Thursday, March 10, 2011

If It Sounds Like McCarthyism; If It Looks Like McCarthyism; If It Smells Like McCarthyism; Then It Is Born Again McCarthyism!

If It Sounds Like McCarthyism; If It Looks Like McCarthyism; If It Smells Like McCarthyism; Then It Is Born Again McCarthyism!


Whether you view what is happening in the King Homeland Security Committee as “The New McCarthyism” or the act of a demented headline seeking, wedge issue framer and political opportunist, or simply the act of a very dim light bulb with an immense ego an exaggerated sense of self-importance/self-worth; the fact of the matter is that no one has given serious enough thought or voice to the unintended consequences of  “The King Hearings”.  We are now in a position of the “Quick and The Dead”, draw, fire and repent at our leisure.

We have a history of violent extremists of all kinds in the United States. We need to remember that not all of the violence in our history has been the product of lone gun lunatics; there has been a portion that has been revolutionary in nature or committed as a response to prevent change and correct wrongs and injustices. We need also to keep in mind that racists and right wing oppressors are as much terrorists as any foreign element bent on visiting violence upon the people of this nation, and that in many areas of the world; we are perceived as international terrorists.  


 Joe Mccarthy Is Born Again -- As Peter King

After FDR disgracefully rounded up Japanese-Americans during World War II and locked them up in relocation camps, Americans promised: we'll never do that again.
After the infamous House Un-American Affairs Committee destroyed lives and careers by questioning the patriotism of anybody who worked in Hollywood, Americans again promised: we'll never do that again.
And after Senator Joseph McCarthy disgustingly branded as a communist agent anybody who just happened to be a liberal or worked in the State Department, Americans promised: we'll never do that again, either.
Yet, here we are, Another witch hunt, Another roundup,  Another HUAC. Another burst of McCarthyism. Led this time by Congressman Peter King, chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security, who, under the guise of national security, is doing exactly what George W. Bush, to his credit, vowed after September 11 never to do: launch a wholesale attack on all Muslims and accuse them of either being terrorists themselves, or condoning terrorism.
Pete King doesn't look like McCarthy, but he sure sounds like him: Are you now, or have you ever been, a Muslim? The very title of his hearings tells his bias from the beginning: "The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community (which presumes such radicalization exists) and That Community's Response" (which presumes it's been anything but cooperative). In fact, long before the hearings began, King had already announced his belief that 80 percent to 85 percent of American mosques are controlled by Islamic radicals; and that American Muslims have refused to cooperate with law enforcement officials in combating terrorism.

 King is known to be actively considering a statewide run in 2012 against Kristen Gillibrand, and this campaign, which will play well among Republicans in New York, will help his chances in the primaries. Even if he doesn't run, it will play well in his next congressional campaign.

 King Hearings Called Political Witch Hunt

  Roll Call Staff ; March 10, 2011, Midnight

American Muslims demonstrated in New York City’s Times Square over the weekend in opposition to Rep. Peter King’s hearings on the radicalization of Islam. K Street Files: Muslim Defenders Question Hearing
Hearings on the radicalization of Muslim Americans set to begin today in the House have provoked a volatile national debate that is spilling into the election cycle.

Threatening phone calls made this week to Rep. Peter King, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, were the latest sign that tensions are high as the New York Republican spearheads a probe into the threat of domestic terrorism.

Battle lines are already being drawn. On one side are Muslim advocacy and civil rights groups that call the investigation a targeted witch hunt and liken it to Joe McCarthy’s anti-communism hearings. On the other are national security and tea party activists who argue that the inquiry is a necessary first step toward protecting Americans.

King told Roll Call that he initiated the probe to highlight what he says is a rising threat of radicalization in Muslim communities. The hearings could stretch out over the next year, prolonging the topic just long enough to make Islam a wedge issue in the presidential primaries.
“We’re starting to see increased anti-Muslim rhetoric and bigotry that seems timed for the political season,” said Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates. “The Republican Party is increasingly painting itself as the party of hate and divisiveness.”

As candidates travel around the country testing the waters for presidential runs, the hearings could also revive last year’s polarized debate on a proposed Islamic center, which critics dubbed a mosque, near the site of ground zero in New York City. In the midterm elections, some conservative candidates used that issue to generate cash and attention for their campaigns.

Khera’s nonprofit and 50 other Muslim and interfaith groups sent a letter to Congress last month protesting the hearings and raising concerns about what they see as anti-Muslim comments by King that there are too many mosques in the U.S. and that “80 percent of the mosques were controlled by extremists.” The groups say the contrary is true and point to a Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security study showing Muslims have worked with law enforcement — 48 of 120 known terrorist plots since 9/11 were foiled with tips from the Muslim community.
King said that his goal is not to target Muslims but to engage them on matters of national security and that he resents suggestions that his motivations are political.

“To me there’s nothing political about Sept. 11. There’s nothing political about fighting Islamic terrorism. ... That’s the only charge made against me I resent,” he said. “I’m not concerned about the politics of it. I don’t see how it in any way could divide Republicans.”

But Republican strategist Suhail Khan does. The former Bush administration political appointee started the Conservative Inclusion Coalition to advise the Republican National Committee on the sensitivities of cultural and religious minorities.

Khan said he worries candidates testing the waters for presidential runs will use the debate as “a partisan or political device to generate animosity of Muslims Americans and, worse, to raise money for particular candidates who are trying to place themselves on either side of the issue.”

During the midterms, Khan joined leaders of conservative groups in criticizing members of his own party who tried to use the mosque debate to attack opponents. He pointed to some who did and lost, including New York gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio and Tennessee Congressional hopeful Lou Ann Zelenik, as proof that the strategy does not work.

“The risk is that when the electorate is focused on real bread-and-butter issues, such as jobs, economy and taxes, that by bringing up these kinds of issues, not only are they wasting time, they might even lose votes,” Khan said. “These issues are like shiny objects to raccoons. They’re just distractions.”
At least one portion of the electorate may be keen to take on the issue.

Conservative activists with the hard-liner group ACT! for America and some tea partyers rallied behind King and organized events to counter the opposition. While leading tea party groups have not yet taken a position, Tea Party Patriots Orange County Coordinator Marc Harris said activists in California are watching closely.

“We’re all talking about it. It hasn’t become an official tea party issue, but all the members of the tea parties are concerned about it and have an opinion about it,” he said. “It probably will become something that we will add to our national dialogue.”

A recent protest organized by conservatives in his county highlighted the rising tensions. As supporters of the Islamic Circle of North America entered a fundraiser there, protesters gathered outside with American flags and shouted, “You’re not welcome here. Go home,” and “Take the sharia and go home, you terrorist lovers.”

Video footage has since circulated online and prompted counterprotests. Muslim Advocates’ Khera said she is concerned the hearings could stoke such hostilities. Her group launched a website, WhatUnites.Us, to log anti-Muslim rhetoric as the hearings get under way.

But Karen Lugo, who helped organize the California protest and condemned the heckling, said Congressional action could help soothe her community’s concerns.

“I am confident that when people understand that the government is beginning to address this question, the sense of security and trust that government is looking to this, I think that will calm this situation,” she said.
Witnesses for the first hearing suggest the hearings may not be as one-sided as opponents portray. King has invited Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a Muslim and vocal critic of King’s plans, to testify.

“Most Muslims, especially after they see the hearings, will see how fair they are,” King said. Also testifying today are the relatives of two accused terrorists, along with Los Angeles County Sheriff Leroy Baca, Muslim conservative Zuhdi Jasser and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.).

Among Congressional leaders, sentiments on the hearings seem to run along party lines. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday that he is “deeply concerned” about the hearings, as did House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) defended them.

“We have got demonstrable occurrences in this country that show we’ve got a risk of the spread of radical Islam. That’s not within the security interests of the United States and its citizens. It’s something that we really want to work with folks to see if we can stop,” Cantor said.

While President Barack Obama has avoided direct comment, Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough offered indirect criticism while visiting a Virginia mosque recently: “We must resolve that, in our determination to protect our nation, we will not stigmatize or demonize entire communities because of the actions of a few. In the United States of America, we don’t practice guilt by association.”

Rep. King Hearing Begins On Muslim Radicalization

The stage is set for the first of a string of controversial hearings into the radicalization of Muslim Americans convened by Long Island Congressman Peter King (R-Seaford), chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.
On a rainy Washington morning , hoards of media clamored the hall of the Cannon Office Building, which also houses the Washongton, DC offices of members of both the US House of Representatives and US Senate.
King arrived at 8:45 a.m. at the Homeland Security Committee room on Capitol Hill, but did not take questions from the media. 
Anticipation has been high for King’s hearing. It has sparked a flurry of passionate demonstrations throughout Long Island and New York City in recent weeks.
On one side: those who dem the inquiries a “witch hunt,” exemplary of McCarthyism and anti-Muslim profiling.
On the other: those who believe the sessions are necessary in order to devise solutions to what King and members of the Obama administration consider the single-most dangerous threat to America’s national security, homegrown terrorism.
“Al-Qaida has adjusted its tactics, and that’s why traditional intelligence doesn’t work,” King tells the Pressin this week’s cover story. “They’re now recruiting people who are legally in the country, people beneath the radar screen, who are not involved in any type of radical activity. And the way we find them is by having people in the community bring them out. And that’s why I want the hearings, for people to know there is a real threat.”
The first speaker at the hearing to give testimony will be Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.
In his opening statement, King said: “There is nothing radical or unAmerican holding these hearings.”
Follow By Christopher Twarowski and Rashed Mian on Twitter
More articles filed under Long Island News,News

War Internment Lessons: Peter King's Muslim Hearings Will Not Make America Safer

Who would have thought that my early childhood experience in a Japanese-American internment camp during World War II would offer such useful insight, sixty-five years later, in determining the direction America is headed? In reflecting on Thursday's hearings on Muslim Americans, planned by Congressman Peter King (R-N.Y.), I feel like a mirror is being held up to my life, giving value to lessons learned as a child.
Make no mistake. Growing up in internment camp Amache in Colorado was no joy ride -- just look at the pictures. We were treated like cattle in those camps. Never mind the fact that we were born in America. Never mind the fact that we were patriotic Americans and law-abiding citizens. Never mind the fact that we were constructively contributing to the American economy. Despite all this, hundreds of thousands of Americans suddenly became the enemy at the height of the war, with no cause, no crime, and no constitutional protection.
We look back now, as a nation, and we know this was the wrong reaction. We look back now and know that this was a result of "race prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of political leadership." We look back now and know that an entire ethnicity was said to be, and ultimately considered, the enemy. We know that internment occurred because few in Washington were brave enough to say "no."
We know all this, and yet our country is now, within my lifetime, repeating the same mistakes from our past. The interned four-year old in me is crying out for a course correction so that we do not do to others what we did unjustly to countless Japanese-Americans.
This time, instead of creating an ethnic enemy, Congressman King is creating a religious enemy. Because of prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of Republican leadership, King is targeting the entire Muslim-American community. Similar to my experience, they are become increasingly marginalized and isolated by our policies.
Never mind the fact that many were born in America and have no allegiance to their ancestors' native homeland. Never mind the fact that they are patriotic Americans and law-abiding citizens. Never mind the fact that they are constructively contributing to the American economy. Irrespective of all this, millions of Americans have become the new enemy, with no cause and no crime.
There is no question that a congressional hearing, which targets an entire religion, is morally and strategically wrong-headed. First, it is un-American. This is not the America that I know and have helped build as a life-long public servant. The America that I know has always provided refuge for those fleeing persecution, from early settlers to recent refugees. The America that I know, furthermore, does not hate and discriminate base on race, religion or creed.
Second, it is counterproductive. Congressman King is undermining his own objective. In hosting these hearings, King, as chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, has declared, erroneously, that the Muslim-American community does not partner actively enough with law-enforcement officials to prevent potential acts of violence. Despite the offensive and fallacious nature of King's concern, given extensive evidence that contradicts his claim, the Homeland Security chairman's strategy makes future partnerships unpalatable.
In one fell swoop of his discriminatory brush, King, in his apparent attempt to root out radicalization, marginalizes an entire American minority group, making enemies of them all. To add insult to injury, King has quipped (again, speciously) that America has too many mosques and that extremists run 80 percent of them. We can only hope that Rep King does not completely undermine all the goodwill established across this country between Muslim Americans and law enforcement officials. You can be certain that few will want to work with King going forward.
Don't get me wrong. I support the Homeland Security Committee examining "radicalization" in this country, provided it is a comprehensive review, not a discriminatory one that targets only one subgroup of America. I support the committee examining "violent extremism" in this country, including an examination of militias and the 30,000-plus gun-related deaths occurring each year. I support a committee chair that is keen to keep our homeland secure.
This is not the case with King. These hearings do little to keep our country secure and do plenty to increase prejudice, discrimination and hate. I thought we learned a lesson or two from my internment camp experience in Colorado. I hope I am not proven wrong.
Rep. Michael Honda (D-Calif.) is Senior Democratic Whip and member of House Budget and Appropriations Committees. This article was first published on Washington Post's "On Faith". Follow Rep Honda on Facebook and Twitter. 

