The New Paul Revere

Rep. Peter King is alerting us to the Islamic radicals already among us.

As House Homeland Security Committee chairman Peter King (R., N.Y.) opened this morning’s hearings on domestic Muslim radicalism, his ears must have stung from the nasty names he had been called.

“McCarthyite,” some charged. The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson believed King was fueling “irrational fears.” Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada worried that King would “demonize law-abiding American Muslims.”

#ad#Georgetown University Islamic-studies professor John Esposito called King’s hearing “a platform for Islamophobia draped in the American flag, reinforcing ignorance, stereotypes, bigotry, and intolerance in the name of national security.”

If King deserves such vitriol, so do key Obama administration officials who share King’s grave concerns about homegrown Islamic extremists and their threat to national security.

• “It is one of the things that keeps me up at night,” Attorney General Eric Holder told ABC News’s Pierre Thomas last December. “The threat has changed from simply worrying about foreigners coming here, to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens -- raised here, born here, and who for whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become radicalized and take up arms against the nation in which they were born.”

• “The terrorist threat to the homeland is, in many ways, at its most heightened state since 9/11,” homeland-security secretary Janet Napolitano told King’s committee on February 9. “We are now operating under the assumption, based on the latest intelligence and recent arrests, that individuals prepared to carry out terrorist attacks and acts of violence might be in the United States.”

Napolitano added that a January report “from the New York State Intelligence Center, the fusion center for the State of New York, examining 32 major terrorism cases in the United States related to al-Qaeda-like ideology since 9/11, shows that 50 of the 88 individuals involved in those plots were U.S. citizens at the time of their arrests, and among those citizens, a clear majority were natural-born.”

• “Al-Qaeda and its adherents have increasingly turned to another troubling tactic: attempting to recruit and radicalize people to terrorism here in the United States,” deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough told Virginia’s Adams Center on Sunday. “How do we know this? Well, al-Qaeda tells us. They’re not subtle. They make videos, create Internet forums, even publish online magazines, all for the expressed purpose of trying to convince Muslim Americans to reject their country and attack their fellow Americans.”

• McDonough cited former Californian Adam Gadahn, now a self-described al-Qaeda spokesman. American-born Anwar al-Awlaki now ruthlessly directs al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, presumably from deep inside Yemen. McDonough also mentioned Omar Hammami, an Alabamian who joined the Somali terror group al-Shabaab and, McDonough says, “uses rap and hip hop in an attempt to reach young Americans.”

“I am taking the next logical step,” Representative King told me. “I am listening to the administration and acting on the information that they are giving us. Janet Napolitano came before my committee, and she testified about this threat. Eric Holder went on TV and talked about it. Denis McDonough spoke with me at home about his speech, and he encouraged me to go ahead with the hearing. He said, ‘We welcome the hearing and congressional involvement.’ If Eric Holder is staying up at night thinking about this, I think I should hold hearings, so that he can get a good night’s sleep.”

#page#Beyond these prominent Democrats, some Muslims also have denounced their militant co-religionists:

• “American Muslims must take the lead in creating solutions to the radicalization of our own,” Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D., wrote Wednesday on FoxNews.com. “These hearings will provide the long overdue platform for us to step away from the standard denials and apologetics in order to reclaim our Muslim identity from the terrorists and redefine ourselves within the framework of the American pantheon.” Jasser, a former U.S. Navy lieutenant commander and now president of the Phoenix-based American Islamic Forum for Democracy, testified today before Congressman King.

#ad#Anyone who considers all of this an anti-Muslim hallucination need only remember Army major Nidal Hasan’s alleged murder of 13 soldiers and injury of 31 others at Fort Hood (reportedly while yelling “Allahu akbar!”). Faisal Shahzad pleaded guilty last June 21 to attempting to detonate a car bomb outside The Lion King in Times Square. Last October 18, Islamic prison convert Abdul Rahman was convicted of conspiring to blow up a Bronx synagogue. These are just a few of the Muslim-extremist American citizens who necessitated Congressman King’s hearings.

Rather than excoriate him as the reincarnation of George Wallace, Americans should applaud Peter King as a latter-day Paul Revere. He warns loudly that not only are the radical Muslims coming -- they already are here.

--- New York commentator Deroy Murdock is a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.

