

Hmmmm...perhaps because the Muslim community is where the terrorists are? Might that be it?

More:

He added: “I do think that it is a problem of perception. People who see the hearings and never hear about the hearing on the radicalization of Christianity have to ask themselves, ‘Why is this missing?’ Why don’t we go to the next step and ask, how is that a blue-eyed, blonde-haired, white female in the United States of America can become radicalized to the point of wanting to do harm to this country? We don’t have that type of hearing. That’s the problem.”
......................................

Heatsketch already beat me to the punch, writing:

"I can think of two blue-eyed, blonde-haired females who were radicalized to the point of wanting to do harm to America and other nations. They were named Coleen LaRose and Jamie Paulin-Ramirez. And oh, I should probably mention that they were Muslims."

Here's Collen La Rose, also know as "Jihad Jane":

http://canaryinthecoalmine.typepad.com/.a/6a013487f321e0970c014e869bbbbf970d-800wi

Yup—just as blue-eyed, blonde-haired, white, and female as all get-out. Also, *Muslim*.

I haven't been able to find a picture of Jamie Paulin-Ramirez, also known as "Jihad Jamie". One thing is clear, though—she's Muslim as well.

And this isn't anything new for Texas Congressman Al Green.

Here he is on camera, comparing investigating Muslim terrorists in America to "defending the KKK”:

http://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/2011/03/texas-rep-al-green-no-not-that-al-green.html

His drowning out the reporter from the Washington Post was rather disturbing. Also, his implication that the Ku Klux Klan has never been investigated is just ludicrous.

I haven't been able to find a picture of Jamie Paulin-Ramirez, also known as "Jihad Jamie".

Here you go:

http://a57.foxnews.com/images/601697/350/450/4_22_031310_jamie350.jpg

Her hyphenated name and subsequent career indicates that marrying a Hispanic guy wasn't enough of the Other to satisfy her Western self-hatred.

LL: this is a great post. and all of those repuplicans kissing ass to Islam are patheitic to say the least. however the one you posted about Rumsfeld: the vast majority of muslims are moderate is true though.
M

Go GET 'EM!!

If you mean, among others, Eric Robert Rudolph, you're barking up the wrong tree. Christians are racist survivalists who think White People are God's Chosen Race?--get REAL! Genuine Right to Life advocates roundly condemn any violence for the simple reason that they ARE Christian and that killing is killing--it is not a religious act.

That was handy. Thanks. I'll add that to the section I teach on cults for Sunday School.

miriam,

"however the one you posted about Rumsfeld: the vast majority of muslims are moderate is true though."

This is a sweeping generalization about some 800 million people spread out all over the globe, from the Pacific to the Atlantic. It's impossible to know, let alone verify. It's at best merely an inference based upon the principle that it must be the case; whether or not it really is.

Meanwhile, I want my political representatives, police, intelligence forces, and news media to protect my society -- and unless you have some magical key that enables us to tell the difference between a harmless Muslim and a deadly Muslim, then you are with your generalization not only useless in this regard, but to the extent you may have even an iota of sociopolitical influence, you are endangering my life and the lives of my loved ones.

There you go again. You are right about ALL Muslims being problematical, to put it mildly, but you remain clueless that whatever should be done with them in Western nations must be in conformity with the law of any specific Western nation as the law stands now (and even if changed, specifically how the law can be changed).

Until you grasp this, you are right without knowing how to be right, which is to say you offer, in the final analysis, useless commentary. My bet is on your not grasping this.

For your own sake and the sake of your cause (which I overwhelmingly agree with), study law. Soon like.

Wellington would have been one of the precious few dissenting voices trying to tell FDR, the Congress, the Supreme Court, and most of the American people back in the 1940s that they can't round up Japanese-Americans (and Italian- and German-Americans, btw) and put them in detention camps.

Loves God,

If we can say anything definite at all about McVeigh's beliefs, it is that he was a theist or deist of some sort (probably a loose deist, or a loose Christian of some sort, or possibly a loose agnostic), not an atheist. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god or gods.

See Time magazine interview (which clearly disqualifies him from being an atheist).
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/03/miami-herald-columnist-plays-cheap.html#comment-772925

Not that any of this really has much to do with McVeigh's motives for blowing up that government building.

Interesting, isn't it?

When the Patriot Act and other anti-terrorism legislation was first passed liberals worried loose wording would allow lesser or anyway other crimes to be much more harshly punished under the inappropriate label, "terrorism."

No doubt to some extent that concern was valid.

But the fakers who want to falsely diminish the danger of Muslim terrorism and magnify the danger of "domestic," "home-grown," and even "Christian" terrorism have been able to exploit the slack in legal definitions to classify, just as you say, 9/11 as 1 terrorist incident right alongside a raid on a mink farm.

And so we get the famous KOS equation, Christian Right = Taliban.

It's an ill wind, they say.

American that I am, I confess I cannot see how a pair of gays getting married in front of some liberal Protestant congregation or a woman choosing abortion is contrary to either my personal interests or those of my country.

Selfish as I am, if I did see it I would very likely oppose both.

Ebonystone reads with much better comprehension than you.

Why is that?

Though I must say I think he is unfair to Hillary, Nancy, and their ilk.

You say:

''Wellington would have been one of the precious few dissenting voices trying to tell FDR, the Congress, the Supreme Court, and most of the American people back in the 1940s that they can't round up Japanese-Americans (and Italian- and German-Americans, btw) and put them in detention camps.''

But, isn't the essential difference that in the 1940's, America *declared war on Japan*, after Pearl Harbour, and *Germany declared war on America,* because Japan was her ally ? And also with Italy ? In other words, one had the Axis powers at war with the Allies, after an *official declaration of war had been made.*

It was easy and clear cut; one *country* declaring war on another *country.* Therefore, Japanese, German and Italian Americans *could* be interned, as possible *enemy aliens.*

Unfortunately, that is *not* the case today, and why we are in such a mess. Sorry to be rude about one of your past Presidents, (not that my own 'leaders' have done any better), but declaring 'a war on terror', is meaningless and potentially disastrous.

islam is at war with us, but unfortunately, islam isn't confined to any one country, and until we get leaders who are prepared to say, 'yes, we in the West are at *war with islam, wherever it is found*, we will continue to be in the dangerous muddle we are in. Which is why it isn't possible to round up mohammedans and intern/deport them as enemy aliens.

What we can do, and should be putting pressure on our elites to make it happen, is to insure that *all* mohammedans convicted of jihad, or jihad attempts, are stripped of their citizenship, and *immediately* deported to wherever in dar-al-harb they want, never to be allowed back into the West, under any circumstances.

And, of course, *stop* any further mohammedan immigration into the West.

No, I wouldn't have. First of all, the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it means and, second, being able to identify an enemy (e.g., Japan), and under law, aided things immensely. Problem is today that Islam is not identified as the enemy, even though it should be, and under present Constitutional interpretation (not my interpretation mind you) asking for the rounding up of Muslims in America is going to go nowhere. Want to fix this? Then work to change the law. Ignore present law and it will be a fool's errand.

LemonLime wrote:

I haven't been able to find a picture of Jamie Paulin-Ramirez, also known as "Jihad Jamie".

Here you go...
.............................

Thanks, LemonLime, but I believe that is actually a picture of "Jihad Jane" Colleen La Rose. Quite a number of articles on Jamie Paulin-Ramirez feature pictures of her more famous—infamous—sister-in-Jihad.

In any case, I agree with the rest of your post. She is also white from all descriptions—blue-eyed and blond or not. Also—and here's the salient point: *Muslim*.

Jan,

But, isn't the essential difference that in the 1940's, America *declared war on Japan*, after Pearl Harbour, and *Germany declared war on America,* because Japan was her ally ? And also with Italy ? In other words, one had the Axis powers at war with the Allies, after an *official declaration of war had been made.*

This is an important distinction; but it's not the one Wellington repeatedly makes by which he claims that we can't take self-defensive military action against Muslims and their Islam -- because he claims our laws prevent us from doing so.

Once we eliminate the distinction you cited -- i.e., once our government simply recognizes that Islam (= Muslims enabling Islam's trans-national deadly sedition) is at war against us -- hot war, not some abstract ideological war, but a war in which already thousands of our civilians have been mass-murdered, and thousands more are being planned on being murdered as we speak -- then Wellington is in effect saying that our laws render us impotent to engage in military self-defense against an enemy who has been and continues to be at war against us and killing our people -- and planning even worse than what they've already done. I don't know what laws Wellington is referring to, but any nation-state which has laws like that should simply commit suicide now and save itself the trouble. It's absurd. Wellington is continually making a strange error in logic and calculation; and, as I have repeatedly tried to point this out to him in various permutations over many months, it seems his brain is like a machine stuck on some setting which only expert technicians sent out from the manufacturer, apparently, can dislodge.

You go on to write about the WW2 situation:

It was easy and clear cut; one *country* declaring war on another *country.* Therefore, Japanese, German and Italian Americans *could* be interned, as possible *enemy aliens.*

...declaring 'a war on terror', is meaningless and potentially disastrous.

islam is at war with us, but unfortunately, islam isn't confined to any one country, and until we get leaders who are prepared to say, 'yes, we in the West are at *war with islam, wherever it is found*, we will continue to be in the dangerous muddle we are in. Which is why it isn't possible to round up mohammedans and intern/deport them as enemy aliens.