WASHINGTON – In his prepared testimony for today's hearing on radicalization in America’s Muslim community, U.S. Rep. John Dingell of Dearborn was set to charge that the discussion called by New York Republican Peter King had “a potential to create a continuation of the fear and hatred” experienced after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
But he never said it out loud.
Dingell, the longest serving member of the House, submitted strong comments for the record, but was measured in his appearance, saying he was confident that King – who had called the hearing as chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee – would take a thoughtful approach as he looked into the issue.

He added that he believed the committee, by not indicting Muslims en masse but looking at singularly radical elements, could “result in alerting the nation to a real concern.”
Dingell represents the large Arab-American population in Dearborn and pointed out in his testimony today that American Muslims work as community leaders and first responders. But in his prepared testimony, he took a stronger line in questioning the intent of the hearings. His office early today put out a letter he signed saying that, “Singling out one religious group and blaming the actions of individuals on an entire community is not only unfair, it is unwise.”
In his prepared testimony, Dingell, a Democrat who has served in the House longer than anyone in history, said America’s Muslims are “a community that demagogues continue to mischaracterize and misrepresent to the detriment of all of us.”
King has been criticized by those who said he has unfairly targeted Muslims. But the chairman argued in his opening remarks that the hearing was appropriate.
“Despite what passes for conventional wisdom in certain circles, there is nothing radical or un-American in calling these hearings,” he said, adding that this one – the first of what he said could be several – is the “logical response to the repeated and urgent warnings the Obama administration has been making in recent months.”
King said that while he knows the vast majority of American Muslims reject violence that extremist forces are still trying to recruit and radicalize some members of the community to use them for homegrown attacks.
“The threat is real and it is serious,” King said. “The committee cannot live in denial.”
By Glenn Kessler

Kabbani, who was a Muslim leader during the Clinton Administration, he testified, this is back in 1999 and 2000, before the State Department that he thought over 80 percent of the mosques in this country are controlled by radical Imams. Certainly from what I've seen and dealings I've had, that number seems accurate." --Rep. Peter King, Jan. 24, 2011

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, plans to hold controversial hearings Thursday on Islamic radicalism. King jokes that these hearings may make him famous "for a week," but he has already become well known for an assertion he once made that "80 to 85 percent" of the mosques in the United States are controlled by radical imams.
King now dismisses the comment as inconsequential, saying in an interview that he has no idea if the estimate is correct.
"I don't think it matters that much" because, according to Islamic leaders King said he has spoken with, imams do not have as much influence among the faithful as do priests or rabbis and because a relatively small percentage of American Muslims attend mosques.
"This is not that important to me," he said, adding: "I do think there is an inordinate amount of radical influence in mosques."
King added that he believes he made this comment on his own only once, and since then has simply responded to questions when interviewers raise it, such as in the quote above, when Raymond Arroyo, a guest host on radio's "Laura Ingraham Show," brought it up.
Nevertheless, this has become one of the most recognizable quotes associated with King. It has been repeated often in news reports about the upcoming hearings, so a casual listener might think there is a basis in fact. Let's look at the roots of this figure.
The Facts
This all started with a State Department forum in early 1999 on Islamic extremism that attracted virtually no media attention. That is, until a few months later, when virtually every major Muslim organization in the United States issued a joint statement condemning the remarks by Sheikh Hisham Kabbani as "unsubstantiated allegations that could have a profoundly negative impact on ordinary American Muslims."
With the passage of 12 years, Kabbani's comments -- made more than two years before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- look both remarkably prescient and somewhat off the wall.
Kabbani, who practices Sufism, warned that "there are 5000 suicide bombers being trained by [Osama] bin Laden in Afghanistan who are ready to move to any part of the world and explode themselves."
But Kabbani also said that bin Laden's organization had been "able to buy more than 20 atomic nuclear heads from some of the mafia in the ex-Soviet Union, in the republics of the ex-Soviet Union, and they traded it for $30 million and 2 tons of opium." He added that they were breaking up "these atomic warheads into smaller partitions, like small chips, to be put in any suitcase."
As part of this discourse, Kabbani said that "Muslims, in general, are peace-loving and tolerant" but that 80 percent of the mosques in the United States are "being run by the extremist ideology, but not acting as a militant movement."
Kabbani offered no evidence to support this assertion and has provided little evidence since. In 2001, he told The New York Times that he had visited 114 mosques in the United States and "ninety of them were mostly exposed, and I say exposed, to extreme or radical ideology" -- through speeches, books and board members. "He said that a telltale sign of an extremist mosque was a focus on the Palestinian struggle," the Times reported.
In the interview, King said he did not rely just on Kabbani's statement but also on testimony before a Senate panel in 2003 by Stephen Schwartz, a Muslim convert who at the time was affiliated with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Schwartz has been a prominent opponent of Wahhabi Islam -- a strict sect of Islam described by some as extremist -- and he testified, "Shia and other non-Wahhabi Muslim community leaders estimate that 80 percent of American mosques -- out of a total ranging between an official estimate of 1,200 and an unofficial figure of 4-6,000 -- are under Wahhabi control."
Schwartz did not identify these community leaders, though before this appearance he had previously attributed this estimate to Kabbani's statement at the State Department. In an email, he said he "heard it from Kabbani but also heard it from the leaders of the main Shia mosques in the U.S." and that having attended services in the U.S. and other Western countries he believes "Sunni mosques in the U.S. are still, in 2011, overwhelmingly dominated by fundamentalists." He added: "Fixing a quantitative level is difficult but 75-80 percent still seems right to me."
Meanwhile, there have been efforts to actually measure the sentiment in American mosques.
University of Kentucky professor Ihsan Bagby in 2004 published a study of Detroit mosques that concluded that approximately 93 percent of mosque participants endorse both community and political involvement and more than 87 percent of mosque leaders support participation in the political process. Most were registered to vote and "because of these moderate views, mosque participants cannot be described as isolationists, rejecters of American society or extremists." (Some conservatives have noted that the study also found strong support for universal health care, affirmative action and Islamic law in Muslim-majority nations, as well as deep concern about immorality in the United States.)
King said he was unaware of the Detroit study.
The Pinocchio Test
The persistence of this "80 percent" statistic is mystifying. It is based largely on a single observation by one Muslim cleric 12 years ago, who has offered no evidence to make his claim. The one other possible source is the personal observations of Schwartz but as far as we can tell it has not been confirmed by any documented study.
The Fact Checker was inclined to award King quite a few Pinocchios before he came to the phone and essentially took it back. But he has a responsibility to clear the air and say that, in the absence of other evidence, he no longer thinks this 12-year-old "fact" has any relevance. He says that he was not planning to bring up this statistic in his hearing, but the very public platform he has Thursday morning would be a good place to clear the air.
In the quote above, King correctly noted that there was a single source and that it dates back to 1999. But then he went on to say the "number seems accurate," lending credence to the figure and giving a misleading impression that there is more to back it up.
Geller Compares Opposition To Muslim Radicalization Hearings To "Pre-War Nazi ...
Media Matters for America (blog)
... talking about a thousand year rule, and a master race, and suggesting abolishing all unions, rounding up gays and Jews and Muslims... then add that there was a Group B, affiliated with the Democratic party, or, who was opposing them. ...
See all stories on this topic »

