Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
  @GlennKesslerWP  |   Facebook  | Contact: factchecker@washpost.com  |  RSS Feeds RSS
Posted at 6:00 AM ET, 03/10/2011

Peter King's claim about radical Muslim imams: Is it true?

By Glenn Kessler

"The only real testimony we have on it was actually from Sheikh 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.

Two Pinocchios

(About our rating scale).

Follow the Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook.

By Glenn Kessler  | March 10, 2011; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  2 Pinocchios, Other Foreign Policy, War on Terror  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Michele Bachmann's 'bombshell' on a 'hidden' $105 billion
Next: The King hearings: Is CAIR a 'terrorist organization'?

Comments

Somewhere in that unknowable void Joe McCarthy, you may be absolutely certain, is smiling. Peter King really ought to know better. In fact it's a pretty safe bet that he does know better. This is nothing more than a cheap - and inexcusable - attempt to keep his name in the papers.

Most Republicans politicians are brain-damaged. This is no state secret. But I usually expect this kind of behavior from one of the half-wits in dear old Dixie - not the great state of New York. What good does he expect could possibly come from this? The man is disgusting.

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan

Posted by: tomdeganfrontiernetnet | March 10, 2011 6:20 AM | Report abuse

tomdeganfrontiernetnet ... poppycock!

If our esteemed Attorney-General publicly admits that he loses sleep worrying about Islamic terrorism.

And, if our equally esteemed leader of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, is of similar mindset,

perhaps, TOM, we do have an Islamic terrorist problem here in America.

Suck it up. your elitist attitude seeps through your foolish comments.

Posted by: Hazmat77 | March 10, 2011 7:30 AM | Report abuse

I would bet that Kessler has no idea how many mosques there are in America, has never met an imam or ever attended Friday prayers, doesn't understand Arabic, and has never read the Quran. So just exactly how is he checking facts? By relying on a dated study by an acknowledged leftist radical convert? Those views are succinctly captured as follows: "In a WorldNetDaily report detailing how certain Muslim group leaders are hoping that “the U.S. Constitution will one day be replaced by Koranic law,” Bagby, an Islamic fundamentalist, is quoted as saying, “Ultimately we [Muslims] can never be full citizens of this country [the U.S.], because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country.” Nice snow job, Glenn. Looks like you broke your own Pinocchio meter!

Posted by: jpost1 | March 10, 2011 7:31 AM | Report abuse

I wholly support Peter King's Hearings on this matter. This is not in any way akin to the Joe McCarthy Hearings that spun out of control where McCarthy became obsessed and paranoid about 'commies' hiding under every rock.

When we see the genesis of the Fort Hood Shooter: Major Hassan and the subsequent complaints by the U.S. Military 'brass' that their hands were tied due to strict "P.C." orders re: the handling of Muslims who show anti American behaviors. And we see what happened in Germany by a Jihadist killing U.S. Soldiers, it becomes evident the danger exists.

Further I am a life long lib, now much more pragmatic. I live in an urban area as such have several close female friends who happen to be black(I am white)..they are nice middle aged woman as am I.


On 9/11 one of my black neighbors and a friend of mine, came scared/literally terrified running to my door because her husband attends one of 'those' churches she said. I didn't know what she meant at the time. She said to me, "the church" he goes to , all the time that he has become obsessed with, that I complain to you about talks just like those guys who attacked NY."

ie. "They preach hatred of America and the white devils and such."

She was an American black women just a normal women and so was her husband, but apparently he was being inundated with this hate at his 'muslim black church" for several years back in 1996 on to 2001 and beyond I assume. I lost track of her when she moved.

It was curious to me. She was concerned the FBI may well come into these American Black Muslim Churches to investigate.

Then about a year later my other good neighbor of mine who was a dear friend a mom like me, and a middle age black women told me she was very worried and concerned for her 20 year old son who has started attending one of those 'churches' that preaches hatred of America.

She told me now comes home talking about "the White Devil" and such and she was very very worried about him mentally.


She too was just an average middle aged mom and an American concerned for her son and the hate he was being inundated with by these Muslim based so called churches locally here in L.A. County.

For all these reasons I do believe King is doing a very important and much needed duty.

His duty is for all Americans and good black moms and wives as well , like my two friends who are concerned for their husbands and son's mental states once they become radicalized by these hate mongers within.


Three cheers for Peter King.

There are indeed many good black people who know about this problem in their community and want help with it to root out those heads of these hate mongering 'churches' who would and apparently do promote this sort of hate against their fellow American inside the United States.

Posted by: LAM123 | March 10, 2011 7:43 AM | Report abuse

"The Fact Checker was inclined to award King quite a few Pinocchios...."

... because he is a Republican.

Posted by: bobmoses | March 10, 2011 8:23 AM | Report abuse

Wow, so because all these Muslims are registered to vote and do so, this means that the assertion that 80% of the mosques are teaching radical Islum has to be wrong. Did the Detroit study actually attend a muslim "service" (I am not sure if that's what they call their mosque prayer time, which is why I put it in quotes) in the mosques to see what is actually preached by the imams? Also, did the Detroit study actually define the difference between "radical" ideology and "moderate" ideology? Without such a definition, can that study be trusted? From what I have seen in this article, there just is not enough information on the Detroit study provided to really see why 2 pinnochios is warranted. If all the Detroit study did was look at external factors, it is likely not a valid study, if they did have folks attending mosque "services", then that info. needs to get out and what criteria was used to define "radical" and "moderate" to justify using that study to refute the 80% claim.

Posted by: ATrueChristian | March 10, 2011 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Can anyone spell the name Joe McCarthy?

