March 17, 2011
King Blew ItBy Pamela Geller
Investor's Business Daily editorialized Monday that Congressman Peter King (R-NY) "blew it" in his hearings on "Muslim radicalization," and that he "didn't even come close to delivering what he advertised with his investigation." IBD criticized King for calling as a witness Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN), a "close ally" of the Hamas-linked Islamic supremacist hate group the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Ellison, says the IBD editorial, "stole the show when he broke into tears while retelling the story of a Muslim paramedic who died in the World Trade Center. Ellison used the victim as an example of the "witch hunt" against Muslims in America by claiming he was falsely accused of involvement in the 9/11 plot."
It gives me no pleasure to be right, again. But I wrote on January 18 that King was over his head. I criticized King for calling Ellison and not terror expert Steven Emerson or Islamic expert Robert Spencer, and wrote: "Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, infamous for his pro-Hamas rallies and his pilgrimage to the Hajj in Saudi Arabia, paid for by the Muslim Brotherhood, is testifying, but Emerson and Spencer aren't? What can King achieve?"
All this has been proven correct. The entire enemedia coverage was all about Muslim Brotherhood-linked Congressman Hakim Mohammed (aka Keith Ellison)'s bawling and crocodile tears over a fictitious tale. Hakim claimed that the Muslim paramedic killed on 9/11 was accused of terror ties when he went missing after that day, until his remains were found. In fact, the only mentions anywhere of his being accused of terror ties are in leftwing publications criticizing the right for these accusations - but there is no record of anyone on the right ever actually making the accusations.
Also, the media never reported that Hakim Mohammed's hajj was paid for with $13,350 by the Brotherhood, that Hakim was a vocal supporter of the vile Louis Farrakhan, or that Hakim has long time ties Muslim Brotherhood and is a vocal pro-Hamas supporter. King's hearings should have been designed to expose stealth jihadists like Hakim, aka Ellison. But they fell far short of that.
The Muslim victims who testified were the tip of the iceberg, and don't get me started on Jasser.
Yet King, for all his failures, looks great compared to Barack Hussein Obama. Obama has enabled Islamic supremacist infiltration at the highest levels. Arif Alikhan, Assistant Secretary for Policy Development at the Department of Homeland Security, is affiliated with the Brotherhood-linked Muslim Public Affairs Council, and as deputy mayor of Los Angeles, quashed as "Islamophobic" an LAPD initiative simply to survey the demographics of area mosques.
Rashad Hussain, Obama's envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, characterized the Bush Administration's prosecution of Islamic Jihad leader Sami al-Arian as a witchhunt.
Dalia Mogahed, Obama's chief Muslim adviser, has praised Sharia law on British television, on a show run by the Islamic supremacist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is banned in many countries.
But in the age of Obama, we are not merely infiltrated, no...that is so five years ago. They are running the show. Yes, the enemy is in control. Obama confirmed that in March 2011 with one of his most egregious acts of submission to Islam. As Congressman Peter King (R-NY) began his hearings on the radicalization of Muslims in the United States, the Obama Administration issued a statement saying: "We know there are many different reasons why individuals -- from many different faiths == succumb to terrorist ideologies."
What other faiths? It is only Islam that has inspired a terrorist ideology, as demanded, commanded by the Qur'an, Hadith and Sira. For Obama to pretend otherwise is madness. Yet on March 6, 2011, Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser, Denis McDonough, gave a speech at the ADAMS Center, a mosque in Sterling, Virginia. WorldNet Daily reported in February 2008: "Another D.C.-area mosque, the ADAMS Center, was founded and financed by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and has been one of the top distributors of Wahhabist anti-Semitic and anti-Christian dogma."
Also, Imam Mohamed Magid is the President of the Islamic Society of North America. ISNA has admitted ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, and is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case.
Ignorant of or indifferent to all this, McDonough said at the ADAMS Center that Islamic jihadists "falsely claim to be fighting in the name of Islam," and that "we're exposing the lie that America and Islam are somehow in conflict. That is why President Obama has stated time and again that the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam." McDonough also said: "We also undermine al Qaeda's ideology by exposing the lie that it is somehow defending Islamic traditions when, in fact, al Qaeda violates the basic tenets of Islam."
Yet there have been over 15,000 Islamic jihad attacks around the world since 9/11, each one carried out with the imprimatur of a Muslim cleric. Just in the last few years, we have seen two Muslims in New Jersey found guilty of going jihad and plotting to kill Americans; the Christmas day underwear bomber on an airplane over Detroit, the Times Square jihad bomber, the Weapons of Mass Destruction bomber in Texas, the Fort Hood jihadi, the Christmas-tree lighting bomber in Portland, Oregon, jihadi pirates off the coast of Somalia, the jihad in Thailand, Hezb'allah's jihad in Lebanon, Islamic slaughter of Christians in Egypt, jihad murder in Ethiopia, Indonesia, Russia, and so many other places. Everywhere there are Muslims, there is a level of conflict.
How absurd, then, for the Obama Administration to claim that terrorists are "individuals" from "many different faiths." What other faiths? Where are the Christians or Jews committing acts of violence and justifying them by reference to their scriptures? This claim from the Obama Administration is deception to advance Islam; this is the same taqiyya we hear from Muslim Brotherhood groups in the US on a daily basis.
What does the mullah in the White House think he is going to achieve with this suicidal propaganda? And what does Peter King hope to achieve by sugarcoating the problem we face? Isn't there anyone on either side of the aisle who will do what is necessary to defend the American people from the jihad?
Pamela Geller is the editor and publisher of the Atlas Shrugs website and former associate publisher of the New York Observer. She is the author of The Post-American Presidency.