Being neither a liberal nor a conservative, I was surprised to discover how much I've come to enjoy MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show." Maddow presents the most telling proof that things in America are not as Fox News pretends they are.

She does this in a most simple way: News footage of actual events is shown right after clips of a Fox News shill's description of what had supposedly happened. The juxtaposition can be shocking, but Maddow thus cleverly reveals our distorted reality.

The reality today is that one will say something, it will be caught on tape and then distorted by the likes of Fox News, which will usually stick to the falsehood long enough to transform the distortion into a "factoid" - basically, a lie that seems like a fact.
Even after the lie is revealed, no public apology arrives. And once the factoid has had a good run, it is considered fact by the frustrated and the naive - Fox News' favorite demographic.
To counter the right's most popular propaganda machine, we need people like Maddow. She has often pulled the britches off those who present themselves as squeaky- clean, proving them to be wearing filthy underwear filled with waste.
Her charges are never specifically repudiated - because they cannot be. Paper and video trails prove what they prove - where the money comes from and what people actually said.
The Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch are exactly what has been repeatedly proven about them: A ruthless and small gang of billionaires willing to distort fact in the interest of the extremely wealthy and at the expense of an accurate assessment of what is actually going on in our duped democracy. You don't have to shut up if you can put up enough money or can create a propaganda fount that never stops troubling the waters with its untruths.

Regarding her commitment to homosexuals being treated like everyone else, Maddow went the way of human identification. She repeatedly found members of our armed forces who had done exemplary duty under danger and had won the respect of those who had lived through the horror of war with them. Those who thought that homosexual soldiers would crack under pressure were summarily silenced.
Anyone who makes human reality more obvious to us all has done the nation a great service.
Maddow is also very different from those liberals whose hearts are sickening sugar pills hidden beneath bitter surfaces.
She has never attempted to dismiss the pressure on the brave men and women who fight our wars. She has not tied a huge rock of liberal cliches around her neck and tried to float across the water.
Her lengthy features about mass murderers and assassins have been distinguished by the restraint that makes her depth of feeling so much more powerful because we come to know what these people actually did - to their victims and to the victims' families and friends.
The greatest problems I can identify in Maddow's show are her style of clothing and her apparent need to imitate the satirical, vulgar frat-boy humor of Jon Stewart and Bill Maher, however intelligent they might be. She is too serious, and too important, to pander to the adolescent sensibility in American life.

A sober, muted wardrobe and as little supposed satire as possible would do the "Rachel Maddow Show" a lot of good, which means that it would also do a lot of good for the entire United States.

Stanley Crouch's column appears in the Daily News every Monday. Stanley, who has written for the paper since 1995, has received many awards for his writing, including a MacArthur Foundation "genius" grant. His books have been widely praised and he was recently inducted into the Academy of Arts and Sciences.

by Michael Sean Winters on Mar. 07, 2011

In her last semester of college, my mother was student teaching at the Horace Porter Elementary School in Columbia, Connecticut. She was teaching a lesson on the Soviet Union. One of her less bright students unhelpfully went home and told his parents that Miss McDermott was “teaching communism.” This was the early 1950s, so predictably, my mother was removed from her student teaching assignment and hauled before the president of her college. Fortunately, in the classroom that day was another student teacher, a decorated veteran of World War II who assured the college authorities that my mother was teaching about communism not advocating for it. She was allowed to graduate.

I recall this story because, this week, Congressman Peter King will begin holding hearings to examine the “radicalization of the American Muslim community” and it seems to me that these hearings have the same potential to unleash unreasonable fear and scapegoating as did the House UnAmerican Activities Committee and Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s Senate hearings in the 1950s. Indeed, because Congressman King has been fast and loose with allegations regarding American Muslims, that potential seems to be the goal of the hearings. King has, in the past, suggested that a majority of the mosques in America were run by extremists even though a recent study at Duke University showed that religious observance actually diminished instances of radicalization in the Muslim community.