Deroy Murdock

Read More... [Source: No Title]

A Very Modest Victory in Madison

The political theater under way in Madison invites both Democrats and Republicans to imagine that something more significant has transpired there than is in fact the case: By curtailing the collective-bargaining powers of some government-employee unions, Wisconsin merely joins the ranks of Colorado and Maryland -- not precisely hotbeds of right-wing extremism. In liberal Maryland, which extends collective-bargaining rights to some, but not all, government workers, this must all seem particularly overblown: The state is home to a great many employees of the federal government, many of whom belong to public-sector unions that do not enjoy the extortionate powers until now invested in Wisconsin’s union bosses.

Gov. Scott Walker and the sober Republicans in Wisconsin’s state legislature are celebrating a victory, to be sure, but it is in truth a modest one: Under the new law, government workers will vote annually on whether they wish to be represented by a union, and the state will not be compelled to extract union dues from employees’ paychecks on behalf of the unions. Health-care and pension benefits for government workers will be set by the people’s elected representatives outside of the union-dominated collective-bargaining process, and wage increases will be indexed to inflation. Government workers still will enjoy salary-and-benefit packages that in most cases exceed what those workers could hope to command in the private sector, along with such hard-to-price benefits as enhanced job security.

#ad#For this modest reform, Governor Walker has been compared to Adolf Hitler, and progressives have called for his assassination. For adopting collective-bargaining rules similar to those found in many other states and more generous than those found in some, the people of Wisconsin have seen their state capitol under the occupation of bongo-beating misfits while the necessary and essential business of state government ground to a halt, with Democrats fleeing the state in a cynical bid to prevent duly elected legislators from legislating.

Many of our states, and a great many of our municipalities, suffer from precarious finances. Wisconsin, for all of its shortcomings, has seen its fiscal affairs managed with relative prudence, and Governor Walker’s “budget repair” bill is an example of that: dealing with the state’s problems before the point of crisis has been reached, while the state still has adequate resources and options for enacting necessary reforms in an orderly and intelligent fashion. The bill has been called “extreme” and “draconian,” but is in fact the opposite of that: No state worker is set to lose his job, there will be no furloughs or salary cuts. The worst that government employees will endure is a requirement that they pay 12.6 percent of their own health-insurance premiums and 5.6 percent of their own pension contributions. And they all will receive something of value: a regularly scheduled vote about whether to be represented by their unions, which often serve no one’s interests but those of the union bosses themselves.

And that is the real source of the rage on the left: Mandatory union representation, empowered by mandatory collective bargaining and mandatory dues deductions enforced by the state, creates an enormous flow of cash for Democratic political candidates and their pet causes. From 1989 to the present, five of the ten biggest donors to American political campaigns have been labor unions, including public-sector unions such as the National Education Association and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. The overwhelming majority of those donations go to Democrats. The union bosses and their Democratic patrons know that giving workers more of a choice about union representation will diminish that power and reduce that cash flow. That is what this is about, for all of the cheap talk about “civil rights” -- as though federal employees in Washington were being treated like second-class citizens because their unions do not enjoy the same princely powers until now wielded by Wisconsin’s.

This is not the end of Wisconsin’s fiscal troubles, only the beginning of  a solution. Other states, counties, and cities, many of them in far worse economic condition than Wisconsin, face similar difficult choices in their futures, and no doubt will endure similar political convulsions, if not more severe ones. The pure-hearted idealists on the left will not give in easily -- not when there is a great deal of money at stake, along with raw political power and comfortable sinecures for those at the top of the public-sector foodchain. While we celebrate what has been won in Wisconsin, we must be mindful of the much more difficult work that remains to be done.

The Editors

Read More... [Source: No Title]

What Should We Do About Libya?

Experts weigh in.

ELLIOTT ABRAMS
There are things we should do and things we should not do.

The president of the United States should not make vain boasts and empty statements. As the president has said Qaddafi must go, we (the United States, not just the president) will look weak and foolish if he stays on and wins his war. Qaddafi can’t be permitted to defeat the United States.

