Republican representative Peter King, the Chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, has been accused of being a racist and an Islamophobe and characterized as paranoid, hysterical, anti-American, anti-civil rights, and as a McCarthy-like witch hunter and as a provocateur.
In actuality, representative King is a Johnny-Come-Lately to the question of radical Islam and national security. From 2006 to 2009, Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman, in his capacity as Chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Relations, and then Democratic representative, Jane Harman, in her capacity as the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, held 20 such hearings in Washington, D.C.
Both Lieberman and Harman were also accused of being racists and of conducting an anti-Muslim witch hunt. Left-wing and liberal media pundits, allegedly pro-peace feminist groups (like Code Pink) said so–as did the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), an unindicted co-conspirator in terms of supporting a known Muslim terrorist group.
Whether one is a Republican or a Democrat, a Senator or a Representative, a male or a female political leader, the accusations remain the same. Harman was accused of “representing Israel not California;” Lieberman was accused of being biased, a bigot, a Zealot; neither his views nor his hearings could protect America’s national security. On the contrary, according to their very vocal critics, both Lieberman and Harman had endangered American interests, both here and abroad, by looking at violent Islamist ideology and its pursuit of a global, Sharia-ruled Caliphate.
According to notorious mosqueteer Imam Rauf: “The fear I have is the banner headline in the Muslim world … that Muslims are under attack [is something] which radicalizes people even further.”
The overly emotional and self-righteously very angry Muslim-American Representative Keith Ellison stated: “We need to conduct a thorough, fair analysis and to do no harm. The approach of today’s hearing, I fear, does not meet these standards,” as he sobbed over a presumed incident of bias against a Muslim saint who had been treated as a sinner. He claimed that a 9/11 rescuer who died in the collapse of the World Trade Center was initially considered a suspect in the attacks. The problem is that Ellison’s facts were all wrong, that there had been no bias, no defamation.
However, this ability to become so emotional in public, on cue, based on a big lie, characterizes jihadic psychology. Representative Ellison is not just your regular, ordinary Muslim-American. Rather, he has a long history of being associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Nation of Islam. In addition, there are major, murky, and mysterious gaps in Ellison’s resume.
Ellison displays an ability not only to lie in public but to believe his own lie. Other jihadists emotionally exaggerate the extent to which they are hated or have experienced “Islamophobia.” This seems to be as out of touch with reality as is Ellison’s belief in a lie. For example, according to the FBI, of the 1,732 victims of religious hate crimes in 2008 in America, 66.1 percent were targeted because of anti-Jewish bias and 7.5% were targeted because of anti-Islamic bias.
So, what is really going on?