The Washington Post, on Saturday, had an article recalling King’s earlier support for the Irish Republican Army, which many people considered a terrorist organization. King suggests that the IRA was more like the African National Congress under apartheid. There is a coarseness in the adage “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” that arouses suspicion. Certainly, the nihilism of Al-Qaeda bears little resemblance to either the IRA or the ANC. But, King’s prior support for the IRA has, nonetheless, raised some eyebrows. “My problem with him is the hypocrisy,” a counter-terrorism specialist at Amnesty International told the Post.

My problem is not the hypocrisy. My problem is deeper. My problem is that the Congressman is taking a real issue and fanning the flames. Suppose the Duke study is wrong. Suppose there is a radicalization of American Muslims occurring in America. Why would you hold public hearings? Would it not be better to investigate the possibility of such radicalization in absolute secrecy, with the FBI, instead of showing your hand about how much you do or do not know about the supposedly nefarious activities?

After all, during the 1950s, there were communist agents in the United States. The Rosenbergs were not innocent. But, creating a nationwide panic did nothing to ferret out the true evil-doers and, instead, created a climate of fear that ensnared many perfectly innocent people. Fear rarely invites discriminate action. And, in that climate, those who really seek to harm the United States are likely to be more on their guard, more clandestine, and harder to identify and prosecute.

These hearings have the potential to unleash the kind of unreasoning fear that only aids the terrorists in their objectives. How many times need it be said: Al-Qaeda is not Nazi Germany. It does not possess the resources of a large industrial nation of several millions of people. It cannot overrun Belgium, Holland and France in two months nor bomb London night after night with a well-armed Air Force. Al-Qaeda can only succeed if it scares us into abandoning our way of life, including the First Amendment protections and cultural dispositions against religion discrimination. Rep. King’s fear-mongering plays into Al-Qaeda’s hands.

I have been waiting for one voice to stand up in protest against these hearings, but I have been waiting in vain. Mr. King is a Catholic. Bishop William Murphy, of Rockville Center, is one of the smartest bishops in the American hierarchy. Bishop Murphy can see the ugly potential of these hearings to unleash the kind of anti-Muslim hatred once reserved for Catholics in America. According to a letter to the editor, published in the newspaper of the diocese of Rockville Center, The Long Island Catholic, a woman named Barbara Androu wrote of a recent meeting, “On behalf of Bishop Murphy, Rev. Gregory Rannazzisi prayed, ‘We will enjoy a just peace when hatred and injustice yield to mercy and understanding ... The dignity of every human being and his or her freedom to worship must be at the center of all our decisions, public or private.’” Bishop Murphy would be well advised to make such a statement himself, in public, and to invite Congressman King to reflect on the Church’s commitment, as well as America’s, to religious freedom.

This week, look for Fox News to carry many reports on the King hearings. I suspect the content of those reports will be different from what one reads in the Post or the Times. King is engaged in a dog whistle, but many people can hear this whistle and will draw their own conclusions. The one way to demonstrate that America is not at war with Islam, that we are not abandoning our commitments to religious liberty, is for prominent religious leaders, including King’s own bishop, to stand up for American Muslims and their rights. In the effort to defeat radicals, we must isolate them. In the effort to keep these hearings from staining America’s proud heritage of religious freedom, we must isolate Rep. King.

By Russell Berman 03/06/11 07:00 PM ET

President Obama’s deputy national security adviser told a Muslim audience Sunday that the threat of homegrown terrorism is “real” and that Muslim Americans are part of the solution, not the problem.

In a lengthy speech before a Muslim community group in Virginia, Denis McDonough said that as U.S. defenses against al-Qaeda have strengthened, the terrorist group has turned.

“For a long time, many in the U.S. thought that our unique melting pot meant we were immune from this threat – this despite the history of violent extremists of all kinds in the United States,” McDonough said in a speech to the Adams Center, according to prepared remarks released by the White House. “That was false hope, and false comfort. This threat is real, and it is serious.”

Who in the L has sought out Americans, American Serviceman, American Properties all of the World and and in the USA and tried to kill or maim them. None other then left wing radical muslems. Muslems need to solve their own problems within their ranks and ship them out of the USA if Muslems want to join the greatest melting pot in the World. Muslems can shove their Koran where the sun don't shine. The Koran Law is not the law of America or its ancestors.

The religion and philosophy of Islam, is based upon the belief that God (Allah) transmitted knowledge to Muhammad (c. 570–632) and other prophets (Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus). The followers of Islamic religion, muslims, believe that this revelation to humanity was written down in the Quran, which is the flawless word of God.

The theology of the Islamic scriptures informs most aspects of muslim life and culture. The Five Pillars of Islam is expressed in the Quran (Koran), which is a practical doctrine that encourages Muslims to pray 5 times a day, fast during Ramadan, pilgrimage to Mecca, declare 'There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his prophet' and pay money to the poor.

This in itself is enough to scare most people As you can read for yourself they think Jesus is a prophet . We all know that Jesus is the Son of God sent by God to save all of us from sin (as well as ourselves). He sent His Son Jesus even to save the Muslim if they like all others believe in him for who he really is.

Rep. King opens Muslim hearing, says panel can't 'live in denial'