I agree essentially with your description here; but again, the inability you describe is only psychological and cultural -- it is not legal, as Wellington persistently insists. The reasons we cannot take appropriate measures of self-defense against Muslims (including detention, halting immigration, deportation) are only the following:

1) Our government and our mainstream news media do not recognize that Muslims, by way of their Islam, are at hot war against us ("hot war" meaning they are killing our people now, along with stealthily and deceptively infiltrating us to make worse violence against us more possible)

(#1 includes all Western governments and Western mainstream news media, of course, not just the U.S.A.)

2) Our government and our mainstream news media do not recognize that this is a new type of war, unlike all previous wars of history, insofar as the enemy is not a single nation or alliance of nations, but is a trans-national organization united by an ancient religious ideology which directly informs and inspires their deadly sedition calculated to wage war against us by any means -- utilizing violence, stealth and deception -- other than direct military invasion only because they are currently incapable of direct military invasion.

3) And finally, our government and our mainstream news media do not recognize that, per #2, the enemy is not arrayed as combatants as the Geneva Convention defines them, but constitutes potentially any and all Muslims and that the distinction between "civilian" and "military" no longer pertains with respect to this enemy and the deadly dangers it poses to our societies -- dangers we should reasonably assume will only escalate horrifically as we continue to fail to take appropriate measures of self-defense against them.

Reasons 1-3 have nothing to do with our laws, and everything to do with our culture and the psychology of our representatives and many of our people because of that culture, which has become over the past 60-odd years heavily influenced by PC MC. Once our societies dismantles this ridiculous PC MC paradigm that more or less collectively governs its thoughts and feelings, our laws will not only not hinder us from taking all due appropriate actions against this new (and yet, very old) enemy -- our laws will positively help us in that regard.

"Once our societies dismantle this ridiculous PC MC paradigm which more or less collectively governs our thoughts and feelings about Islam, our laws will not only not hinder us from taking all due appropriate actions against this new (and yet, very old) enemy -- our laws will positively help us in that regard."

-------------------------------------

Cannot agree more! Our laws appear to have all it takes!

I hope they won't be twisted by homegrown taqiya to the point of becoming unrecognizable!

Solzhenytsin points out that the Soviet Union had great laws, but they were never used, each law had amendments, and the amendments were ultimately to become the law....

You're the one who wrote on a previous thread that it is not a matter of law, not a matter of the Constitution. And this is where you err egregiously.

Respecting the detention of Japanese-Americans during WWII, this was done according to law. Your going on about how the proper dealing with Muslims in America is, in the final analysis, not a matter of law, not a matter of the Constitution, is so off base that I wonder why I continue to try to inform you of this (must be the teacher in me who never wants to give up on a student).

Holy Hell, you even faulted the Kansas legislature for its carefulness in crafting legislation which disallows, in effect, Sharia being applied (once again you're the wise man and others aren't, including Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders and the Kansas legislature). You're always on one note, la, la, la, to wit, if only we recognize the menace which Islam poses, then legal matters will follow as a matter of course. Not so simple. Legality and recognition must proceed in unison with each other. You think recognition is all that matters and that the law will be obedient to this recogntion. Yep, not so simple. I wonder if you'll ever figure this out. Right now I'd say probably not.

Wellington and LemonLime:

Guys, it pains me to see you go after each other. You're both right on so many issues, you both have so much of value to contribute, you're both on the same side ultimately. Try to "agree to disagree" if only for the sake of Psy-Ops, won't you?

I personally see merit in both of your arguments. I hope that ultimately we'll end up with LL's solution by way of some of Wellington's methods.

From someone on the outside of the argument, take my word for it that you are on the verge of consolidating your methodologies toward the achievement of the end goal.

Wells, I caution you against comforting the enemy. Can you give us some concrete steps to take to help us advance toward what you would consider to be a reasonable solution?

Wellington,

I never said that laws are generally irrelevant; only specifically irrelevant. It's up to you to re-read my argument and see what I'm talking about, so you can deal with it, and not a straw man.

Good reply to Joseph Auclair.

As someone who's house is not "all white", I'm someone else who takes John's statement in the Book of Revelation that the Elect compose people of every people, tongue, and nation quite literally. I further think that the honorable gentleman mentioned in this article is thus barking up the wrong tree.

However, there are times when the Christian faith condones violence. Just be sure we note violence against whom. Genesis 9 says that the death penalty for murder was revealed to Noah right after the flood in order to protect the image of God (man). While I might draw the line at "cruel and unusual punishments", I have no problem with the state executing people for murder, or waging war on certain occasions.

