If you click on the screenshot below, you’ll go to a four hour video of Wednesday’s Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on “the ideology behind violent extremism and potential tools the U.S. can use to counter it.”

Here are those involved, starting with the four who testified, including five Democratic Senators and two Republicans.

As an article in the Washington Post pointed out, and I’ve verified by watching much of the testimony, the women Democratic Senators largely ignored Hirsi Ali and Nomani in favor of the males, particularly Leiter. The article gives tw**ts from some social media-ites who also noticed this. Here are a couple:
https://twitter.com/MohammadShouman/status/875056582236811268
I don’t think the behavior of those Democrats has anything to do with deference to men; rather, the they shied away from indicting religion as a cause of terrorism, and that’s precisely what Hirsi Ali and Nomani were trying to say. The male witnesses, in contrast, avoided religion and dealt with other solutions to terrorism. Democrats, it seems, studiously avoid mentioning religion or Islam, taking a cue from the Obama/Hillary Clinton playbook. The article supports that conclusion:
Tensions were high even before the hearing began. A Muslim man wearing a prayer cap attempted to disrupt the event by yelling at Hirsi Ali, an ex-Muslim and Somali-born human rights activist, a witness who was in the room said.
The contentious atmosphere carried on to the committee members themselves as Democratic committee leader, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, expressed her disagreement with the premise of the hearing, called by Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.
“Anyone who twists or distorts religion to a place of evil is an exception to the rule,” she said. “We should not focus on religion.” McCaskill proceeded to lecture the panelists on “freedom of religion” in the United States.
“No evil should ever be allowed to distort these premises,” she continued. “I’m worried, honestly, that this hearing will underline that.”
. . . Hirsi Ali, who was the first witness to speak, stated clearly that her testimony and evidence was focused solely on the threat of Islamism as a social-political totalitarian ideology.
“The part [of Islam] that is a political doctrine consists of a worldview, a system of laws, and a moral code that is totally incompatible with our constitution, our laws, and our way of life,” she testified.
Nomani, a former Wall Street Journal reporter and Women in the World contributor, echoed Hirsi Ali. “The ideology of Islamism contradicts the constitutional values of this country,” she said. “The elements of Islamism are very clear.”
However, Michael Leiter, the former director of the U.S. Counterterrorism Center, rejected the core of Hirsi Ali and Nomani’s testimonies. “Muslims honoring of sharia is not inherently in tangent with living in constitutional democracies anymore than it would be for Christians or Jews who also seek to honor their religious traditions while still complying with civil authority,” he said.
Here’s some more Ostrich Leftism by Democrats:
At one point, when Nomani shared examples of violent preachings on “women beating” she had received through Amazon, McCaskill turned the conversation to book banning.
. . . Democratic Senator Gary Peters later criticized the “anti-Islamic sentiment” in some of the written testimonies.
“I became concerned about a recurrent theme of anti-Islamic sentiment,” Peters stated. “The perpetuation of anti-Islamic attitudes undermine our collective values and it contributes to the undercurrent of xenophobia.”
I have but one beef. Andy Ngo, the article’s writer, said this:
It was the first time a Senate hearing was devoted to discussing the ideas motivating both violent and nonviolent Islamist movements around the world, but, through a strategy of deflection and demonization, the Democratic senators — mostly women — ignored the scholarly and lived expertise of Hirsi Ali and Nomani.
Oy! The “lived expertise” trope! But Hirsi Ali and Nomani didn’t dwell on their “lived expertise”; the former talked about the moderation of Islam she proposed in her latest book, and Nomani is a reporter, and described some of the national and religious sources of terrorism she derived not from her “lived experience,” but from her reporting. Yes, “lived expertise” was there, but it’s far too close to the “lived experience” trope of Regressives for my taste. This, however, is just a quibble.
What it all shows is that the Left is still avoiding the “r” word (or the “I” word) when discussing terrorism. I think most of us know, however, that to deal properly with terrorism one simply has to come to grips with the ideology that promotes and motivates it.