By Jordy Yager - 03/10/11 10:45 AM ET
Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) defended his hearing Thursday on radicalization in the U.S. Muslim community, saying his panel “could not live in denial.”
King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, made the statement as he opened a hearing that has sparked controversy, with some saying King should not be singling out Muslims.
“I am well-aware that the announcement of these hearings has generated considerable controversy and opposition,” King said in his opening remarks.
“The committee cannot live in denial, which is what some would have us do when they suggest that this hearing dilute its focus by investigating threats unrelated to al Qaeda.”
But Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.), the ranking Democrat on King's committee, said Thursday he was concerned the hearing could be used to further radicalize people to attack the U.S.
“The U.S. is accused of engaging in a modern-day crusade against Islam,” said Thompson in his opening remarks. “We cannot give this lie a place to rest.
“I cannot help but wonder how propaganda about this hearing’s focus on the American Muslim community will be used by those who seek to inspire a new generation of suicide bombers.”
In preparation for the hearing, bomb-sniffing dogs swept the outside of the Cannon House Office Building on Thursday morning.
Several demonstrators stood silently outside the building with signs reading, “Today I am a Muslim too” and  “Pluralism or perish.”
A line of several dozen people idled in the rain as they plodded through Cannon's southeast entrance. And more than 100 people lined the hall of Cannon’s third floor to get into the hearing. 
The atmosphere was more tense than normal as U.S. Capitol Police officers stood posted near the hearing room. One officer at a screening entrance to Cannon told a man to remove his trench coat. When he turned his back to the police officer and went to unbutton it, she said, "Turn toward me, sir!" He complied. 
In the days leading up to the hearing, King received threatening phone calls, pleas from more than 60 of his House colleagues and denunciations from civil liberty and religious groups, all trying to persuade him to cancel Thursday’s hearing.
Instead, members pushed King to broaden the scope of the hearing, titled “The extent of radicalization in the American Muslim community and that community's response,” to encompass extremist environmental and neo-Nazi groups.
King said he is fulfilling his congressional duty and probing one of the most serious threats to national security.
“There is no equivalency of threat between al Qaeda and neo-Nazis, environmental extremists or other isolated madmen,” said King. “Only al Qaeda and its Islamist affiliates in this country are part of an international threat to our nation.”
King’s critics argue that the hearing unfairly targets Muslim Americans and will likely widen the divide between them and law enforcement. 
A group of 56 Democratic lawmakers wrote to King on Wednesday in a last-ditch effort to get him to call the hearing off. They said “the stated narrow scope and underlying premises of these hearings unfairly stigmatizes and alienates Muslim Americans.” 
In a separate letter Wednesday evening, nine other Democratic lawmakers also pushed King to cancel the proceeding. They pointed to the shooting in January of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, neither of which has been linked to Islamic extremism, as evidence that other extremists deserve scrutiny. 
Thompson last month asked King to broaden the scope of the hearing to encompass other extremists. King said he “will not allow political correctness to obscure a real and dangerous threat to the safety and security of the citizens of the United States.”
The hearing has sparked a furor in the media and among Islamic and civil-liberty groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which — along with 40 other groups — maintained in a letter Tuesday that the “committee can carry out its important function in a wide variety of ways without trampling on the constitutional rights of American Muslims.” 

King announced plans for the hearing in December and has never wavered since. He said he has received threatening phone calls, some from overseas. He’s receiving increased protection and authorities are investigating the matter, he said.

In defending the hearing, King said he doesn’t want to feel guilty for not going forward in case another attack, like that of Sept. 11, 2001, takes place. Instead, he has blamed the mainstream media for inciting the public over an issue he says is vital to the national security — and which has not been adequately addressed so far. 

“What are they afraid of? What are they hiding from? Why are they attacking me in such a rabid way?” King told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” earlier this week. “I can take the hits, that doesn’t bother me at all.

“I don’t ever want it on my conscience that if another attack comes, I wake up the next morning and say, ‘I backed down to political correctness, I backed down to The Washington Post, or the left-wing New York Times, because I was afraid of political retribution.’ I’m going to do what I have to do, and I’m going to do it.”

But some in the intelligence community are concerned that the hearing — which is aimed at investigating recruitment tactics — could be used by ideological extremists as a recruitment tool.

“If the Islamic community feels that they’re being targeted, it could fuel the fire of people who are recruiting [and] saying, ‘This is discrimination, this is why we want you to join our side, this is why we want you to attack,’ ” Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (Md.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said in an interview. “And unfortunately, they could use the religion to get to the endgame of an attack.”

Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper voiced similar concerns in testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence last month, saying terrorist recruiters could attempt to exploit “anti-Islamic incidents, legislation and activities, such as threat of Koran burning and restrictions on Muslim attire.”

King told The Hill he was somewhat surprised by the public outcry; the Senate Homeland Security panel has held multiple hearings of the same nature in recent years, with little or no opposition, he said. 

Hearings before the Senate panel have included titles such as: “Violent Islamist Extremism: Al-Shabab Recruitment in America,” “The Roots of Violent Islamist Extremism and Efforts to Counter It” and “Violent Islamist Extremism: Government Efforts to Defeat It.”

But unlike King’s hearing, the Senate panel’s hearings have always included either experts or government officials. The first Muslim member of Congress, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), is scheduled to testify at Thursday’s hearing, as is Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.).

Also scheduled to appear are Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a group that argues for the separation of mosque and state; Abdirizak Bihi, director of the Somali Education and Social Advocacy Center, which focuses heavily on youth in Minneapolis, where some young people have reportedly been recruited overseas to the militant Islamist group Al-Shabab; L.A. County Sheriff Leroy Baca; and Melvin Bledsoe, the father of a man who claims to be a part of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and stands accused of killing a man at an Arkansas military recruiting center.

For all of the opposition to the hearing, King does have his supporters. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called it essential to understanding the evolving domestic terrorist threat against the U.S.

“That’s where the war is going,” Graham told The Hill. “The more we know about what’s out there and how we can prevent it, the better off we are. No one’s suggesting putting anyone in jail, but Peter is suggesting that we try to find out what is being used out there by our enemies directed toward young Americans. I think that’s a good thing to inquire into.”

The White House, sensing the damage the hearing could do to relations with the Muslim-American community, sent President Obama’s deputy national security adviser, Denis McDonough, to address the All Dulles Area Muslim Society on Sunday in Northern Virginia.

“Our challenge, and the goal that President Obama has insisted that we also focus on, is on the front end [of] preventing al Qaeda from recruiting and radicalizing people in America in the first place,” McDonough said. “And we know this isn’t the job of government alone. It has to be a partnership with you.”

This story was initially posted at 6:35 a.m.

Rep. Peter King: 'It Might Be Politically Correct,' But Will Not Broaden Out Hearing
March 09, 2011 9:50 AM

He may have stirred up a hornets' nest but that doesn’t seem to matter to the Chairman of the House Homeland Security committee who is holding a hearing tomorrow to investigate the “extent of radicalization” in the American Muslim community and whether they are doing enough to fight it.
“It might be politically correct but it makes no sense at all to be talking about other types of so-called extremism when the major threat to the United States today is coming from al Qaeda and al Qaeda is attempting to recruit in this country,” Rep. Peter King told me.

Despite being accused of modern day McCarthyism, King is refusing to broaden it out to include other sources of terrorism, telling me it would “water down the hearing.”