CGW,

I'll have to respectfully disagree, that disagreements are necessarily bad for psy-ops: it's the enemy who can't disagree amongst themselves without killing each other. We in the West can disagree (and debate) as part of a healthy process of constructive growth. Not all disagreements can be smoothed over; sometimes differences are important. It would be nice if we all agreed on methodology, but that would be unrealistic to expect at all times, I think.

At any rate, I think Wellington is stuck on a matter of logic, not substance.

Thanks, Uncle Cephas. I specifically mean gratuitous violence and wanton killing for base or evil motives.

I understood implicitly that you were being specifc respecting relevancy of the law. Even so, you're still wrong. Gee, what a shame the Kansas legislature didn't have you as an adviser when crafting the legislation they did against heinous and unconstitutional aspects of Sharia. Then they would have really gotten something done, eh?

Your going on and on about how the PC/MC paradigm on Islam, if only ended, would then see the law following as a matter of course is essentially correct, but still in the realm of high theory. Till such time, those who correctly see Islam for what it is will have to work within the parameters of present law (and social mores) to limit Islam's designs as much as possible. Think as Abraham Lincoln did rather than as William Lloyd Garrison did. For the last time, it is not enough to be right. You must know how to be right.

I agree with CGW's exasperation with our debates. It needs to come to an end. And so I will no longer bring up this particular topic again and will let someone else, if they are so inclined, do so with you. I will end on a note of harmony and that is that we both agree Islam is terrible and a menace to good things like liberty and equality under the law and that all Muslims, not just some, are, to put it mildly, problematical. This should be more than enough to keep us on "the same side" for a long time to come.

"Your going on and on about how the PC/MC paradigm on Islam, if only ended, would then see the law following as a matter of course is essentially correct, but still in the realm of high theory."

It's only high theory to the extent that people continue to think and feel PC MC. Clear through to the 1970s, cigarette smoking was common and although the idea that smoking was bad was in the air, it did not yet affect society. In 1960, for example, if someone would have insisted that society change such that people stopped smoking on a broad scale and even further to come to see on a broad scale that smoking is not cool but bad for you, he would have been dismissed as indulging in a will o' the wisp of high theory: "Sure," he'd have been told, "that would be nice, but for now, it's just high theory." Now look at that same society, transformed concerning smoking in the last 20 years -- such that not only ordinances are passed in various states and cities prohibiting smoking in public places; but more importantly, millions of people have voluntarily decided to quit smoking. George Will has noted this remarkable sea change in attitudes, without which mere laws would have been largely ineffectual (unless a society is totalitarian -- and even then, the effect is not as radical).

"Till such time, those who correctly see Islam for what it is will have to work within the parameters of present law (and social mores)..."

No; our only limitation is social mores, not our laws. There are no laws which limit us from taking appropriate measures of self-defense against enemy combatants who are currently killing us and trying to kill us in more horrific ways than they have already done. It is our social mores affected by PC MC -- it is not our laws -- which brackets out millions of the enemy combatants and redefines them as harmless non-enemies.

Thought Experiment

Imagine the ludicrous and outrageous hypothetical situation of a free society, such as ours, infiltrated by members of an organization whose central tenet is to kidnap, rape, torture and murder random little girls; imagine further that innumerable members of this organization have already been putting this tenet into brutal practice; imagine further that a mountain of evidence exists reasonably suggesting that their gruesomely evil practice is going to escalate horribly, not diminish, in the coming decades.

This hypothetical free society, being like ours, of course has laws against kidnapping, raping, torturing and killing anybody, including random girls.

However, imagine that this hypothetical free society has developed mores over the past half century by which it tends to refuse to see that members of this wicked and deadly organization are in fact deadly criminals who must be stopped. It is only the refusal of this society to recognize the proper definition of this organization and its members that is preventing them from applying their extant laws against them -- those extant laws are not preventing the society from stopping this organization and its members.

Now all we have to do to complete this thought experiment is substitute the hypotheticals for our actual situation we are in now:

The hypothetical free society is America (and any other nation in the West).

The wicked and deadly organization and its members is Islam and Muslims.

The kidnapping, raping, torturing and killing of random girls is the thousands of acts (including unsuccessful plots) of terrorism against us.

Finally, the social mores that prevent the hypothetical free society from stopping that wicked and deadly organization is our current PC MC, which prevents our actual society now from seeing, and defining, Muslims as deadly enemy combatants currently killing our people and planning more horrific ways of killing our people. It is only this culturally induced inability to recognize Muslims as deadly enemy combatants currently killing our people and planning more horrific ways of killing our people that is preventing us from applying our laws normally against Muslims for our self-defense.

Conclusion

I began by describing the hypothetical situation of my thought experiement as "ludicrous and outrageous". It is reasonable to say that our actual current situation is far, far worse and more dangerous than that hypothetical situation.

Good post, Wellington.