Holder Flunks Radical Islam Class

Shortly after declaring Arizona's immigration enforcement statute racist without having read it, A. G. Eric Holder was grilled by Congress on his determination to treat terrorists as common criminals deserving of Miranda warnings and civilian trials. Not only were his answers deplorably ignorant, but like most Obamists, he couldn't even bring himself to name the enemy.

Confronted by several Congressional investigators at recent hearings, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was unable or unwilling to tie the New York City failed terrorist attack to anything Islamic. It was a song and dance worthy of the best of vaudeville. He was evasive, secretive, belligerent, and pompous, all at the same time. Apparently Holder has never read the Koran or anything written by Islamic scholar Daniel Pipes. He clearly knows nothing about Islam, and what little he might know, he hides within his political correctness. Law, history and facts are irrelevant to Mr. Holder.

On a recent Fox News Channel interview, liberal wimp Alan Colmes attempted to defend Holder's inability even to accept the Congressional questions about "radical Islam." Going out of their way to distinguish the terrorists from mainstream Islam (whatever that is), the Congress critters pushed Holder on whether the NYC bomber might be involved with radical Islam. Colmes defended Holder by using a favorite leftist talking-point. "Holder was right. This was purely political, and religion isn't an issue, radical or otherwise. Does the press rush to denounce Christianity every time somebody blows up an abortion clinic?"

Where to begin? First of all, the answer to his question is "yes." All abortion clinic bombers are "radical Christians," or "Christian religious right," or "fundamentalist Christian." This judgment is announced by the mainstream media even before the smoke has cleared. And they don't even have to bomb, or threaten to bomb anything. According to the Colmes's beloved press, anyone who even considers opposing abortion is a crazy Christian of one stripe or another. Ditto for the Oklahoma City bomber, and anyone who opposes Obamacare or any other liberal icon. How many times has that press called the reprehensible hater Rev. Phelps, a "Baptist preacher," or a "radical Christian fundamentalist," tarring all Christians with the same brush. Every time the nutty Pat Robertson predicts another hurricane, he is instantly denominated a "fundamentalist, charismatic Christian." The list goes on and on.

Yet neither Colmes nor Holder will cop even to the idea that the NYC bomber might have been influenced by radical Islam. They each show an ignorance of both Christianity and Islam. There are radical Christians and there are radical Muslims. So why not just admit it? Because the two cuckoos would have to admit that they don't understand the difference between Christianity and Islam. In Christianity, we are admonished to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things which are God's." Christians may hold political views, but they are not an intimate part of the religion itself. Our Founders understood that distinction, and wrote it into the Constitution as the First Amendment.

Islam is entirely different. First, there is no New Testament divorcing the secular law from religion. Second, and more importantly, religion and the state are one and the same in the Islamic mind. Christian law is religious, and cannot be enforced in any way outside the churches. Islamic law is made in the mosques and derived from the Koran. In officially Islamic states, the religious law is enforced as the law of the land. Have neither Colmes nor Holder ever heard of "sharia law?" When a crazed Bible-thumper tells Christians from the pulpit that they should murder non-Christians en masse, they are ignored and condemned by almost all other believing Christians. When an imam does the same thing, millions of Muslims shout "Allahu akbar!" Worse yet, hundreds, perhaps thousands of "radical" Muslims act on it.

As Michelle Malkin described the Holder evasions, "we're back to Code Red Elmo on the Homeland Insecurity Scale." Holder is still mystified and struggling with what could possibly have motivated NYC terrorist Shahzad, or even the Christmas panty-bomber for that matter. But of one thing he's sure. It wasn't Islam, or even radical Islam. At best, these are political acts committed by persons who are only incidentally Muslim. No connection between religious thought and religious action here. Move on.

Holder almost tripped himself up by admitting that the NYC bomber is a student and admirer of Anwar al-Awlaki, who advises all young Muslims to go to terrorist training camps, specifically those in the border regions of Pakistan. Al-Awlaki is not a politician. He is a respected religious figure among young Muslims. But we're not supposed to notice that. So Holder continued to blither and try to draw attention from the very fact he just pronounced. And still, he would not admit that there was even a connection to radical Islam, let alone "mainstream" Islam.

Religious fundamentalism and radical action can be a danger in any religion. But only one huge religion is based on a book which is unrelenting in its condemnation of every other religion. Only one major world religion insists, in its own basic and unchangeable book, that all other religions must be eliminated, and all non-adherents killed or forced into submission. That religion is Islam, yet Holder won't even admit that the terrorists might be "radicals." Appallingly ignorant, and definitely suicidal.