Thursday, March 10, 2011

S.J. Lee back on TV

Got home from work today and began to flip channels. Nothing out of the ordinary there. I wanted to check out who may be getting the upper hand in the Libyan "crisis." It appears the Colonel may well stay a bit longer than most of us thought. His forces are apparently starting to rout the opposition in some areas. Interesting little war this. Shame it is causing our price at the pump to skyrocket. I sometimes think that a little of the old imperialism is in order. None of this is what I want to talk about right now however.

Today as I was flipping channels, I came across Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee on MSNBC saying she was "outraged" (again) about something or other. This is old hat for this broad but as a man who enjoys comedy I stayed to watch for a bit. It appears that Sheila, dressed in her trademark red dress and sporting some kind of crazy hairdo, is outraged about the hearings on Mohammedan extremism being "hosted" by one Rep. King. I must admit (and I hate to do so) but at one point Lee did have a bit of a point. These hearings could indeed be construed by some as prejudice. Now I have noted before I do not trust a Mohammedan. I say this despite the fact that I have known some in the taxi business who I thought were fine people. With that being said, I certainly support an investigation into homegrown (and other) Mohammedan extremism. I would like to point out however that we, as a people, must be very careful not to slide down a very slippery slope. At the bottom of that slope is denial of rights, relegation of loyal citizens to second class status, and even worse. The whole affair is a double edged sword. We do indeed need to know the extent of Islamist extremism here in the United States and we do need to root out the same. It would be much easier if American Muslims spoke out, not just in a few individual cases, but in droves, against Islamists. This is something that does not seem to be happening. The silence of our fellow citizens who happen to be Muslim is deafening. It inspires and fuels distrust. We do however need to tread very carefully here. Very carefully indeed. I do not trust Islam or the practitioners of,  but I would certainly defend an innocent Muslim against  tyranny. While I don't think the "hearings" have or will reach the level of  "McCarthyism" it still is something that must be watched with a wary eye.

Now I have noticed that some who call themselves "Liberal" are braying (again) about the instances of homegrown terrorism of the non Mohammedan variety. To that I say, "Of course not all terrorists are Muslims." Only a fool believes all dangerous persons or organizations are of the Islamist variety. What galls me though is that I get the feeling that some in the "Liberal" camp actually are hoping for some kind of attack by a "right wing" terrorist or terror organization. Then they can (shrilly, like a queen in a beauty shop) screech, "I told you so." That kind of thinking is pathetic on the part of those who, again, call themselves Liberals. The fact of the matter is that some folks on the far left are not liberal at all. They are borderline anarchist. Many hate themselves and therefore hate everything including their nation. I really wish they had not hijacked  "liberalism." I know many good folk who are liberal, and I myself, can be pretty darn liberal on some issues. These people on the fringe left are far from liberal. Many of them are "fifth columnists" and are damaging our country.


Jayhawk said...

The Colonel is not staying in power longer than I thought, since I assumed from the beginning that his forces would defeat the rebel forces, as now seems to be happening.

As to your main point, that "It would be much easier if American Muslims spoke out, not just in a few individual cases, but in droves, against Islamists. This is something that does not seem to be happening. The silence of our fellow citizens who happen to be Muslim is deafening."

I assume you mean "terrorists" rather than "Islamists," since the latter is to the Muslim religion rather what a "fundamentalist" is to the Christian faith. I would hesitate to urge all Christains to "speak out against fundamentalists" just because a few fundamentalists happen to have become racist hatemongers. Most Christian fundamentalists pose no threat whatever to society, just as the vast majority of Islamists pose no threat.

As to speaking out, leaders of the Muslim religion are very, very active in helping to prevent the fomenting of terrorisnm in this country. A group of Muslim leaders meets with Detriot law enforcement monthly pursuant to that purpose, an organization called "BRIDGE" which has been copied in many major cities, including San Diego. They help law enforcement keep an eye on groups which might be tending toward radicalism of Muslim youth and/or lending support to overseas terrorist groups. It is, perhaps, understandable that they do not publicize the effort heavily, any more than most law enforcement agencies make public the names and faces of lay people participating in their programs.

The comments regarding the bomb in Oregon on MLK Day were not, I think, "hoping for" a non-Muslim terrorist, so much as point out the fallacy of King's panel focusing on Islamic terrorism as opposed to the threat of terrorism in general. I thought many of the people stated their arguments very poorly, and did imply happiness at the happening of a "white terroists event."

Bartender Cabbie said...

Yes when I speak of Islamist I am speaking of Islamic fundamentalists who are "warring" with the West. I actually have known a Muslim man who told me there was no such word as "Islamist," that it was just since 911 that this word came up. I don't know. I never really heard the word until a few years ago and it is usually associated with terrorists. I was not aware of the organization "BRIDGE" which you speak. It certainly is not publicized and perhaps for good reason. There have been credible threats against some who speak out.