Congress Obsessed with American Muslims, Neglects real threat of White Supremacists

The shooting of Kaufman, Texas district attorney Mike McLelland and his wife Cynthia remains a mystery. But investigators are increasingly looking into a cell of extremist white terrorists as the suspects. Two months ago, a county assistant district attorney, Mark Hasse, was murdered not far from his office at the court. (I used the term extremist white terrorists because that is what they are, but usually the American press only describes foreigners and Muslims as terrorists, while calling whites “extremists.”)

Likewise, a gang of white terrorists is suspected in the recent slaying of the head of Colorado’s prison system.

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) and other Islamophobes in Congress, seeking to look good to campaign donors who hate Muslims, has conducted several hearings on the alleged increased radicalization of American Muslims. Sociologists don’t find evidence of such a thing; American Muslims on the whole are relatively well-integrated into US society and are disproportionately well off and pillars of the society. The hearings are a form of McCarthyism.

No one was killed or injured in the US in 2012 by terrorists of Muslim heritage, and only 14 Americans of Muslim heritage were even indicted for violent plots. Only one act of violence was traced to such a group, which produced no casualties.

Rep. Peter King is a big supporter of the old 1980s Irish Republican Army, which killed two Americans in a bombing at Harrod’s department store in London. The man’s feet won’t touch the ground when he walks because of the rivers of hypocrisy exuding from between his toes.

In the meantime, Congress not only has held few or no hearings on the danger of white terrorism, it has actually pressured the Department of Homeland Security not to produce studies on the phenomenon.

It is not allowed to say this in the corporate media, but some Republican representatives and their constituents are, if not implicated in white supremacist sentiments, at least a little smelly in that regard.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there has been recent explosive growth in the number and members of white hate groups:

There is also a problem of hate groups in the military, some of whom are responsible for atrocities against innocent Muslims that have harmed the US image and US policy abroad.

But the Tea Party Congress won’t investigate this problem.

16 Responses

  1. Pelase don’t call them “Whtie terrorists”, because it would evolve into:

    ‘terrorists are violent brown men only, and only violent brown men are terrorist’

    If the perp is white, he’s “special” kind of terrorist, that is, a ‘white terrorist’ Probably there’ll be ‘oriental terrorist’ label further down the road.

    This is what happened with the term “White Slavery” The underlying thought is that “only Blacks can be slaves, and the only slaves are Blacks”. Therefore if a white, blonde girl is kidnapped to be a sex slave to a Middle Eastern prince or Bangkok drug lord, she is known as a ‘white slave’ and the process known as ‘white slavery’ Now, the term ‘white slavery’ seems to be whitewashed to mean “sexual slavery’, but it originated as a racist descriptor.

    A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist, it doesn’t matter what his or her skin color is.

    • Unfortunately, when you are dealing with White Priviledge, you have to identify the white supremists as white supremists.
      Yo are correct when you say that “a terrorist is a terrorist”, but we have been white-washed into believing that they only have darker skin.

  2. ” only 14 Americans of Muslim heritage were even indicted for violent plots.”

    And how many of those were actually Muslim dupes incited into such plots by FBI agents, or criminials arrested on other crimes and used by the FBI, in their nefarious “stings?”

  3. Can you imagine the mass hysterical freakout that would be going on right now if a gang of Muslim terrorists was suspected of murdering law enforcement officials? The networks would be doing 24 hour coverage. Instead this is item 9 on the nightly news and page 12 of the newspaper.

  4. But the Tea Party Congress won’t investigate this problem.

    While the DINO majority in the Senate isn’t as far right as the House RINO’s, why are Reid, Leahy and company not interested in investigating “Homeland” terroristic leaning groups?

  5. There was also the suggestion this morning that this is the work of drug cartels, ie brown people.

  6. The chief suspects in the killings are the Arayan Nation gangs. However, according to the FBI the AN is working as contract killers for the Mexican Mafia and various Mexican drug cartels. Much like how the Westies in New York were the thugs for hire of the Italian Mafia.

  7. Nothing much new under the sun:

    IN the autumn of 68 B.C. the world’s only military superpower was dealt a profound psychological blow by a daring terrorist attack on its very heart. Rome’s port at Ostia was set on fire, the consular war fleet destroyed, and two prominent senators, together with their bodyguards and staff, kidnapped.