“When you investigate everybody you investigate nobody,” the New York congressman said.
King cited Attorney General Eric Holder when he told my colleague Pierre Thomas that these types of threats keep him up at night.

But Holder did not single out Muslims in that statement, and a recent study from the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Securitysays that approximately 40 percent of Muslims suspected of plotting attacks were turned in by fellow Muslims.

King called the report “very misleading” because it leaves out terrorist financing cases and said that members of New York law enforcement have told him that they do not receive cooperation from the Muslim-American community when it comes to investigating terror threats.
But despite that claim tomorrow’s witness list does not include any law enforcement officials. Instead members of the Muslim-American community will testify about their experiences.
“I will have people from the Muslim community who will say how when they went to law enforcement how Imams attempted to stop them. How they were threatened when they did want to report, when the FBI began investigations how the Imams in their mosques told them not to cooperate,” King said.
 “These are the people on the ground, the main witnesses are going to be Muslims, people living in the community, showing how they are intimidated, showing how their families are being radicalized and how going to the Imams and other leaders and groups such as CAIR are working against them. So to me that is much more effective evidence rather than having some law enforcement person talking about statistics.”
So is King worried about a backlash in the Muslim community?
“No,” he said. “In a democracy the idea is to get the facts out there and let the people decide.”


Sharia Law or Constitution? America Must Choose

We tend to assume Islam deserves unquestioned First Amendment protection. But it is a totalitarian way of life with aggressive political goals, not just a religion. What is to be done?
The Founders who wrote the U.S. Constitution were very aware that the citizens of this nascent nation wanted the freedom to choose their own manner of worship. They made history by forbidding religious tests for public office in Article VI. They added the First Amendment to ensure that Americans would be protected from government interference in their spiritual affairs.
But a dilemma exists in our nation today concerning whether or how the First Amendment should properly be applied to Islam. This essay will show that the ultimate outcome of blanket protection for Islam in all its manifestations on the grounds of “religious freedom” would be the establishment of Islamic law and government, or Sharia, alongside or in place of civil law and government in this country.
As we will see, Sharia law is totalitarian in nature, providing no individual freedoms while virtually enslaving those who live under its authority. This is absolutely not what the Founders intended in creating the Bill of Rights First Amendment Protection.

Ever since its ratification in 1791, the First Amendment protection from government control of the church and interference in the faith of individual citizens has been a cornerstone of the American way of life. Although the protections have been challenged and redefined through the years, and continue to be debated, overall they remain intact. What Thomas Jefferson called the “wall of separation between church and state” has become part of our political and cultural landscape.
Most Americans accept the notion that the Constitution allows them to worship any way they choose, period or to declare themselves atheists and not worship at all. Muslims who follow the teachings of the Koran, the Islamic holy book, have, therefore, enjoyed complete First Amendment protection like other faith, ever since the first Muslims arrived in America in the 19th century.
Case closed? No, because adherents of any doctrine, faith, or religion are still bound by the laws of the land. Citizens as well as visitors in America are required to obey all laws, regardless of any conflict with their individual beliefs or form of worship.
For example, religions that call for animal sacrifice or encourage sex with minors are not permitted to act out such rituals. While some Mormons may believe in polygamy, they are not allowed to practice it. Other practices such as the use of narcotics and mind-altering drugs are also deemed unlawful, religious justifications to the contrary notwithstanding.
To be a good American, one must accept these legal restrictions in the interest of public order, human dignity, and cultural consensus. People of faith can use their constitutional freedoms to try to change laws they may find objectionable due to conflicts with their faith. But meanwhile, no one is excused from obeying the law as it stands.
How Islam Differs

Where is the dividing line as far as Islam is concerned? That is now the burning question, and it may be literally a matter of survival for our way of life. We have taken for granted that Islam deserves the same constitutionally protected status afforded to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and other faiths. This is reasonable if one simply considers Islam a religion like any other.

After all, the president of the United States has stated that Islam is one of the “world’s great religions” and “a religion of peace.”1 Other world leaders have done the same. Muslims refer to Islam as their religion and have insisted on their unhindered right to practice it. Americans have been most accommodating in return. But therein lies a huge problem for the nation’s future, because Islam is not just another religion. In its fullest form, Islam is a complete and totalitarian way of life.2

Theocracy and Totalitarianism

Islam does have a religious componentbut it has many other components, which should not be entitled to the same level of constitutional protection. Islam is foremost a legal system, called Sharia law. Islam under Koranic doctrine also includes economic, financial, social, military, and governmental components, which do not coexist easily with non-Muslim beliefs and practices.
Nor does Islam recognize any separation of church and state. Islamic republics are dominated by spiritual leaders who oversee the strict adherence to Sharia law by the populace. In countries where Islamic enclaves or ghettos have emerged, such as France and Britain, local mullahs enforce Sharia law regardless of its conflict with national or state laws.
Sharia law is the foundation of Islamic theocracy and totalitarianism. The establishment of global Sharia law is the goal of the adherents to authoritative Islam. The Koran is unequivocal in its directive to Muslims to establish a global Islamic state, or Caliphate, over which the Islamic messiah, or Mahdi, will rule with Sharia as the only law of the land.3 That is the intent of many influential Islamic elements in America. But it is the exact opposite of what the First Amendment was designed to protect.
Sharia is derived from multiple sources. The Koran, considered the “uncreated word of Allah” is the primary source of Sharia law. The Hadith (sayings and actions of Muhammad) is the second most important document in Sharia. Historic rulings by jurists and reasoning by analogy make up the other two, less-influential sources of Sharia.4 Together these constitute Islam’s theological core, not some radical variationand they result in a totalitarian way of life for Muslim followers and non-Muslim subjects alike.
Death to Apostates