#ad#Accordingly, I think we must ensure that he loses power and leaves the country. In the end, this may require a no-fly zone, and I do not think we should shrink from it. But there are many ways we can try to ensure Qaddafi’s defeat without having our guys fly over Tripoli 24 hours a day. We can ruin their runways, use missiles from offshore, ensure they get no further arms shipments by sea, stop any payments for oil shipments, interfere with command-and-control frequencies, help arms get to the opposition, give intelligence to the opposition. As it seems clear Gates and Mullen want to do nothing, the president ought to look for some independent advice (much as Bush did on Iraq) as to what is doable. And then he should do it.

--- Elliott Abrams, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, was the deputy national security adviser on the Middle East in the George W. Bush administration.

#page#MACKENZIE EAGLEN
If the president decides intervention is necessary in Libya, he must lay out specific objectives. Then, the administration should examine the various tools available -- including ours and our allies’ civil, military, and intelligence capabilities -- to meet those objectives. Finally, the president must openly acknowledge the risks of potential action, as well as the likely costs in financial and human capital.

The world will continue to look to America for leadership. Any action, including use of force, must be designed to advance long-term strategic goals.

#ad#Yesterday, the chief of naval operations told Congress a no-fly zone would begin combat operations inside Libya. But vital questions remain unanswered. What is the primary purpose of those operations? To protect civilians? To facilitate delivery of humanitarian assistance? To begin regime change? Will this be a shared, international operation? What are the opportunity costs -- e.g., will this divert military capabilities from ongoing operations?

For maximum effectiveness, military power must be used in a way that supports U.S. interests. It must also be used strategically -- in this case, as part of a larger plan that engages the Libyan opposition, garners international support, and uses appropriate military resources.

It is not yet clear how yesterday’s announcement fits in with these requirements.

--- Mackenzie Eaglen is a research fellow for national security at the Heritage Foundation.

#page#MOHAMED ELJAHMI
Qaddafi plays off the international community’s fear of illegal immigration and al-Qaeda. The truth, however, is that Qaddafi’s policies of oppression give rise to radicalism. In turn, Qaddafi benefits from illegal immigration, and the fear is intensified.

Qaddafi uses religion to propagate his politics, to affirm his rule, and to intimidate opponents. In 1970, he founded the Islamic Call Society (ICS), whose charter mandates proselytizing in Africa and elsewhere. The ICS still exists under the close supervision and guise of the Libyan External Security Organization, and its role has expanded to include subversion tactics and propaganda.

#ad#Qaddafi calls his opponents Zanadeqa (heretics) and hails himself the “imam of all Muslims.” During a July 2005 meeting with a state-controlled trade union, the crowd chanted, “We value and are proud of your imamship for millions of Muslims from East to West, so that the banner of Islam can be raised so high to fulfill the will of Allah.”

Before Qaddafi’s regime, Libyans participated in a constitutional democracy -- though not perfect, its abuses paled in comparison with the atrocities that are occurring in Libya today. For example, thousands of Libyans have died in peaceful marches calling for freedom and democracy.

The citizens’ struggle against Qaddafi’s rule is not equal -- nor do they have similar access to military supplies. He has planes, tens of thousands of security brigades, and the help of foreign mercenaries. Conversely, revolutionaries are lightly armed and at times have only their bodies to protect others against Qaddafi’s killing machine.

The U.N., under its responsibility and accountability to the international community, must protect the Libyan people from Qaddafi and his forces. In conjunction with the existent ICC inquiry, the U.N. must institute a no-fly zone over Libya, Qaddafi’s tanks and heavy weapons must be disbanded and removed immediately, foreign journalists must be protected, and all communication media must be restored.

The Libyan people are capable of using their nation’s wealth to build a thriving democratic country. Although it will be challenging to build and sustain the necessary institutions, Qaddafi must leave in order to facilitate this much-needed transition.

--- Mohamed Eljahmi is a Libyan-American activist.

#page#JAMIE FLY
On Monday, President Obama said, “We send a very clear message to the Libyan people that we will stand with them in the face of unwarranted violence and the continuing suppression of democratic ideals that we’ve seen there.”

Even the New York Times editorial page noted that “the Obama administration is throwing out so many conflicting messages on Libya that they are blunting any potential pressure on the Libyan regime and weakening American credibility.”

#ad#The president said almost a week ago that Moammar Qaddafi needed to leave, but his administration appears unwilling to do anything to back up his rhetoric with action, and a steady stream of administration officials have played down the likelihood of an immediate military operation.

The first (long overdue) step would be for the United States, along with European allies, to implement a no-fly zone, even a limited one that would cover the coastal towns and cities currently being contested by pro- and anti-regime forces. Further action, such as arming the rebels and eventually targeting regime assets being used to kill civilians, should also be considered.

It’s one thing to argue that for strategic or other reasons we should avoid getting involved in Libya. Given his statements condemning Qaddafi and the regime’s violent efforts to remain in power, the president doesn’t appear to believe this.

The president should fulfill the “moral obligation” he cited during his campaign in 2008 to intervene as quickly as possible to halt the bloodshed.

It’s time for the president to stop talking and take action.

--- Jamie M. Fly is executive director of the Foreign Policy Initiative.

#page#JOHN HANNAH
The president of the United States has publicly declared that Colonel Qaddafi must go. Failure to achieve that result in short order will be highly damaging to U.S. interests. American credibility and prestige among friends and foes alike -- already hemorrhaging under Obama -- will dissipate yet further, inviting greater dangers and challenges. Homicidal dictators -- even those, like Qaddafi, with rivers of American blood on their hands -- will know that they are safe to wage war on their own people with relative impunity. The balance between hope and fear in this springtime for Arab democracy will swing dangerously toward the dark side, increasing dramatically the risks that these movements will be hijacked by forces of extremism, terrorism, and anti-Americanism.

Absent outside intervention to aid the rebels, the greater the likelihood that the conflict will be prolonged, Qaddafi will survive, and U.S. interests will be seriously harmed. Rather than immediately engaging U.S. forces in the conflict through a no-fly zone or direct attacks on Qaddafi’s military assets, I would initially favor low-risk options to supply rebel forces with the means to get the job done themselves. Provide intelligence, ammunition, fuel, medical supplies, and communications systems. Quickly establish a train-and-equip program on lower-end anti-aircraft guns and missiles, anti-tank weapons, and artillery systems. In short, resurrect a version of the Reagan Doctrine.

#ad#Whatever form U.S. military assistance takes, I would also establish two diplomatic conditions. First, the rebels themselves must unequivocally ask for U.S. military help. It should not be hard for the head of the rebel council to find CNN’s Ben Wedeman in Benghazi to declare openly and in front of the world that, on behalf of the rebels, he has been authorized to request American aid in tilting the military balance in favor of the Libyan people. Second, I would require that U.S. intervention receive the public backing and active support of a coalition of the willing that includes a core group of key Arab and European states who have far more immediately at stake in Libya than we do, preferably including Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, the rest of the Gulf countries, Britain, France, Italy, and Germany. 

--- John P. Hannah, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, served as national security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney from 2005 to 2009.

#page#PETE HOEKSTRA
In recent years, Libya has been an ally in North Africa, forsaking its nuclear program and partnering with us to defeat al-Qaeda. However, the bonds between allies can be broken when one nation’s actions are antithetical to the principles and ideals of the other. Libya’s unjustifiably violent acts against its citizens have reached that point. The U.S. can no longer stand idly by and watch the turmoil in Libya.

America’s options are poor and limited, but we should not pass on the opportunity to display principled leadership.

#ad#First, America must take the lead by forcefully expressing support for American values. It is vital that the U.S. lead in promoting freedom, equality, and opportunity.

Second, the U.S. should support severe economic sanctions. American leadership must take a principled approach; the U.S. must not publicly condemn the attacks against Libyan citizens yet indirectly finance the war by continuing to trade with Libya.

Finally, establishing and enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya is an appropriate and measured response to its use of military aircraft against its citizens. America should not undertake this operation alone. The administration should emphasize that it will participate in this endeavor only with the full support and commitment of the international community.

--- Pete Hoekstra is former congressman from Michigan.

#page#RAYMOND IBRAHIM
As with Egypt, American sympathies instinctively side with Libya’s oppositional force as they seek to overthrow the tyrant Qaddafi -- and rightfully so. But where U.S. foreign policy is concerned, prudence is in order. This is especially the case considering that the Obama administration has evinced inconsistency and incoherence regarding the Middle East: It vowed not to “meddle” in behalf of Iranian dissidents, while eagerly pushing former U.S. ally Mubarak out. At the start of Egypt’s revolution, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Mubarak’s government was secure; a month later, he was toppled; and the administration is misguidedly open to talking with existential enemies, such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

The issue of oil looms large and is for some the primary impetus for U.S. intervention in Libya. Yet as others have long insisted, perhaps it is time to look at other options, such as drilling in Alaska or in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

#ad#Because of Qaddafi’s eccentric nature -- the man has as many bizarre traits as he does last-name spellings -- few people take anything he says seriously. Yet, as top Muslim cleric Qaradawi issues a fatwa to kill Qaddafi, and Obama asks the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia to arm oppositional forces -- reminiscent of arming the Taliban against the Soviets (and we know how that turned out) -- one hopes that Qaddafi’s insistence that al-Qaeda/Islamists are major actors in the revolt does not turn out to be a classic case of the boy who cried wolf. Islamists and jihadists do have a knack of turning up where least expected and filling power vacuums.

That Qaddafi is an anti-American and tyrannical thug, there is no doubt. Yet, unless the administration has a clear and focused policy on what it wants to accomplish in Libya -- one beneficial to all concerned -- it may be best to let the Middle East’s latest survival-of-the-fittest installment play out and go from there.

 --- Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum.

#page#JOSHUA MURAVCHIK
Benghazi could become the new Guernica. With warplanes, tanks, heavy weaponry, mercenaries, financial reserves, and, reportedly, direct military intervention by Syria’s air force, Qaddafi could possibly crush the uprising of the Libyan people, who are lightly armed. This would tell dictators across the globe that if you cavil at shedding blood you will go down, but if you are ruthless you will survive.

Qaddafi’s triumph, following the fall of neighboring pro-American dictators, would also make for further erosion of U.S. standing in the Mideast. And it would feed resentment, as when we abandoned Iraq’s Shiites to Saddam’s tender mercies in 1991.

#ad#The U.S. should impose a no-fly zone and deliver arms to the rebels -- preferably with NATO, but without if necessary. To counter Qaddafi’s claim that we have designs on Libya, Washington should say loudly and often that our goal is free elections under U.N. supervision.

We should not, however, seek U.N. authorization for the military measures. To acquiesce in the claim that the U.N. Security Council (meaning Moscow and Beijing) is the arbiter of the legitimate use of force in the world is terribly dangerous. This claim rests on the U.N. Charter, but the Charter also provides for an effective U.N. military apparatus to enforce international peace and security that never came into being.

--- Joshua Muravchik, a fellow at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, is the author of The Next Founders: Voices of Democracy in the Middle East.

#page#DAVID PRYCE-JONES
Three weeks ago, Libya was blowing up, and the right thing would have been immediately to send a battle group to the Mediterranean. There are only four airfields in Libya, and it would have been possible to establish a no-fly zone at no cost. This would have given the anti-Qaddafi forces a chance, and they could have been helped with organization and financing, and if they so demanded, with weaponry.

#ad#The absence of any forward policy has doomed these forces. They will have the impression that the West’s inertia derives from lack of interest and loss of self-confidence. A few may fight to the end, but most are likely to try to escape the coming repression. All that can now be done is to freeze Libyan assets, impose sanctions, and persuade as many countries as possible to ostracize Qaddafi, with penalties at least for Western businesses who try to profiteer in the aftermath of the crisis. But there it is: By doing nothing, we have made ourselves accomplices of Qaddafi. It is truly ominous that he has no real power base yet has made rings round what was supposed to be a superpower.

 --- David Pryce-Jones is a senior editor of NR.

#page#MICHAEL RUBIN
President Obama’s inaction in the face of Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi’s counteroffensive will have lasting consequences. The United States is still paying for the elder President Bush’s 1991 decision to stand idle as Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein crushed the Shiite revolt. Bush’s realist aides counseled passivity. After all, the Iraqi people had already taken 14 out of 18 provinces. Bush feared that any American support for the rebels might taint their cause and be a slippery slope toward entanglement. In hindsight, though, Bush’s willingness to see Saddam reconsolidate control forced the Iraqi Shiites to embrace Iran as their protector, and set the United States down the path toward greater conflict.

Obama should not make the same mistake twice: He should immediately impose both a no-fly and a no-tactical-vehicle zone over areas controlled by Qaddafi. Libya is not Iraq, and a no-fly zone need not set the United States down the path to a wider war. While Saddam had 500,000 men under arms, Qaddafi had only 50,000, of whom press reports suggest only one-tenth remain. Beyond American carriers in the Mediterranean, Sigonella Air Station in Sicily is closer to the no-fly area than Incirlik Air Base was to Iraq. The United States should reach out toward Libyans to remind them that Washington is on their side, with both leaflet drops and daily statements to be broadcast on Radio Sawa. Taxpayer-funded Arabic radio should promote freedom, not Lady Gaga.

#ad#Lastly, Libya’s upheaval underlines the importance of domestic energy security. Obama must enable drilling and exploration anywhere the United States can, and enable American companies to process shale oil, exploit coal reserves, reinvest in nuclear energy, and use other alternative sources.

--- Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

#page#BENJAMIN WEINTHAL
The Obama administration should end its erratic course with pro-democracy movements in the Muslim world. Libyan opponents of Qaddafi’s lethal repression are showing a bottomless level of courage and deserve concrete assistance from the U.S. and the EU. “Obama: Are you with us or against us?” asked Iranian democrats during the 2009 protests against the fraudulent presidential election. He left those brave Iranian democrats out in the cold. Obama is -- one could argue -- confronted with the same question in Libya.

The highly repressive and closed society of Libya is a kind of mirror image of the Mullah regime in Tehran. If 41 years of Qaddafi-style totalitarianism can be dislodged, then 32 years of high-intensity revolutionary Iranian-style fascism could face the same fate.

#ad#President Obama and his NATO and EU allies ought to swiftly introduce a no-fly zone over Libya, including a strict ban against low-altitude helicopter flights. Violations of the no-fly zone should entail military strikes against transgressors. Anti-aircraft weaponry should be rapidly delivered to anti-Qaddafi forces.

The WikiLeaks cables showed American diplomats at their finest: They were terribly concerned about the lack of democracy and human rights. Obama has an amazing opportunity to end his zigzagging in the region and show that America’s democracy language is not merely empty rhetoric.

 --- Benjamin Weinthal is a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

NRO Symposium

Read More... [Source: No Title]

Not Reconciled to a Darned Thing...

Believe me, I am as desirous as the next guy to have a rallying-point in the 2012 Presidential election field. Obviously, we conservatives yearn for solid, thoroughgoing leadership. We want, we pray, for a Reagan, a Goldwater, a Taft. Glumly, we find it lacking. We noodle around, finding glimmers of hope in the most middling of circumstances, saying that, in essence, if we squint, and the light is just so, this candidate or that candidate will suit our purposes well enough.

I’m not ready to do that, especially knowing the first debate/beauty-contest doesn’t even happen until June.

I remember John Connolly revving up his presidential snow-blower in the dark and cold days of the winter of 1979, running ads as the only guy that, as a former Democrat and paleo-neo-Republican, was the only person craftily situated to beat Jimmy Carter. I’m not sure the Connolly candidacy lasted until the first debate.

Elections, especially primary elections, are about the winnowing process itself: Who is the most articulate conservative spokesman? Who is the least able to be ruffled in a tight squeeze? Who can dispatch leftist/media complex attacks with the greatest of ease? Who generates excitement, and gets everyone to the polls? Absolutely none of this is known today, and likely won’t be known, until roughly the first of February, 2012.

Oh, I understand the realpolitik argumentation of getting behind a candidate early: Such a person can raise more money, garner more headlines, and so on. But, just remember Walter Mondale: He was the front-runner against Reagan starting in about 1982. Jesse Jackson and Gary Hart, though, held the excitement throughout the primary season, and there was a palpable sense that Mondale never, ever, really stood a chance. But, the union money was always flowing toward Mondale, and the others never really got traction. If they had, it is possible that Reagan may have been denied his 49-state landslide. He still would have won, but it may not have been such a bloodbath.

And also, at this point, I will not reconcile myself to anyone that I discern is soft on Liberty, soft on defense of our Constitution, soft on small, quiet in-the-background government. I will not reconcile myself to a candidate that runs a vanity campaign that seeks self to please.

My antennae right now are very keen to pick up the slightest vibrations of powerful leadership, those candidates for ANY federal office that deign to call a spade a spade. By this, I mean anyone who will call the Obama Administration truly, empirically lawless, or who doesn’t shrink from engaging the conservative, constitutional agenda with full-throated strength. Candidates that go all mealy-mouthed, and insist that we only need to trim the edges of Obamacare, or that Green Energy really is something to be considered, or that radicalized political Islam really isn’t that big a shake– well, I won’t get very excited to campaign and work on behalf of such a candidate.

Especially not in March of 2011. Maybe, as a last, desperate attempt to keep Barack Obama out of the White House for four more years, say, long about October 30th, 2012. But absolutely NOT now.

Read More... [Source: RedState.com Recommended Diaries]

Peter King�"s Important Service

Rep. Peter King is being demonized for holding hearings on a problem that Attorney General Holder says �Skeeps me up at night.⬝

Betty Friedan famously wrote about “the problem that has no name.” Decades later, domestic Islamic radicalism bids fair to become the new nameless problem, at least if the Left gets its way.

The outraged reaction to the hearings being held by Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) to look into the radicalization of the domestic Muslim community was so mindless it bordered on a collective self-lobotomy. The late conservative intellectual James Burnham once wrote that “liberalism permits Western civilization to be reconciled to its dissolution.” If the House committee devoted to homeland security -- which held hearings on “The Future of FEMA’s Grant Programs Directorate” among sundry other topics during the past two years -- can’t examine why some Muslims born and raised in the United States wage war on their own country, we might as well turn off the lights on our common culture.

#ad#There’s no denying the fact of domestic radicalization. “It is one of the things that keeps me up at night,” Attorney General Eric Holder said in an interview with ABC News last year. “The threat has changed from simply worrying about foreigners coming here, to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens.” Holder once called us a nation of cowards for not discussing race enough; his own party is positively lily-livered about discussing the very threat that makes him lose sleep.

For daring to delve into what has Holder so worried, King was savaged as a new Joe McCarthy creating the predicate for the mass internment of Muslims. If King is the equivalent of “Tail-Gunner Joe,” what does that make Sens. Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins, a moderate Democrat and a moderate Republican, respectively, who lead the Senate counterpart of King’s committee? According to its website, “Since 2006, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has investigated the threat facing the United States from homegrown terrorism and domestic radicalization inspired by violent Islamist extremism.” And not one Muslim family has been sent to an internment camp.

If there’s an association between terrorism and Islam, it’s not King’s fault. It’s the handiwork of Maj. Nidal Hasan, who allegedly shouted “Allahu Akbar!” while gunning down 13 people at Fort Hood, and all the other home-grown extremists who have perpetrated or attempted mayhem in the name of Allah.

King called two witnesses who had heart-rending stories to tell, Melvin Bledsoe and Abdirizak Bihi. Bledsoe’s son Carlos converted to Islam in college, changed his name to Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, and stands accused of killing a U.S. soldier at an Arkansas recruiting center. After becoming radicalized, Bihi’s nephew was killed in Somalia in 2009. Bihi maintains that Muslim leaders in the Minneapolis area urged him not to warn law enforcement about his nephew’s disappearance. “They threatened me, intimidated me, and not only me but whole families,” Bihi told the committee.

Democrats evinced very little curiosity about Bledsoe or Bihi. For them, the very act of calling these gentlemen to testify represented the threat to America. The reliably insipid Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D., Texas) brandished a U.S. Constitution that she insisted “is in pain.” She must think that the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall hold no hearing respecting Islamic radicalization . . .”

Jackson Lee suggested the committee take on the “cold cases” from the South of the civil-rights era, while her colleague Rep. Gene Green (D., Texas) urged King to investigate the KKK. For a segment of the Left, American racism is still the only true source of evil. Misogynist, Jew-hating, infidel-killing Muslim extremists don’t quite measure up.

If King had convened a hearing on the threat of salt to our health and lives, committee Democrats no doubt would have pored over every variant -- refined, unrefined, iodized -- of the damnable substance. They can’t summon the same feeling for investigating Islamic extremism, considering such an inquiry an offense against multiculturalism. The Democrats made King’s first hearing a circus. He nonetheless achieved an important, if inadvertent, success: exposing his critics as hysterical fools.

— Rich Lowry is editor of National Review. He can be reached via e-mail: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. © 2011 by King Features Syndicate.

Rich Lowry

Read More... [Source: No Title]