    The incident, dramatic though it was, has not attracted much attention from modern historians. But history is mutable. An event that was merely a footnote five years ago has now, in our post-9/11 world, assumed a fresh and ominous significance. For in the panicky aftermath of the attack, the Roman people made decisions that set them on the path to the destruction of their Constitution, their democracy and their liberty. One cannot help wondering if history is repeating itself.

    Consider the parallels. The perpetrators of this spectacular assault were not in the pay of any foreign power: no nation would have dared to attack Rome so provocatively. They were, rather, the disaffected of the earth: “The ruined men of all nations,” in the words of the great 19th-century German historian Theodor Mommsen, “a piratical state with a peculiar esprit de corps.”

    Like Al Qaeda, these pirates were loosely organized, but able to spread a disproportionate amount of fear among citizens who had believed themselves immune from attack. To quote Mommsen again: “The Latin husbandman, the traveler on the Appian highway, the genteel bathing visitor at the terrestrial paradise of Baiae were no longer secure of their property or their life for a single moment.”

    What was to be done? Over the preceding centuries, the Constitution of ancient Rome had developed an intricate series of checks and balances intended to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual. The consulship, elected annually, was jointly held by two men. Military commands were of limited duration and subject to regular renewal. Ordinary citizens were accustomed to a remarkable degree of liberty: the cry of “Civis Romanus sum” — “I am a Roman citizen” — was a guarantee of safety throughout the world.

    But such was the panic that ensued after Ostia that the people were willing to compromise these rights. The greatest soldier in Rome, the 38-year-old Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (better known to posterity as Pompey the Great) arranged for a lieutenant of his, the tribune Aulus Gabinius, to rise in the Roman Forum and propose an astonishing new law.
    link to nytimes.com

    And from a slightly different era:

    link to docs.lib.purdue.edu

    “Quick! Quick! Give up our hard-won rights! The ________s are coming to destroy our way of life!”

    • Who are you? I know JTMcPhee. You are not JTM! JTM likes to play with words. He uses language that wraps all around his ideas. At times he is funny, at times overbearing. But you are not JTM. This is a beautifully written, informative post. I’m not saying JTM writes non-informative bad prose. Just you are not JTM.

      • “You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, and if you are really good, you can fool enough of the people most of the time and really get away with some horrible, very profitable stuff…”

        Only 5% of the post you ask about was by the overbearing JTMcPhee. The rest was from an op-ed in the NYT, from a somewhat earlier age:

        Op-Ed Contributor
        “Pirates of the Mediterranean”

        By ROBERT HARRIS
        Published: September 30, 2006
        Kintbury, England

        Nope, the good stuff was from a much more important writer than me. I just missed the target with the . The link will take you there.

  8. Many ways of using words to keep us separate from each other instead of stepping up and seeing that we are all one entity created by God of God. Anyone that harms another, which except for a very few enlightened beings, we all harm one another, beginning the worst with ourselves. And yes, you do, look at your words in this article we are commenting on and the string of responses, hurt, hurt, hurt. “I’ll verbally get you before you can get me.”

    We need to sit quietly with themselves so they can hear the whispers of what we really are and change ourselves, which is the only thing a single entity can do. Change our self. All this blabbering does nothing if you don’t take care of your own self FIRST.

    Get it together and stop blaming others for what you are PERCEIVING to be truth. What you say is your own truth, like this is mine.

  9. Their constituents are white supremacists. Pointing at the ‘other’ is vote getters. Pointing at ‘yourself’ is vote losing.

  10. Juan,

    I came across this post via alternet in my facebook feed… I don’t disagree with anything you said and was about to ‘share’, until I saw ‘patriot n militia groups’ along the bottom of the infographic. Much of my extended family would probably take issue w/ refering to ‘militias’ as white hate groups. (tho it sounds about right to me) I realize you didn’t create the graphic, but I thought I’d bring this issue to your attention for future reference. (If it had said ‘White Supremesist Groups’ or whatever, I think it would have made the exact same stats more palatable to a wider audience… feel free to pass that along to the relevant folks, if you see any value in it) Thanks!

    • “Patriot” groups is a euphemism in security studies for armed supremacists. There are people who call themselves ‘patriots’ who don’t fall in that category, obviously, but the context here is clear.

Comments are closed.