Sharia law is utterly inconsistent with American values, as it enslaves those under it and encourages or commands acts of violence and barbaric behavior. Sharia demands the death of those who renounce Islam.5 Honor killings, marital rape, female genital mutilation, and severing of hands and feet are but a few of the other components of Sharia.
The details of Islamic law are readily available in English translation. The one most commonly used is entitled Reliance of the Traveler. Authenticated by Islamic scholars for English speakers, this reference outlines the incredibly abhorrent behavior demanded of the adherents of Islam.
When one reads, for example, that Muslim men are directed to beat their wives for rejecting sexual advances,6 it becomes obvious that American values are in direct conflict with what Islamic law requires of its followers. Yet these inhumane practices are exactly what our government and courts have been dutifully protecting under the First Amendment.
The Constitution of the United States in Article VI declares itself “the supreme law of the land.” No foreign laws can supersede our own Constitution and laws, nor can they be considered in the jurisprudence of courts at any level in America. Yet Judge Joseph Charles of the New Jersey family court denied a restraining order to a Muslim woman whose husband had serially raped and beaten her, because the judge determined that the Muslim man was acting under his beliefs (Sharia law) and not with criminal intent.7 Fortunately, this 2009 decision was overruled by an appellate court. But Sharia law has nonetheless been considered in 17 court cases in 11 states.8 Sharia is creeping into our society just as it has in many European countries and this must be stopped.
Numerous adherents of Islam in this country have espoused an anti-constitution position and a seditious agenda, explicitly and on the record. The ultimate goal of these individuals and groups is to replace the U.S. Constitution with Sharia law. This conclusion is beyond dispute, since the guiding force behind the effort, the Muslim Brotherhood (called in Arabic the Ikwan), has been open about its intent for America. The Muslim Brotherhood began infiltrating the United States in the 1960s with the declared intent of destroying the existing political order and establishing Sharia law.
Goal: Destroy from Within

Incredible? It sounds that way, but leaders and known associates of this group have repeatedly announced their intentions for our future. As early as 1996, Abdurahman Alamoudi, one of the senior leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, made the statement that “.America will become an Islamic country,” while speaking in Illinois at a meeting of the Islamic Association of Palestine.9
Mr. Alamoudi was one of the most respected Islamic leaders in the nation at the time, enjoying routine access to the Clinton White House. He was used regularly as an adviser to the president and was sent abroad frequently as a goodwill ambassador representing the United States government. Today Mr. Alamoudi is serving a 23-year sentence after being convicted on terrorism charges.
Other Islamic leaders, in openly making similar statements, have done so on the highest authority. For in a document placed in evidence by the prosecution at the U.S. v Holy Land Foundation trial in 2008, and stipulated as authentic by the defense, Muslim Brotherhood leaders officially declared:
The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their own hands and the hands of believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.10
Home-grown Jihadists

So there can be no doubt about the intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood in America: The United States Constitution is their targetand the First Amendment as currently interpreted is their protection. National headlines have repeatedly furnished us evidence of this cancer within, if we would but open our eyes.

Major Nidal Hassan screamed “Allahu Akbar” as he stormed through the Fort Hood Support Center killing and wounding his fellow soldiers and civilian employees at the U.S. Army post on November 5, 2009. Hassan was sworn to support and defend the U.S. Constitution, but on that day he was a Muslim following the dictates of the Koran, a fact our government's final report on that attack failed to mention. The report never mentioned his Islamic faith at all. Yet Hassan was an acting Muslim chaplain at the Army post, and in 2007 he had presented a 50-slide briefing to senior officers in which he made it very clear that his allegiance was to Sharia law and not the U.S. Constitution.
A similar incident occurred in 2003, when a Muslim soldier of the 101st Airmobile Division threw a fragmentary grenade into a tent and killed fellow soldiers just before the division entered Iraq. Again, this man’s allegiance was not to the U.S. Constitution; rather, he was following Sharia law by obeying the Koranic command to commit jihad against infidels.11
Both of these home-grown jihadists, along with countless other American citizens who follow the violent directives of the Koran, were radicalized in Saudi-funded mosques across America where anti-American rhetoric is spewed freely and the establishment of Sharia law is advocated. Imam Faisal Rauf, the “Ground Zero Mosque” imam, has regularly called for the United States to allow the practice of Sharia, as have many other Islamic leaders.
Raise Awareness, Rethink Policy

What must we do to resist this avowed “grand jihad destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their own hands?” The first step is to raise public awareness. The next step, more difficult constitutionally but imperative for our self-preservation, is to rethink public policy.
Shouldn’t Islamic leaders and imams be put on notice that when they advocate the imposition of Sharia in America, they will be investigated and prosecuted as appropriate? Shouldn’t the mosques from which they preach this anti-constitutional rhetoric be similarly investigated and, if violations of law are found, be closed?
Shouldn’t Muslims who reject Sharia be encouraged to speak out publicly and take a firm stand against it? Shouldn’t those who advocate the imposition of Sharia in this country be treated like the KKK and other hate-crimes groupsand perhaps not even allowed to hold public office, serve in the military, or occupy positions of trust in the government?
Americans can no longer operate from a position of ignorance about Islam. It is the responsibility of every citizen to become informed on Islam in order to understand Sharia. Relying on political leaders, opinion elites, and the media to inform us is unfortunately not an option. When Americans realize the threat of Islamic law, they will certainly sense a call to action. Europe failed to answer that same call, and it may now be too late for them to reverse the inevitable Islamic domination of their continent.
Our First Amendment was never meant to protect sedition or insurgency. It is time to stop applying it in this suicidal fashion. Even as you read this, law and policy in the United States are continuing to allow seditious insurgents hiding behind a nave misinterpretation of “religious freedom” to erode our values, undermine our liberties, and threaten our future. We must stop it nowbefore we are incapable of stopping it at all.

1 John Beverly, “Islam a Religion of Peace?”, Christianity Today, January 7, 2002

2 Shariah the Threat to America, Center For Security Policy, 2010, p 37

3 Mark A. Gabriel, Islam and Terrorism, Charisma House, 2002, p 32

4 Shariah the Threat to America, p 37

5 Koran, Sura 4: 89, The Noble Quran

6 Reliance Of The Traveller, Amana Publications, 1991, p 541

7 Maxim Lott, “Shariah Law Comes to New Jersey”, Fox, August 5, 2010

8 John Bennett, “Sharia Law is Already Here”, American Thinker Website, November 30, 2010

9 Shariah the Threat to America, p 17

10 Ibid, p 17

11 Ibid, p17

Post Published: 04 March 2011

Author: ThePatriot

Found in section: NWO

No comments: