Rep. Ellison brings up bigotry at Congressional hearing – but it never happened
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Mich) “testified” at a Congressional hearing yesterday. The hearings are designed to gather information on the radicalization of American Muslims, but some think it’s a witch hunt, and Ellison took the opportunity of the first day of hearings to start them off with tears and total mis-direction.
Oh yeah, he lied too.
For clarification, my title refers to the fact bigotry did not happen in the Mohammed Salman Hamdani case. No proof, just a made-up story. Certainly, bigotry did happen to many Muslim Americans, so why does Ellison bring up this example exclusively?
From Matthew Shaffer at National Review Online with hat tips to Weasel Zippers and Atlas Shrugged.
This morning, Rep. Keith Ellison (Democratic-Farmer-Labor party, Minn.) appropriated a hearing on Islamic radicalism by weeping his way through a speech about whata-buncha-nasty-bigots Americans are. He chose as his case in point Mohammed Salman Hamdani, a Pakistani-born Muslim American who rushed to lower Manhattan on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, to assist in rescue efforts, and died in the collapse of the World Trade Center. Here’s how Representative Ellison tells the story of the aftermath of his death:
After the tragedy some people tried to smear his character solely because of his Islamic faith. Some people spread false rumors and speculated that he was in league with the attackers only because he was Muslim. It was only when his remains were identified that these lies were fully exposed. Mohammed Salman Hamdani was a fellow American who gave his life for other Americans. His life should not be defined as a member of an ethnic group or a member of a religion, but as an American who gave everything for his fellow citizens.
Does Ellison’s account check out with reality?
No. It is actually pretty close to the opposite of the truth. In fact, six weeks after the September 11 attacks — before Hamdani’s remains were identified, which Ellison implies to be the turning point of public perception — Congress signed the PATRIOT Act into law with this line included: “Many Arab Americans and Muslim Americans have acted heroically during the attacks on the United States, including Mohammed Salman Hamdani, a 23-year-old New Yorker of Pakistani descent, who is believed to have gone to the World Trade Center to offer rescue assistance and is now missing.” That is, Hamdani was actually singled out for particular high honors among the thousands of victims of the September 11 attacks.
Please take the time to read Shaffer’s full post as it goes into much more detail about Ellison’s crocodile tears on day one of the hearings.
The Koran directs that believers convert, enslave, or kill infidels and demands sharia law everywhere. How are these directives not seditious and antithetical to our constitutional form of government that guarantees security in ones person and that no state religion be established? Just askin'.
what PV said
A Democrat from Michigan – enough said!!!
The radicalization of American Muslims is a concern worthy of investigation, but not by Congressional hearings which are more theater than anything. Made for TV testimony will be the order of the day, with each party trying to win the PR battle. Re. Plainvillan's comment: recent history doesn't bear out that muslims are serious about waging holy wars against the "infidels". Big chunks of the 160 million killed in wars and genocide during the 20th century were victims of non-religious forces (Stalin, Mao for example). Other kinds of war: for example civil wars, wars for territory and economic advantage, wars of independence and post-colonial conflict, are waged by nations of every religion, but without religion as a motivating factor. Compared to the rest of the world, muslim nations rarely wage wars of any consequence, and it is certainly difficult to find any instance of war waged purely to convert, enslave or kill infidels.
Islam is a belief system that is not confined to any nation, but advocates a worldwide Caliphate and subjugation of non-believers. It is a belief system whose imagery and practice is filled with violence, especially toward women. Like Communism, it must compel and control where it cannot convince.
Until the late 20th century, Muslims lacked the means to attack at long distance, but they now have the means. While it may be true that "Muslim nations rarely wage wars of any consequence", if you are killed in one of their "inconsequential" attacks, you are still dead and they rejoice.
Islam is an existential threat to the USA and freedom everywhere.
Post not about war David R-it’s about attacking Americans.
Fact: Since 9/11 more people have died at the hands of Christian radicals on American soil than have died at the hands of Muslim radicals.
And btw, is this waste of money and recources? another example of “smaller government”?
FACT?? Perhaps you could provide a link.
Way to go with eliminating the territory where almost all of radical Islam does it's dirty work by defining the limits: ""on American soil""Why do you think we chose to fight the war on terrorism where they come from? These hearings are about exposing the GROWING radicalization in this country.
Even if you manage to exclude most of the world from counting terrorist acts of Muslim radicals I don't believe your stats.
Nice. Your "fact" is a cut and paste job – word for word – from a Maddow blog post comment yesterday. Can you provide a direct link (or two) to an official FBI report specifying this problem with Christian radicals domestically? Details of their crimes and the people they killed? Why eliminate the middle east and far east? Or maybe your taking advantage of the fact 75% of Americans consider themselves Christian and only 2% Muslim? Obviously, quite a few Christians kill other people, yet we don't hear reports of them shouting "Jesus Saves" as they pull the trigger to kill non-believers.
