Last Updated:October 31 @ 08:03 am

Terrorists are misunderstood....by liberals.

By Kay Daly

The hysteria over the hearings that Congressman Peter King (R-NY) held yesterday to investigate how and why radical elements are able to take hold in the Muslim community was truly over the top.

The Washington Post went so far as to editorialize the hearings as the new "Red Scare", with the opening paragraph in this "hard news story" reporting that the hearings were held in the same room as the House Un-American Activities Committee.   This is what passes for reporting these days at the Washington Post.

The hearings should have been a start to a dialogue to determine the process of radicalization and how, if at all, it can be thwarted, and King certainly did his level best to rise above the screeching of leftists determined to put a stop to even the mere discussion of the topic.  One has to wonder why.

One of the more amusing accusations came from Congressman Al Green (D-TX) who claimed that the KKK was far more of a threat than radicalized Muslims and demanded that the KKK be labeled a terrorist organization.   This is clearly a huge disconnect for liberals.  They cannot seem to discern the difference between terrorism and domestic criminal elements.  To compare the toothless, uneducated fools parading around in bedsheets to the well-funded, well-organized, extremely determined networks of a terrorist cell is not merely ludicrous, it is outright dangerous.

But it is far from the first time.

During the Patriot Act debate, one of the main issues that liberals had was wanting to apply the US Constitution to a terrorist problem that clearly should remain in the purview of the military.  The main goal of the Obama Administration in closing Guantanamo Bay is to try to get the detainees into the US judicial system.   Of course, the reality of the situation seems to have slowed down that pipe dream, but the mistaken notion that the detainees should be treated like mere criminals rather than terrorists has not diminished.

When soldiers were attacked and killed in Germany by a young man from Kosovo who had been visiting radical Islamic websites, may have had contacts with a radical cleric, openly confessed to wanting to kill as many Americans as possible because of the war in Afghanistan, and was witnessed screaming "Allah Akbar" while fufilling his desire, what else can one conclude but that this was a terrorist attack?   And yet, the Obama Administration not only refuses to call this attack a terrorist attack, but had the gall to compare it to the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

The difference between a terrorist operation and domestic criminal activity is night and day and to not clearly recognize the difference is naive, dangerous, regrettable and downright reckless.

There was one good piece of news that came out of the hearings in the Senate on the Patriot Act -- which, by the way, doesn't seem to have received much if any attention.  A press release from Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking member Charles Grassley announced the passage of an amendment to the Patriot Act that would allow the death penalty for some terrorist acts:

"During debate of a controversial bill to extend, amend and add provisions to the USA PATRIOT Act, the Senate Judiciary Committee today adopted an amendment offered by Ranking Member Chuck Grassley that would make terrorists who commit a crime using a weapon of mass destruction eligible for the death penalty.  Current law does not carry the possibility of the death penalty for when someone uses these weapons.

The amendment would add the death penalty for five specific crimes that cause death, including participating in, or providing material support to, developing, using, or threatening to use a nuclear weapon; producing or using a missile to destroy an aircraft; using or threatening to use atomic weapons; using a dirty bomb, or radiological dispersal device; and producing or using a virus.

'The most serious of crimes, should have the most serious of penalties.  When a terrorist commits one of these horrific crimes with weapons of mass destruction, the death penalty should be an option on the table,' Grassley said."

The good news is that the death penalty, which should have been applicable to terrorist acts in the first place, is on the track to becoming law.  The bad news is that if it is applied with the frequency that the death penalty is for domestic crimes, it will hardly be a deterrent.  It will only deter terrorists if it is used.  Criminals and terrorists have one thing in common -- they don't want to get caught and pay the price for their activities.  When citizens are armed via a Concealed Carry Law, when penalties are swift and sure, when there is an increased chance of getting caught, multiple studies show definitively that the crime rate goes down.

Given that liberals seem to have the desire to classify terrorists as run of the mill criminals.....Given that most liberals believe that criminals are misunderstood, can't help their crimes, are fighting against oppression, etc. etc. etc......Given that most liberals are very much against the death penalty for any reason......Given that the U.S. Senate is controlled by liberals, the Grassley Amendment may not see the light of day.

But back in the good news column is the best news of all -- November, 2012 is a comin'.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 9.3/10 (17 votes cast)
Terrorists are misunderstood....by liberals., 9.3 out of 10 based on 17 ratings





Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:

12 Comments

  1. onewildmanComment by onewildman
    March 11, 2011 @ 11:56 am

    They don’t misunderstand anything, they just flat out lie. They do this to keep their base engaged. They know that their base is comprised of lesser educated people and younger people who have little if any experience in the real world. That makes them more prone to fall for their lies. That is why they keep repeating the lies and their friends in the mainstream media wont call them on it.
    IMPEACH OBAMA NOW!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (16 votes cast)
  2. Mort_fComment by Mort_f
    March 11, 2011 @ 5:03 pm

    I doubt if there is any justification to use the description ‘lesser educated’, or diadvantaged. I suspect that there are those who have even been educated in Harvard, Columbia, or Berkeley.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.4/5 (7 votes cast)
    • Old BillComment by Old Bill
      March 14, 2011 @ 2:02 pm

      How do you feel about the term misguided or misled?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
  3. VickiComment by Vicki
    March 13, 2011 @ 2:45 pm

    Death penalty? For Islamic jihadist? they WANT TO DIE.  It is their stated highest goal.
    threatening to use atomic weapons ”

    Threats are to be capital offenses?  don’t be ridiculous.

    ”   producing or using a virus”
    People produce viruses all the time. I sure hope they give a very specific legal definition to “produce”    Just the common cold is produced by millions of people every year and they infect others.  If the law is as written all of them could be put to death.

    Please just let us keep our guns.  We will ignore the threats.  We will resist their actual actions.  As with all fights for freedom some of us will die for that most noble of causes.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 2.0/5 (3 votes cast)
    • Old BillComment by Old Bill
      March 14, 2011 @ 2:38 pm

      they want to go out in a blaze of glory, not to be executed like the dogs that they are.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.0/5 (4 votes cast)
  4. lrgonComment by lrgon
    March 14, 2011 @ 11:57 am

    Liberals misunderstand terrorists? Yes, I suppose one could say they do. But don’t “conservatives” misunderstand them too?

    Terror organizations are spread all over the planet and they aren’t funded by organizing local cake sales. The terror network is too vast and complex not to have state sponsorship. Congress willingly or naively helps terror organizations by continuing the unconstitutional foreign aid programs. Terror organizations have a steady cash flow from US taxpayers. And what do we get for our money?  We go deeper in debt and we get our Bill of Rights taken away from us via the Patriot Act.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.0/5 (4 votes cast)
  5. InjuredComment by Injured
    March 14, 2011 @ 10:16 pm

    The liberals can not be that stupid… I know the politicians think we are. The only thing they see is the political correctness. They don’t want to look at what the real problem is.  These people are being taught to hate. By whom, and how. Important that the country know the answers.  Political correctness run amok.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  6. SapientComment by Sapient
    March 15, 2011 @ 8:31 am

    Nicely done Kay
    I couldn’t help but think of something Ann Coulter said in her book, Treason:

    /* Style Definitions */
    table.MsoNormalTable
    {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
    mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
    mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
    mso-style-noshow:yes;
    mso-style-priority:99;
    mso-style-qformat:yes;
    mso-style-parent:”";
    mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
    mso-para-margin:0in;
    mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
    mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
    font-size:11.0pt;
    font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
    mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
    mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
    mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
    mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
    mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
    mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

    “Americans cannot comprehend how their fellow countrymen could not love their country. But the left’s anti-Americanism is intrinsic to their entire worldview. Liberals promote the right of Islamic fanatics for the same reason they promote the rights of adulterers, pornographers, abortionists, criminals, and Communists. They instinctively root for anarchy against civilization. The inevitable logic of the liberal position is to be for treason.” – Treason, P. 292
    Its pretty obvious that history bears out that observation.
    God bless

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • VickiComment by Vicki
      March 15, 2011 @ 2:19 pm

      Liberals promote the right of Islamic fanatics for the same reason they promote the rights of adulterers, pornographers, abortionists, criminals, and Communists.”

      Islamic fanatics DO have rights for the same reason YOU have rights.  The same rights too.  Where liberals (and others) go wrong is not having a valid moral compass to guide them.  Try this one.

      First Principle.
      Your Creator gifted you with life and free will.
      How you use those 2 gifts and how you honor these gifts in others, defines you.

      Now let us apply this principle to some examples.  

      Islamic fanatics have the right to preach the belief in Allah. You have the right to preach the belief in God. Atheists have the right to preach the belief in nothing.

      Islamic fanatics DO NOT have the right to cut of peoples heads.

      You DO NOT have the right to burn people.

      Atheists DO NOT have the right to harm people.

      The key is HOW you honor the gift of free will IN OTHERS.  Christians have a saying about “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. This saying is a direct extension of First Principle.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  7. mikehComment by mikeh
    August 1, 2011 @ 10:26 am

    There seem to be some misunderstandings on the conservative side too. For example, there is little hesitation rightfully calling Islamic terrorism by its name. But the recent attacks in Norway should fall under Christian Terrorism. 

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  8. VickiComment by Vicki
    August 1, 2011 @ 2:50 pm

    Tell me, Mikeh, why should we blame  Christians for the acts of one non-Christian?  I notice that Christian leaders immediately condemned the actions and the actions do not match the “works” of good Christians. 
    “A casual perusal of Breivik’s manifesto clearly shows that he uses the word “Christian” similarly to the way some Jewish New Yorkers use it to mean “non-Jewish.” In this usage, Christopher Hitchens and Madalyn Murray O’Hair are “Christians.”
    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=326733
     

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 1, 2011 @ 3:33 pm

      Well for one, this fellow was a professed Christian. He claimed his actions were to promote Christianity and keep out Islam. Sure very few Christians agree with him. But it’s funny that any Muslim gets immediately branded as a Muslim terrorist after an attack on behalf of Islam. Here’s a Christian- guess what they aren’t all good either. Fox “News” even started calling the Norway attacks Islamic in nature until it turned out the terrorist was an immigrant bashing right wing Christian.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)

Leave a Comment





Fresh Ink Archives

  • October 2014
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • Reference Pages

  • About
  • Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer