Dr. Zuhdi Jasser’s Testimony on Islamic Radicalization

Dr. Jasser has long been a pro-American, pro-constitution voice in the Muslim community fighting hard to stop the spread of Islamism in America. His new organization American Islamic Forum for Democracy has been making great strides both within and without the Muslim community in spreading the message of freedom and combating Saudi-funded radicalism in this country.

Here’s an excerpt from his testimony before U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security Hearing:

Peeling the onion of denial that some form of a “theo-political” problem exists has not been without its challenges and landmarks. The public and private fallout from these hearings alone have been a clinic in exposing some of the pathologies hampering the progress of homeland security and genuine long-lasting counter-radicalization. Ten years after 9-11 our heroes at the Department of Homeland Security remain occupied predominantly with a highly sophisticated whack-a-mole program that is entirely dependent upon finding and capturing radical Islamists when they are in the final steps of their long Islamist journey having chosen a militant path of Islamism and on the verge of committing an act of terror.

As Mr. John Cohen stated last November before members of this committee, the Department is “not using ‘radicalization.’ [Its] focus is not to police thought but to prevent violence.”[1] For me as an American Muslim this is not about just treating the symptom of violence, it is about fighting the disease that leads so many of my co-religionists down a path that ends in violence. Would we not be smarter to develop programs that keep them from stepping out on to that Islamist path much earlier on in their radicalization before they get to the violent endpoint? It is not about policing thought. It is about demonstrating to a vulnerable part of our society that American values and freedom is the better pathway for their faith practice and in no way conflicted with our beautiful faith of Islam.

In my first testimony[2] before you, I laid out examples of that continuum of radicalization from the insidious, non-violent separatist Islamism to that militant more aggressive Islamism which directly threatens us. Our humble experience in the wake of these hearings has been that given the right environment, the vast majority of Muslims welcome assistance in confronting that subset of Muslims who are Islamists so that we can then better prevent the fueling of that subset of Islamists that are militant. The communications we received from so many Muslims a few of which I shared with you confirm this. If we cannot undertake in these halls the development of a strategy against the Islamist ideology that exploits America, exploits the faith of Islam, and exploits our freedoms to avoid critique, then we have shirked our responsibility as Americans and I submit also as observant Muslims.

[…]

As a faith community, focusing on the militants and violence alone is an exercise in futility which gives non-violent Islamists the ability to appear mainstream. Focusing only on violence forces non-Muslims to approach the issue of radicalization in an overly simplistic binary approach of— good Muslim nonviolent, bad Muslim violent. The reality is that Muslims who are violent extremists do not become so overnight. They come to that endpoint along with common travelers within the global supremacist political movement which is Islamism or political Islam. Islamism defined is the desire of some Muslims to create Islamic states or societies based in the interpretation of Islamic law (shariah) by faith leaders where the Muslim community (ummah) is also synonymous with the “Islamic nation-state”. These quasi-oligarchical leaders can be imams, clerics, or Islamist scholars who believe that their expertise gives them the right to determine and impose their interpretations of religion upon Muslim masses. Thus, Islamists ensnared in the theo-political movement of Islamism are inherently unable to identify with and bond positively to our own American concept of a nation based in an Establishment Clause, the separation of mosque and state, a manmade Constitution and reason. .

If you witness the public response of Muslim Brotherhood legacy groups in the United States to these hearings you will see the lengths they go to in vilifying anyone who dares address the threat at its source-Islamism. An observant Muslim becomes labeled by the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as “astro-turf” or “Uncle Tom.” The term Islamophobia is used incomprehensibly against devout Muslims as a battering ram to shun us within our own local faith communities for having the audacity to say that we have a problem and they are contributing to it. These groups wrap themselves in the blanket of my faith and imagined civil rights abuses in an attempt to deny Muslims like me a voice in this argument. Imagine Ranking Member Thompson if Republicans were able to remove your voice from the debate. Despite accusations to the contrary, our fight against Islamism is not about denying someone a seat at the lunch counter it is about fighting a political construct that is at complete odds with the Constitution of the United States.

The entire testimony can be read here.

I’ll be Reviewing Some Ammo for Lucky Gunner

Blogging has been light on all my sites for a variety of reasons but one good reason is that I’m working out some logistics for a review of some ammunition for Lucky Gunner. They’re sending me some of my precious .32 S&W Longs which I shoot because I’m an “eccentric” and like old timey things. My hope is to pick up a working antique revolver chambered in .32 S&W Long in one of the new gun shops that have opened up by me but more than likely I’ll be using my Charter Arms .327 snub nose.

The review will appear on my blog Hunter-Trader-Trapper.

Michigan House Votes to Repeal Right-Infringing Handgun Requirements by 2-1 Margin

Success! Even with attempts by some lawmakers to use the Trayvon Martin case in Florida to pander to anti-gunners in our state, the Michigan House has voted 72-36 in favor of repealing the permit-to-purchase and registration requirements for handguns. Instead, these outdated practices will be replaced by using the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System which made these requirements obsolete in 1998.

I outlined some of the main changes that will occur in a previous post, but two points of interest are (via NRA-ILA):

  • “Repeal the state requirement to seek police permission to purchase a firearm by traveling to a local police station and obtaining a permit to purchase.
  • Repeal the requirement to register a completely legally purchased and owned firearm by a law-abiding citizen to be registered with the government through the police.”

Now the bill goes to the Senate. Visit the Michigan Senate page to find contact info for your senator to urge the support of HB 5225.

Michigan Republican Males Hate Vaginas!

I assure you they don’t. But apparently, I don’t know that there’s a war on women, at least not the one liberals want me to believe is being waged. Liberal blogs and news outlets are all abuzz with the story that a Democrat representative from Michigan, Lisa Brown, was silenced from speaking the day after mentioning the word “vagina” on the House floor on June 13.  As usual, the truth is quite different from what pseudo-feminists would have you believe.

During a debate on House Bill 5711, which among other things would ban abortions after 20 weeks with some exceptions for the mother’s life, Rep. Brown spoke her mind and at the end of her speech said, ““I’m flattered you’re all so concerned about my vagina. But no means no.” Immediately after, the Speaker of the House, Republican Jase Bolger said, “Members, I do ask that you respect the decorum of the house” and quite politely I might add.

Her remark was idiotic, snarky, rude and childish and today she was not allowed to speak
publicly before the House. She’s crying victim now for being Jewish and having a vagina or
both. You can see in the video that there was no need for her comment and what her tone was.  It’s neither respectful of her peers or for the office she holds.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SghMijpkrbs]

Another representative, Barb Byrum, was given the same treatment and gaveled down after trying to introduce an amendment that would require proof that a man’s life is in danger before he could have a vasectomy.  I thought this was an abortion debate tactic people grew out of in junior high school. I’m pro-choice and even I think this is embarrassingly juvenile.  Preventing pregnancy and aborting a fetus after 20 weeks are two different issues. Focus ladies.

Yes, pro-choice conservatives do exist.  We don’t all hang on Rush Limbaugh’s every word.  I believe Republicans intruding into this area is just as much an example of big government as is the Democrats who want taxpayers to fund abortion. I would be generally sympathetic to the arguments Ms. Brown makes, especially her argument that using religious beliefs as an excuse to pass anti-abortion legislation is ridiculous.  But neither her or her colleague’s behavior is hardly conducive to bringing moderates together on this issue.

Liberals are once again trying to rally women around this issue with cries about the war on
women, Republicans being prudes and anti free speech. This isn’t a free speech issue but
one of the Speaker trying to remind legislators that disrespect isn’t necessary to get your
point across.

The comments I’ve seen on the news reports from liberals hardly make me think that they’re pro woman. As per usual, they’re pro liberal woman and every other woman is a
knuckle-dragging, penis worshipping, breeding hick.

The problem is this may work to fire up some independent voters before the election.
Democrats are good at riling up any inherent feelings of victimhood in voters, even those on the fence.  However, the meme that “Republicans are afraid of vaginas” isn’t a new one, so I’m hopeful that pundits who are better wordsmiths than me will use this event in our favor.

Oh, and the correct term for where a fetus develops is the uterus, a term that was used in the sex ed class I wasn’t banned from going to by my conservative parents and by my Christian Republican mother in speaking frankly to me about childbirth.

Source: Detroit Free Press.