This hearing is to look into the radicalization of Americans that is happening domestically and in prisons. I have no idea if it will do any good – probably not – but I thought everyone wanted to "discuss" these things and get them out in the open?
Any comment on Ellison lying to the committee about what happened to Handani and his fake tears? (You know – the post?)
It's also good to know you figure anything that happened on or before 9/11 doesn't count.
He is just practicing Al-taqiyya, or the sanctioned lying to non believers.
You got there first, dang it.
To Dims @2:20
Is there an analogous word for the lying liberals/progressives/socialists/statists do to “non believers”?? 😉
Ya got me! 😉
Is the left ever thought maybe they should stop trying to lie to us? It's not the 1800's anymore. We can all use Google and find out what really happened.
I don't know whether or not there is a radicalization of Muslims going on this country. I will leave that to the CIA, FBI, state law enforcement and other intelligence gathering organizations. These are the same folks who are keeping an eye on Christian radicals, skin heads, the Aryan Nation and every other radical group. Congress is incapable of not making it a political circus, e.g. the controversy involving Rep. Ellison. Chances are Congressional hearings will end up being a disservice to everyone involved, especially the majority of American Muslims. I am more concerned about those who want to make the US a one-party nation. America needs both conservatives and liberals: those who want change and those who want to maintain the status quo. We get in trouble when we think either of the ideological groups (conservatives with a capital C, and liberals with a capital L) has all the answers, or can wield power without the counter balance of the other.
"I don’t know whether or not there is a radicalization of Muslims going on this country"
If there isn't these hearings will certainly result in it.
Is this a modification of "it's Bush's fault?"
If the Muslim population is as peace loving and resistant to radicalization as you insist, then this should only prove it.
Thttp://www.mpac.org/assets/docs/publications/MPAC-Post-911-Terrorism-Data.pdfhat has been online everywhere!!!! Oh, well not on the extreme right sites…
Posted everywhere on news sites-oh- well- not everywhere.
Why do a blog then only want like minded comments???-don’t understand-you respond so viciously …never mind-deleting this site.
Oh and btw, the hearings are about the radicalization of Muslim Americans post 9/11.
Outta here-good luck.
"Oh and btw, the hearings are about the radicalization of Muslim Americans post 9/11."
That's what I said.
You call it vicious when someone wants you to provide proof of your "facts"?I personally love the attempt at an argument. I stand by my statement above. Radical Islam is a much bigger problem in other parts of the world. The USA decided to do something about it after Radical Islam attacked us "On American soil". I'm tired of people trying to whitewash that FACT.
<span style="font-family: Arial, serif; font-size: 12px; color: #333333;">
<p style="clear: both; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Your link was broken, <a style="text-decoration: underline; color: #326693;" href="http://www.mpac.org/assets/docs/publications/MPAC-Post-911-Terrorism-Data.pdf" rel="nofollow">here it is. I asked for FBI data on terrorism, we get a report from the Muslim Public Affairs Council.
<p style="clear: both; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Assuming your report is accurate, it tells a story, but what are they leaving out? Forty-five incidents/plots by violent Muslim extremists resulted in 17 deaths. Why did they suggest Hassan’s Fort Hood attack might not want to be included? (The 17 includes Fort Hood.)
<p style="clear: both; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Seventy-eight incidents/plots by violent non-Muslim extremists resulted in 28 deaths, or 40 if you include the DC sniper case. What is their reasoning to put Malvo/Allen in the non-Muslim extremist category? I’d call it Muslim extremists 29, and “other” 28 …
<p style="clear: both; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Since Muslims make up 2% of the population and the rest of us make up 98%, where does that take us in the discussion? A minuscule amount of the 2% are probably violent radical Muslims, so where does that take us?
<p style="clear: both; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">The report’s definition of non-Muslim extremists includes white nationalists, anti-government, “militias”, Christian extremists, black separatists (Nation of Islam), Jewish extremists and a heterodox cult.
<p style="clear: both; padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">How you can relate black separatists, neo-nazis, and anarchists (among others) with Christians I’ll never figure out
true-I was thinking of Lochner (forgot the spelling -Gifford shooter), Broder (sp) Tiller/killer, McVeigh, the MLK bomber and all those militia cells (that are escalating).
This is just un-American, sorry. I thought McCarthyism, the interrment of the Japanese Americans, etc. was a part of the past that would never exist in my lifetime-hate to see things like this.
And, yes, you are very right (errr, in more than 1 way) , there are really nasty responses to people that disagree on a liberal site!
I wish there was more debate without vitriol as I remember my parents and their friends discussions at cocktail parties or while playing cards. They disagreed, but did not jab at or insult each other (libtard, …etc).
(BTW< White nationals, the militia,…aren't they "Christian" extremists-??? Don't know -I sorta lumped them in there.) Asking a question nicely-don't attack-lol.
Vicious? Where is the vicious? Don't give up! Just bring references.
As for "like mindedness", have you ever tried to post a conservative (or even moderate) post on some of the far lefty sites? They ban you immediately!
crystal4 brought the reference. I debunked his/her statement using his/her own report as a guide.
The religion itself calls for nothing more than a world-wide Caliphate based on Sharia Law. They (I refer to the radicalized elements who are everywhere, yes even here) have made big inroads in Europe and are now experiencing real push-back for the first time. In great part because of the realization that Sharia Law bears no relation to Western ideals. Talk to Israel about their warlike nature. Talk to women about their "rights". Talk to the institutionalized poor about the rigid hierarchical clan structures. In general I firmly believe that Congressional hearings have the benefit of enlightening some of us with their heads in the sand.
I don't think the American people need to get their information from posturing congressmen and partisan commentators. Why have Congressional hearings now when there seems to be forces of liberalisation and democracy at work in Arab nations? Movement toward western style freedoms and the same liberal ideals of our founding fathers will be the most effective counter to radicalization.
Before we put too much faith in the forces of "liberalization and democracy" in Arab nations, be sure to note the recent ugly harrassment of women in Egypt trying to celebrate the rights of women (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jA0lTCLBfPISCkbcDhbjgma1OOJQ?docId=e75dbfdfaf294cbd9ee5ebd557c9887e)
If the traditional debasement and persecution of women persists even after their "liberation", why not their dislike and persecution of infidels?
Agree. In fact I would argue the opposite of David R. The Saudis (our allies…)have very carefully pushed Wahabbism (sp?) in the majority of the mosques and the majority of the clerics in the US and Europe. This is an overt policy. It is a very conservative form of the Muslim religion and a throwback to the middle ages and is so far away from liberalization and enlightenment that I have to chuckle.
Arab anger toward the west is probably not motivated by religion as much as it is by our support of the regimes that oppress their citizens. Saudi Arabia, the home of Osama bin Laden and the 9-11 hijackers, is a case in point. If we can support democratization of the Arab world, liberalization of societies will take place over time, just as it has here in the US.
Again, exactly the opposite. The religion acts as a systemic reinforcement of despotic rule. The Arab world will not be democratized (at least not the way we do democracy) – the religion won't allow it. Is there room for some social liberalization? Yes. But not much, and the people on the street know it.
I agree that it is too much to expect US style democracy out of the gate. Democratizing nations have a learning curve concerning the duties, power and expectations of elected leaders from town council members to Presidents. Universal acceptance of the orderly transfer of power is also key. Finding a system that works for them will take time. Improving that system takes time too. Think how long it took the US to give full citizenship to women and ethnic minorites. Re. religious control of government: I can think of no democracy that is bound and chained by its religious leaders. So while the Arab world may not have US style democracy, it is still very exciting to watch the awakening of democratic forces in the Arab world. Isn't it better to be cautiously optimistic than defeatist?
Yes, I am cautiously optimistic! I embrace the heroic citizens in Egypt, Yemen etc. seeking freedom. However, I despair because of the viciousness of the jihad. When I read the book, Fire by Sebastian Junger, with it's depiction of the use of terror by the Taliban, I cringe. They know that the savagery of their slaughter of the Soviets and now our allies, has a double-edged rate of success. They destroy the infidels by psychological warfare, as well as weaponry. God save the peaceful Pashtuns and ultimately us.
Thanks for the refernce to Sebastian Unger’s book. (I’ll read it ). Remember the Taliban is an organization wrought out of war and resisitence against foreign enemies.??Its ?pedigree is violence.??Its core is? totalitarian. It is in not an organization of the majority, and it is just the kind of internal threat ?that? safety and prosperity society will overcome.
DavidR, It's probably too late for you to read this, but Fire is several essays, the one concerning Afghanistan is "The Lion in Winter". It's about Massoud, who was the charismatic leader who could have unified the tribes. Unfortunately he was killed on 9/11 by Pakistanis, it was not a coincidence. This was the insidious plan. They knew that US would eventually attack and they knew Massoud hated Taliban, he was Afghanistan's best hope for a future.
David: While I won't give in on the intractability of the Muslim religion, particularly as it is being taught lately, I give you big points for your positive take on this. The bottom line is that we still must remain vigilant in the defense of our country.