Posted by: tinyjab40 | March 10, 2011 8:40 AM | Report abuse

HOW ABOUT
THE UNABOMBER???

OKLAHOMA TIM MCVEY

DON'T JUDGE ALL! BY ONES ACTION!

IS KING A RADICAL?

Posted by: theoldmansays | March 10, 2011 8:48 AM | Report abuse

In other words, the idiot doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.
A true Republican retard.

Posted by: analyst72 | March 10, 2011 8:57 AM | Report abuse

I was in London on 7/7 near where some of the bombs went off. In the aftermath of this attack, the Guardian newspaper commissioned a survey of British Muslim attitudes toward suicide bombers and suicide bombings. They found that 7% of the Britain's Muslims would be suicide bombers and 25% of Britain's Muslims would support suicide bombers and bombings.
If so many British Muslims can either say they would either be suicide bombers or would support suicide bombers and bombings, it seems reasonable to me to ask the same questions of American Muslims. Of course, I am well aware that it is not politically correct to ask such questions.

Posted by: jeffreed | March 10, 2011 9:08 AM | Report abuse

When Glenn Kessler can explain the concepts of taqiyya & dhimmitude, I'll pay attention to his opinions.

Posted by: dell4 | March 10, 2011 9:10 AM | Report abuse

This Just In ! Security has been Ramped Up for Congressman Peter King after Getting Death Threats.

“I’m getting a lot of hostile phone calls now, but the main threats I’m getting are from overseas,” Rep. King said.

Could these death threats be coming from the religion of peace?

Posted by: geo82170 | March 10, 2011 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Anyone who uses World Net Daily as a source is not looking for the truth. It is no better than using the Daily Worker as a source.

Posted by: rxmollins | March 10, 2011 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Peter King supported Irish terrorism by supporting the IRA. Oh wait! There are Irish in this district and they are white! Rep. King is a racist facist.

Posted by: Ralph_Indianapolis | March 10, 2011 9:30 AM | Report abuse

What we are having hearings about, and how we define radical is probably considered a direct challenge to Islam. The Catholics did not like the challenge of the Reformation. It only angered them. Muslims are extremely different from Westerners in terms of mores and norms. A recent case in point was the conviction of the Muslim TV executive who started a TV show dedicated to breaking the Muslim stereotypes. What was he convicted of? Beheading his wife because she filed for divorce. Was he not reinforcing the very stereotype that he was trying to eradicate? In Islamic law you are encouraged to beat your wife, even to death (if that happens from the beating, not a problem), for speaking to you (her theoretical husband) in a high handed manner. Filing for divorce may have been considered high handed? Islamic law says a 9 yr old female is an adult (15 for boys), and is old enough to marry and have sex (Muhammed actually married a 6 year old, his favorite of 9 wives, but waited until she was 9 to have sex with her), and is also old enough to have her hand cut off if caught twice stealing, and her head cut off, if caught a 4th time. Boys at that age are not punished for the same crime. Muslims, like to complain about stereotypes, but I have seen them celebrating with a parade in Palestine after a schoolbus full of Jewish children was blown up by a suicide bomber. Celebrate? The bomber was then lifted to martyr status and put on a poster to admire. Throughout the Muslim world, they felt 9/11 was not so much as an act of violence, or a crime, but glorious justice. Bin Laden obtained a fatwa (he allegedly paid an IMAM) several years ago that proclaims that God won't be mad if you kill less than 10 million Americans (that implies that for money, God is flip flopping on his commandments, but maybe over there money overrules even God's will?). It is a peaceful religion for those wo do not fall victim to their Jihadic onslaught. Afghanistan was once a Hindu country but the Muslims moved in and killed all of them (ref the Hindu Kush "Kush" meaning slaughter). Reference the slaughter that has been carried out in Africa recently by the Mujahadeen, the bombs that are being set off in Thailand by the new immigrant Muslim minority there against the existing Buddhist state. We consider this as radical, a matter of concern, and they see it as fulfilling God's will and being good. We need to understand more about how they think, should explain our differences and why we are conscerned. I don't mind if they practice their laws if they do not conflict with ours. But we can not allow them to for example stone a woman to death for having sex out of wedlock. To them "Allah Ahkbar" means "God is great". To a Westerner, it means "We are now going to commit bloody mass murder of random innocent people we never even met". Here is a huge gap in not only language but in cultures. I am pro hearings. We need more dialogue desperately. Rad Islam funds Mosques in America = true.

Posted by: jackgotney | March 10, 2011 9:30 AM | Report abuse

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."

****************************************

But of course! People who are in favor of community involvement and who register to vote can't be radical!

Case closed. Great job Glenn.

Posted by: Jeff08 | March 10, 2011 9:40 AM | Report abuse

tomdeganfrontiernetnet ... poppycock!

If our esteemed Attorney-General publicly admits that he loses sleep worrying about Islamic terrorism.

And, if our equally esteemed leader of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, is of similar mindset,

perhaps, TOM, we do have an Islamic terrorist problem here in America.

Suck it up. your elitist attitude seeps through your foolish comments.

Posted by: Hazmat77
________________________
if the hearings were about the Islamic role in terrorism, there wouldn't be a problem.


they aren't. the title of the hearings refers to the entire religion, not even just the radical element in it.

their premise is that the religion itself is becomming a radicalized threat to the nation, slurring every adherent with a vague insinuation.

then to add insult to injury, the subtitle asks why Muslims as an entire community seem to be obstructing justice and refusing to cooperate, which is not only demonstrably false (the tips we have gotten to foil the plots that have been foiled, which is almost all of them, came from Muslims), but again, doesn't ask why some anti-American Muslim radicals won't cooperate, it asks why Muslims in general won't, a horrible smear against Muslims in general.

Posted by: JoeT1 | March 10, 2011 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Our "Fact Checker" seems to have missed a number of events published in the Washington Post over the last 10 years: the series of arrests & convictions of "American" Muslims for would-be terrorist activity. The events include the Fort Hood Army doc killings, the shoe bomber, the group plnning to attack military targets in NJ, the recent arrest of a would conspirator to kill the Danish cartoonist, must I go on? In the UK their 7/7 attack came from radicalized UK Muslims and there have been plans for further attacks by UK Muslims stopped by MI-5,6 & Scotland Yard. Our "Fact Checker" seems to avoid these embarassing truths. The threat of Islamic Jihadism is genuine & has produced bloody results. Our enemies make little secret of their intentions, but in the world of the "politically correct" it is far more important to mumble certain mantras than confront reality. This column is a perfect example. If Mr Kessler was interested in reading a study about possible radicalization, I would suggest he read some done by the Pew Foundation which reveal a high degree of support for suicide bombers and terrorist acts by Muslims around the world. As President Bush indicated: investigating possible "evil doers" is NOT an attack on Islam. To the politically correct left any investigation of any minority is racist. Funny I have never heard them oppose hearings into the extent of Mafia involvement in the world of crime as being unfair to Italian Americans? Or investigations into IRA activity as being anti-Irish. Is it perhaps that since both the Italians & Irish are white the doctrine of political correctness doesn't extend to them? Terror is real not imagined. We read regular reports about Muslim Americans going to Somolia to fight or of kids leaving their comfortable Va homes to travel to Pakistan to find the Taliban for training to fight Americans in the Afgahn war. Are we not to examine the underlining causes of their attitudes? Are we not in a public forum allowed to have a frank discusion? I have observed the assault on Rep King by the Post & the NY Times in an attempt to undermine his credibility, that is shameful & an overt exercise in mud slinging. As for a fact checker, I would fear reading Mr Kessler's college term papers which were probably based on the stories of the Brothers Grimm rather than do the hard leg work of real investigation of the facts. Shame on him, the Post & all of those knee jerk politically correct who lecture the rest of us as to what is acceptable behavior.

Posted by: arnnyc | March 10, 2011 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Has King presented any evidence that threats to him actually are coming from overseas or is he relying on the same evidence used as a basis for these hearings - smoke and mirrors?

Posted by: Rudesan | March 10, 2011 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Let me get this right, King's criterion for determining whether a mosque is radical is they maintain 'a focus on the Palestinian struggle'? If that's the bar of entry to radicalism our chairman of House Homeland Security reveals himself as utterly ill-qualified for the position.

Posted by: gmccollam | March 10, 2011 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Investigations are not the problem but when we "religious profile" there is a problem. Let's investigate and hold court for ALL radical/religious activity not just Islam. The original terrorists were and still are the KKK and white supremacist groups. When are we going to investigate all of the white christian churches(nod to LAM123)? Will there be an investigation into Catholic churches and the seemingly breeding of pedophiles? What about these milita groups and minute men who have now taken up arms to defend "their" Constitution and "take back America"? If that doesn't sound radial and threatening I don't know what does. Who is "their" and who exactly took America? When I look at a mob of white people screaming "We're taking America back" I'm sure there are plenty of AMERICANS that feel threatend when looking at the history of what white America has done to people of other races. Of course, this wouldn't happen because according to Repubs only non-whites are a threat to America.

Posted by: clthompson | March 10, 2011 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Question for Rep King.

"Are you now or have you ever been, or affiliated with or sympathetic to any terrorist group."

Posted by: gordonwall | March 10, 2011 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Representative Peter King is an abomination to anyone who practices the Christian faith. Wake up, Peter.

Posted by: gilbertpb40 | March 10, 2011 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Change "Muslim" to "Jew", toss in a few Swastikas; we've been down this road before.

Posted by: MikeRivero | March 10, 2011 11:18 AM | Report abuse

King is RIGHT about looking into radical Islam. Tom Degan is yet another Liberal born lacking a logical thought process gene and he is in urgent need of a cranial-rectal inversion if he thinks these mosques in America aren't cranking out radical islamic terrorist. Just ask the people in Dallas, Texas what they found when a huge mosque was raided there several years ago.People like Degan do more harm than good with their brand of reporting half truths. That is what will lead this great country to finally take back our towns and cities by stopping the building of these mosques that have nothing to do with religion in any way, but they breed hatred, death and destruction from the cradle to the grave. That is not a religion, it is an ideology of hate.

Posted by: georgia-peach1 | March 10, 2011 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Setting aside these hearings, which are nothing more than a political stunt and red meat for the Foxes of the world.

One - it is indisputable fact that there are movements in this world which a) utilize terrorist tactics; b) indoctrinate citizens into serving as their "soldiers" (e.g. suicide bombers); c) base their propaganda on a particular interpretation of Islam; and d) have explicitly targeted U.S. assets, interests and citizens.

Two - it is quite likely that the majority of Muslims (i.e. believers in Islam), whether in the U.S. or overseas, are not directly involved in nor actively support the movements describe above. [For one, if the reverse were true, there would be a lot more suicide bombers.]

Three - even if the number of Muslims actually affiliated or supportive of these movements is quite small (e.g. 1% of all Muslim populations), the entire Muslim population remains exposed to "radical propaganda" through various forms of media - the Internet, certain foreign television programs, contacts within mosques, etc. To be clear - because these movements use Islam as part of their ideology, it is logical that they would target their propaganda and recruitment materials at members of the Islamic faith.

Four - it is these "targeted propaganda" efforts that must be combated and prevented, lest they create additional recruits for these movements. Conversely, actions or steps that lead to this propaganda gaining more traction should be avoided.

This cuts both ways. On the one hand, if the U.S. suddenly bans the Islamic faith (let's imagine), the anti-American movements would likely gain more recruits; conversely, if the U.S. government makes public gestures towards the Islamic faith, this should undercut some of the propaganda.

At the same time, within mosques, and within other Islamic media, any radical propaganda can either be condemned and actively rebutted - or allowed to fester. Here is where the responsibility of the Muslim community and religious leaders lies. [Similar concept - there is nothing wrong with a Christian priest's sermon so long as it does not call for a violent crusade against the non-believers.]

Furthermore, from the standpoint of security services, it is only logical that they would monitor mosques and Islamic media (or Internet websites) for signs of infiltration by radical propaganda. At the same time, ideally, this should be with the help of, rather than in spite of, the broader Muslim community (which, for the most part, is presumably non-radical and not inclined towards acts of terrorism).

Summation. The solution to "potential radicalization" cuts both ways - the U.S. should not needlessly antagonize, and the Muslim community should not actively or tacitly support the extremists. "Discrimination" does not enter the equation because of who these extremist groups are - unless the U.S. starts locking people up in concentration camps (or something to that effect) on the basis of their religion.

Posted by: Kruzenshtern | March 10, 2011 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Yes, I am a caucasian male. And...once again I am embarrassed and disgraced as being an American.

Posted by: jurman | March 10, 2011 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I am a caucasian male. And...once again I am embarrassed and disgraced as being an American.

Posted by: jurman | March 10, 2011 12:02 PM | Report abuse

hazmat,
Tom is spot on right, as in correct, not pinheaded. King is grandstanding and doing more harm than good. Your lack of anything that comes within a mile of rationale for this witch hunt, speaks to your bigotry, fear-mongering and false pretences.
King is the worst kind of politician. The sort that will through anyone and anything under the bus for a headline. Even if he half believes that his ignorant and foolish spectacle will do anything useful in our stand against terror, even if he half believes it, he is dead wrong.
This pedantic charade of a two faced split tongue lying sack of it, serves only to yield one more clear and convincing example of the hypocrisy and murderous self righteous BS that is, people like you, hazmat.
There are criminals in the world. Some are driven by greed, others by ideology. You are cut from the same cloth as the taliban, as the jihadi, you hazmat, are their equal. Fomenting dissension and terror intimidate others. It is you and your cleric, King, who need to be investigated, charged with fomenting dissension and punished to 20 years of picking up litter. That would be justice served.

Posted by: right_as_rain | March 10, 2011 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Let's all admit, for starters, that the issue of investigating U.S. mosques and practicing American muslims for telltale signs of pro-terrorist sympathies is not an easy question. King's hearings, conducted in an aggressive way and excluding witnesses who could cast American muslim behavior in a positive light, could end up backfiring - doing much more harm than good. King & Co. could easily reinforce non-Muslim Americans' worst nightmare stereotypes of Muslims, alienate many thousands of moderate Muslims, and re-ignite those Muslims who may already be inclined to terrorist acts.

On the other hand all of us do need some reassurance about what is and what is not being preached in American mosques, what percentage of American muslims may be sympathetic to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, what level of recruitment to terrorist activity may be in progress.

The hearings are a delicate balancing act.
Given some of King's pre-hearings statements, such as that "80 per cent of American mosques are sympathetic to terrorism or fundamentalist jihad," it's not at all clear that King himself is the right person to be directing the show.
If he would disqualify himself from running the hearings on the basis of his prejudicial remarks and let someone less biased take over, things might go entirely better. There seems scant chance of that, so King is who we're stuck with, and it's largely King's witness choices that will be on the carpet.
Not ideal.

John Patrick Grace
Huntington, West Virginia

Posted by: publishersplace | March 10, 2011 12:16 PM | Report abuse

This stupid joker knows as much about "radical Islam" in America as Sarah Palin does. Shut up. Take a long lunch with your fat cat friends. Focus on important stuff. Not grandstanding about "national security." Why don't you worry about getting jobs for people in your district?

Posted by: TaxiDriver | March 10, 2011 12:48 PM | Report abuse

I was in London on 7/7 near where some of the bombs went off. In the aftermath of this attack, the Guardian newspaper commissioned a survey of British Muslim attitudes toward suicide bombers and suicide bombings. They found that 7% of the Britain's Muslims would be suicide bombers and 25% of Britain's Muslims would support suicide bombers and bombings.
If so many British Muslims can either say they would either be suicide bombers or would support suicide bombers and bombings, it seems reasonable to me to ask the same questions of American Muslims. Of course, I am well aware that it is not politically correct to ask such questions.

Posted by: jeffreed

==========================

Wowsers! There are more than a handful of Muslims in England. How many hundreds or thousands of suicide bombings have they had since 7/7? TIA

Posted by: James10 | March 10, 2011 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Hmmmmm. Maybe there should be congressional hearings to determine if there is such a threat. Hasn't been any terrorist that wasn't muslim in quite some time. There just might be something to this claim of dangerous radical muslims.

Posted by: lel2007 | March 10, 2011 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Islam's Latest Contributions to Peace 3/8 to 3/9 March.


2011.03.09 (Cairo, Egypt) - Nine Copts, including a child, are killed and over a hundred more injured when a Muslim mob hurls firebombs and shoots into a group protesting a church burning.

2011.03.09 (Adezai, Pakistan) - A Shahid suicide bomber detonates at the funeral of the wife of a peace committee member, sending over 40 souls to Allah.

2011.03.08 (Djelfa, Algeria) - Fundamentalist bombers attack a group of bird hunters, killing five.

2011.03.08 (Abu Ghraib, Iraq) - A government employee is dragged out of his home and stabbed to death in front of his family.

2011.03.08 (Faisalabad, Pakistan) - Islamists detonate a massive bomb at a gas station, incinerating over thirty innocents.

2011.03.08 (Asendabo, Ethiopia) - Two Christians are killed when angry Muslims rampage through their community, burning churches and homes.

Posted by: geo82170 | March 10, 2011 1:07 PM | Report abuse

It has become obvious that this elected officials radical brothers of Irish child killing terrorist are exempt from his onslaught against non-white persons. Next, I assume his directions will lead him to hispanics who were occupying the true american homeland of this great nation before excusses for the destruction of the Santa Fe Archives were created. Then maybe blacks, and if thats not enough maybe taking whats left of the native Amercan nations and turning them into National parks for his type of anglo life style. If anglo americans weren't ashamed of these types of heros before, they should start thinking about these rising situations. In this country, your children are interbreeding. Your grandchildren will look back on you with disgust,and urinate on your graves. Your American Gods are obviously as phony as this hero of the people!

Posted by: Freedom111 | March 10, 2011 1:14 PM | Report abuse

The answer is clear, if you are a non-white of mostly European dissent,then it is fine to castigate the whole group if we are afraid of that group. We had far less evidence on the Japanese and we put them in internment camps - although they were actually concentration camps. It doesn't sound good for Americans to admit that we actually put people in concentration camps.
So after the hearings, we should start rounding up all Muslims or suspected Muslims, that means you Barack - and let's put them in a concentration camp.

Posted by: Yes3 | March 10, 2011 1:30 PM | Report abuse

The answer is clear, if you are a non-white of mostly European dissent,then it is fine to castigate the whole group if we are afraid of that group. We had far less evidence on the Japanese and we put them in internment camps - although they were actually concentration camps. It doesn't sound good for Americans to admit that we actually put people in concentration camps.
So after the hearings, we should start rounding up all Muslims or suspected Muslims, that means you Barack - and let's put them in a concentration camp.

Posted by: Yes3 | March 10, 2011 1:31 PM | Report abuse

The answer is clear, if you are a non-white of mostly European dissent,then it is fine to castigate the whole group if we are afraid of that group. We had far less evidence on the Japanese and we put them in internment camps - although they were actually concentration camps. It doesn't sound good for Americans to admit that we actually put people in concentration camps.
So after the hearings, we should start rounding up all Muslims or suspected Muslims, that means you Barack - and let's put them in a concentration camp.

Posted by: Yes3 | March 10, 2011 1:32 PM | Report abuse

They need to start investigating FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS.

Like Westboro, and any other church that preaches our government is corrupt and should be removed.

Like all the other churches that think the only good doctor, is a dead gynecologist.

They need to start investigating all of the other little splinter extremist groups that practice 'maneuvers" as if they were military.

Posted by: taroya | March 10, 2011 1:33 PM | Report abuse

The answer is clear, if you are a non-white of mostly European dissent,then it is fine to castigate the whole group if we are afraid of that group. We had far less evidence on the Japanese and we put them in internment camps - although they were actually concentration camps. It doesn't sound good for Americans to admit that we actually put people in concentration camps.
So after the hearings, we should start rounding up all Muslims or suspected Muslims, that means you Barack - and let's put them in a concentration camp.

Posted by: Yes3 | March 10, 2011 1:36 PM | Report abuse

This article is pointless. King said he said it once and didn't have anything to back it up with.
So what's the point? He misspoke and apparently quoted another misspeaker adn now journalist are only talking about that.
What did he say back in the 80s about Muslims? That would be slightly less relevant than the current article.

Posted by: hebe1 | March 10, 2011 1:47 PM | Report abuse

The WaPo having a Fact Checker is a contradiction in terms. Absolutely absurd!

Posted by: panola60 | March 10, 2011 1:47 PM | Report abuse

"Has King presented any evidence that threats to him actually are coming from overseas or is he relying on the same evidence used as a basis for these hearings - smoke and mirrors?"

He probably was trying not to incite fear in this country by saying the threats to him are from outside.

Or would you rather he said that they're coming from the payphone down the street?

Either way, your comment is inconsequential. I would think you'd question the verity of the threats rather than the locale.

Posted by: hebe1 | March 10, 2011 1:54 PM | Report abuse

I really don't like this "fact checker" business.

You are using judgement and opinion as metrics to measure facts such as claiming somethings is or is not a fact by "how much" it should or should not be ephasized in a statement, not if the basic facts are true or not.

Basically, someone you don't like makes a comment that is factually true but you say it isn't because you don't like who said it or how it was said or any unstated implications you may detect.

So, it's not really facts you are checking but attitudes and opinions.

Posted by: AnotherContrarian | March 10, 2011 1:56 PM | Report abuse

King is a far right wing Irish Catholic. He openly supported the IRA and it's terrorists activities. LOOK IT UP!

Geeze! Talk about the Kettle and the Pot!

Posted by: lufrank1 | March 10, 2011 1:56 PM | Report abuse

As a US Afghan Muslim I can tell you that Afghan imams are some of the most vitriolic and America hating imams anywhere. Many muslims in mosques have had several fights from San Diego to Virgina with their imams but these imams are tenacious and refuse to go away, they openly declare their hate for America and when challenged they say one thing in english and another in dari and we feel helpless to do anything as people are afraid of the police and FBI and stay quiet.

I dont know how rep King can invite the radicals because the radicals are the last people to show themselves in public, instead i believe there should be a law where any pracher preaching hatred against the US could be caught by the citizens or by undercover law enforcement.

The most hateful groups that preach hatred do not even live in the US, its people who live outside the US but come on visit visas or come for prosletyzing. They dont leave any permanent mark, they find out addresses of Muslim people from the mosques and go door to door, and ask people to give them a little time and try to share pictures and stories of US soldiers killing innocent Afghans be it accidental but they portray it as Americans deliberately killing Afghans. This is how they slowly penetrate young boys and bring them to radicalization.

I dont even send our kids to the mosque or go to mosques myself except for annual Eid holidays because there are so many radicals hiding pretending to be sheep, but in private they teach children hate, this goes on in many many mosques around the US.

Just ask the children who go these mosques a few questions in their own language dressed as them, and then see the ugly truth.

I must also say that 99.5% of Muslims that i have met in the US are decent hard working people who share concerns like myself and worry about another 911 and just want to go on and make their lives better. Its that 0.5% that i and my family worry about who have nothing better to do than grow long beards, and go around making trouble.

Posted by: nowthetruth | March 10, 2011 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Let's get this correct once and for all. A "radical" Muslim would be one who denounces the multiple commands to violence in the Koran. A moderate Muslim is violent only part of the time. A mainstream Muslin, including those who would be considered conservative (strong believers) in their religion are the ones who direct violent action. Any Imam who teaches the Koran must be obeyed in all of its commands should not be looked upon as radical but simply as teaching what his religion commands. Imams who preach against such violence and denounce portions of the Koran would be the true radicals and there are none.

Posted by: wantingbalance | March 10, 2011 2:58 PM | Report abuse

When other identifiable groups, whether Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Overeaters Anonymous, Michigan "militia", or the Illuminati, start in with a worldwide effort to convert, by violent means, others who don't share their viewpoint, they'll be investigated, too. As it stands now, Muslims--yes, MUSLIMS--are the only group so far found who have committed thousands of acts of violence in the name of their beliefs. The KKK hasn't been any kind of force in decades, the militias are running around in the woods playing war games with each other (all forty of them), and anyone else who would "overthrow" the government hasn't yet shown themselves to be worth a second look. Muslims, on the other hand, are over a billion people and a substantial percentage of them--as high as 25-30%, according to surveys I've heard--find violent jihad justifiable. Even if that number is too high by half, that still means a hundred of million people would vote for jihad...and not just a "struggle." If those numbers are nothing to you, don't complain when it's your town under attack, or your train that explodes, or your spouse's head that's sliced off in a video. There are a lot of people--all Muslim--who want you and me dead. Don't fool yourself. This is real. The time to be politically correct is long past.

This stupid Japanese internment business is ridiculous. The U.S. clearly over-reacted in 1941 since the government of Japan attacked us--ONCE--and a wave of Japanese citizens all calling for "death to America" didn't emerge. Japanese Americans didn't attend religious services where radicals were trying recruit nutcases to set off bombs at every opportunity. The only "suicide bombers" at that time were piloting Zeroes into our aircraft carriers. The comparison to today's Muslims isn't comparable on any level.

Posted by: jwebb41 | March 10, 2011 3:27 PM | Report abuse

This is a good example of what is wrong with the media in this country. One person making extreme, hateful, or otherwise irresponsible comments are able to dominate the media. The conservatives have discovered this and use it to good advantage. Sarah Palin is an expert at this game, but there are others who are competing with her.

Posted by: cdierd1944 | March 10, 2011 3:27 PM | Report abuse

When other identifiable groups, whether Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Overeaters Anonymous, Michigan "militia", or the Illuminati, start in with a worldwide effort to convert, by violent means, others who don't share their viewpoint, they'll be investigated, too. As it stands now, Muslims--yes, MUSLIMS--are the only group so far found who have committed thousands of acts of violence in the name of their beliefs. The KKK hasn't been any kind of force in decades, the militias are running around in the woods playing war games with each other (all forty of them), and anyone else who would "overthrow" the government hasn't yet shown themselves to be worth a second look. Muslims, on the other hand, are over a billion people and a substantial percentage of them--as high as 25-30%, according to surveys I've heard--find violent jihad justifiable. Even if that number is too high by half, that still means a hundred million people would vote for jihad...and not just a "struggle." If those numbers are nothing to you, don't complain when it's your town under attack, or your train that explodes, or your spouse's head that's sliced off in a video. There are a lot of people--all Muslim--who want you and me dead. Don't fool yourself. This is real. The time to be politically correct is long past.

This stupid Japanese internment business is ridiculous. The U.S. clearly over-reacted in 1941 since the government of Japan attacked us--ONCE--and a wave of Japanese citizens all calling for "death to America" didn't emerge. Japanese Americans didn't attend religious services where radicals were trying recruit nutcases to set off bombs at every opportunity. The only "suicide bombers" at that time were piloting Zeroes into our aircraft carriers. The comparison to today's Muslims isn't comparable on any level.

Posted by: jwebb41 | March 10, 2011 3:29 PM | Report abuse

This is a good example of what is wrong with the media in this country. One person making extreme, hateful, or otherwise irresponsible comments are able to dominate the media. The conservatives have discovered this and use it to good advantage. Sarah Palin is an expert at this game, but there are others who are competing with her.

Posted by: cdierd1944 | March 10, 2011 3:29 PM | Report abuse

You cannot generalize but I have always found in Bangladesh where I grew up and here in the US that mosques are more conservatives than the attendees. I remember returning from mosque attendance with a somewhat sour feeling hoping that Imam would say the things in a different way. But those are not radicalization; those were conservatism. I attended mosques in rural Bangladesh—mosques were built and maintained from money donated by the community members. Those truly belonged to the community. Can we say the same things about some of the mosques in this country? I do not have empirical data, but I would be fine, even demand that mosques let the community know from where the money comes. I can assume that some of the money might come from the Middle East, especially from Saudi Arabia. I have problem with that. I have nothing against the Saudis (they employ millions of Bangladeshis, which support Bangladesh economy) but the danger lies in the nexus of monarchy and Islam. Everyone knows that Saudi royals promote a special brand of Islam (Wahabism, I know the supporters would say it’s real and authentic Islam, but a majority of Muslims disagree) and they try to create proxies all over the word to say two things: Islam does not support democracy, women’s rights and human rights the way we understand it. They deliberately create a narrative and there are reports that they would insert their own explanation in the Quran and export those all over the world including the United States. That need to stopped or minimized.
The question is how? Saudi royals are powerful and they are floating on oil money and they have friends in White House, Congress, think tanks, Universities and media. Can King call the Saudi King and speak his mind? I would salute him, if he does. Media generally (except Fox Nois) are doing it to some extent after the initial paranoia post-9/11. Please do one thing—tell the audience about the diversity of the so-called Muslim world. When you talk about women in Muslim countries, please do not stop at Saudi women cannot drive; please also say that in Bangladesh women routinely get elected to the highest government office. Bangladesh is the third largest Muslim country. Please do not exclude it from the narrative because they are poor and does not have oil and strategic importance.
Also, I think it is inappropriate to focus on the mosques to talk about Muslims in the US. A great majority of Muslims do not even attend mosques. For many people, their attendance is just weekly and they spend 10-15 minutes to say their Friday prayers. They do not care much what the Imam says.

Posted by: raihanshafiq | March 10, 2011 3:30 PM | Report abuse

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.

=======================

But that's exactly how the fright wing media echo chamber works. Drum up scary, gut wrenching melodramatic quote from somewhere, and even though it's known to be a ridiculously false quote, you keep hammering it because it's what the GOP'er constituency wants to hear. Unfortunately, this strategy is changing policy for America. It's working because there is no one who will call the right wing on it.

Posted by: fmamstyle | March 10, 2011 3:38 PM | Report abuse

I love the newest GOP'er strategy: Say outrageous things, make horrendous policy, then make yourself a victim by creating all these "dangerous emails" they are now getting. Hiding behind mommy after you taunt the neighbor's smaller little boy is really shameful, GOP.

Posted by: fmamstyle | March 10, 2011 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Rep. King- "Are you now, or have you ever been, a Muslim?"

Posted by: hairguy01 | March 10, 2011 4:06 PM | Report abuse

We are seeing a muslim resurgence similar to the 1300's, and 1800's (Barbary Coast pirates), which is nothing new to Western Civilization. "Peaceloving" Muslims will ALWAYS stand up for their brethren against the West, if for no other reason than intimidation by the radicals (like the "peaceloving" Germans in Nazi Germany). Peter King is doing the right thing.

Posted by: rothd51 | March 10, 2011 4:46 PM | Report abuse

This is a free country and we are allow to investigate potential terrorist at anytime we want. If it was other ways around, do you think those Muslim countries even have investigation? or simply jail and executed. If any Muslim thinks US is racist and sucks then please move back to your mother land and live happily under your Muslim law.

Posted by: drkly | March 10, 2011 5:14 PM | Report abuse

King is simply cashing in on the Bigotry the Tea Party Republicans have fostered. The guy is a creep. The GOP has become the Party of the richest 3% taking advantage of the dumbest 30% of America.

Posted by: rcc_2000 | March 10, 2011 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Change "Muslim" to "Jew", toss in a few Swastikas; we've been down this road before.

Posted by: MikeRivero | March 10, 2011 11:18 AM

This is nothing like Krystallnacht. There is no Ozwiecim. The SS have no analog in contemporary America.

The danger here is obviously to the public image of Muslims. As for propagating hate, it looks like the Hitler and McCarthy references are in full force so we're all on our guard, thank you. To say that some violence will come of this is premature.

Lets make a direct and focused accusation against Mr. King--one that can be proven or disproven.

Posted by: stkschw | March 10, 2011 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Change "Muslim" to "Jew", toss in a few Swastikas; we've been down this road before.

Posted by: MikeRivero | March 10, 2011 11:18 AM

stkschw Replies:
This is nothing like Krystallnacht. There is no Ozwiecim. The SS have no analog in contemporary America.

The danger here is obviously to the public image of Muslims. As for propagating hate, it looks like the Hitler and McCarthy references are in full force so we're all on our guard, thank you. To say that some violence will come of this is premature.

Lets make a direct and focused accusation against Mr. King--one that can be proven or disproven.

----
----------------------
stkschw, to problems with your response
1) You are picking a later point in German History. Where the Tea Party Republicans are now is a little earlier in the rise of Hitler. The real point and analogy here is that the mentality of King, Palin, Bachmann and the Tea Party Republicans is the same ignorant, xenophobic, nationalistic, propaganda filled rhetoric that the Nazis spewed.

When I look at this poem I simply replace Communist for Democrat (something the Tea Party does anyway) and Muslim for Jew. Unions are still the common enemy of the GOP and Nazis

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Posted by: rcc_2000 | March 10, 2011 6:01 PM | Report abuse

I would like to ask a question to all of the commentators who seem so certain that American mosques are churning out radicals: Have You Ever Been to a Mosque?

I don't need the answer: you haven't. 99% of all the armchair pontificators who seem to know so damn well the ideologies being taught inside mosques have never even driven by one. They're too busy reading Pam Geller on their laptops.

I've been inside mosques all my life. Yes, there is anger about the atrocious treatment of Palestinians (why wouldn't there be?), about US-backed dictators who are finally being overthrown, no thanks to the US, about the hate crimes against ordinary Muslims since 9/11. Why wouldn't there be? It's no secret that the US has wreaked havoc in the Middle East.

But I have never, ever heard anyone advocate violence. I remember one time, a Pakistani Uncle tried to tell the congregation not to vote. He was shouted down. One time a non-Muslim female reporter was reprimanded by an elderly Muslim to take off her shoes inside the prayer hall. He was quickly hushed and the reporter was apologized to. Mosques have held fundraising dinners for charities, interfaith discussions, neighborhood parties, voter drives, Ramadan feasts (always open to non-Muslims), I've even been to fashion shows inside mosques. And I could pretty much draw you a map of the all of the mosques in Illinois and Texas.

My point is, don't pull stuff out of thin air. You're afraid of American Muslim radicalization? Go visit a mosque. They're not without problems- sexism, a little bit of racism here and there, financial mismanagement, infighting - pretty much your average organization. But NOT violence.

Google IMAN, CIOGC, Community Cafe, Muslim Advocates, 20,000 Dialogues, Muslim Women's Associations, AltMuslimah, and many many more American Muslim organizations doing great things for America.

Posted by: sali18 | March 10, 2011 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Might I also remind the same armchair pontificators that when a moderate Muslim tried to build a shining example of moderate American Islam, the project was vilified and condemned. King wants moderate mosques? Then he should throw his full support behind Park 51. I'm not holding my breath, because this is not about moderate Islam. This is about King, the Republican party, and the notoriously bigoted tea-baggers.

Posted by: sali18 | March 10, 2011 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: nabi18 | March 10, 2011 6:25 PM | Report abuse

I understand there are witches in Salem, MA. Perhaps Rep. King needs to investigate.

Posted by: MNUSA | March 10, 2011 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Peter's last name is King.

But that does not make him a king.

Someone ought to be very frank with him about that!

Posted by: kishorgala | March 10, 2011 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Like people think alike.

I wonder if there is radicalism in Peter King's background.

Posted by: kishorgala | March 10, 2011 9:40 PM | Report abuse

It's seems rather ironic that the man who styled himself as "the Ollie North of Ireland," who helped funnel money for weapons to the IRA in the 1980s, is again so concerned with terrorism.

However, it also must be remembered that from Mr. King's perspective, if it's committed by white folks, even against other white folks, it's not terrorism.

Posted by: rogied25 | March 10, 2011 10:07 PM | Report abuse

All of you. Read the Quran, familiarize yourself with Sharia law and then post your comments not in ignorance, but in wisdom.

Posted by: Keith39 | March 11, 2011 2:56 AM | Report abuse

I am more lib than thou. Period. Accept it.
I also have read english versions of Sharia, the Hadith, and the Koran.

A fraction of one-half (1/2) of one percent of the population in this country commits one-half of all the terrorist attacks on us. One thing unites them...let's take some very clear and loud looks at how and why this is happening...

Come on: one-half (1/2) of one per cent of the population OWNS half of the WEALTH in this country, and many of you think there's something worth paying attention there...I do too.

Just because I think that Massa and Greedilocks, the billionaire babies whose father made their money building refineries for Stalin...just because I think they are enemies of freedom doesn't mean I can't apply the same standards to the Muslims who want to cut all the cli*ts
of free women and put them in veils to hide their regular bruises...

King may be the republithug you all think he is. I'm amoral enough to hope he turns the rock over so we can see what's been hiding there.

I hope you ALL will read the Muslim holy books...and get some Muslim friends. YOu have some surprises coming. We ALL think we shouldn't IMPOSE our beliefs and cultural standards, like soap and water and not beating your wife...these are, ultimately, not jokes!

Get real. Be fair, be just, but get some real experience. One more time, I am more lib than you, and maybe tougher. Maybe even, in some atavistic ways, smarter...consider it possible. Just consider it...one-half of one percent supplies us with terrorist attacks, one-half of one percent owns all the wealth. Look into what's going on, even if you have to use a schm..ck like King. This may the best thing he's ever done. It wasn't being done by the Ivy Leaguers in our government agencies that are supposed to forewarn and guard us...

Posted by: tigre1 | March 11, 2011 3:01 AM | Report abuse

The truth is slowly coming out in the open.

The Republican party is the new Nazi party.

The Nazi's banned unions, they spread lies until the population thought they were the truth and they focused on the Jewish population to justify their cause.

The Republicans are banning unions, they spread lies hoping they will be believed and they are focusing on Muslims to justify their cause.

I guess the Republicans will ban and start burning books, will start to destroy Muslim businesses, schools and private houses.

The Republicans are extremely dangerous and everyone can see they are controlled by the rich class of Americans and want to turn the middle class into their slaves. I guess the poor class will be sent to Africa as slaves.

Look carefully at the proposed Republican budget proposal. It stops growth, it cripples education, it stops the recovery. If we cannot grow then our children and their children will live in a Republican induced poverty while the rich gets richer.

When do Democrats have to start wearing arm bands.

Americans wake up before it is too late.

Posted by: monroe2 | March 11, 2011 7:18 AM | Report abuse

"King now dismisses the comment as inconsequential, saying in an interview that he has no idea if the estimate is correct." In other words he lied. Not mis-spoke, but lied.His statement was intended to instill fear and hatred of practising Muslims. This is bully politics, and King is an archtype of this despicable behavior.

Posted by: tempestite | March 11, 2011 8:31 AM | Report abuse

Why doesn't this little man, King, investigate the hate mongerings of the re-energized KKK and other White Supremacist groups raging throughout the south and midwest, as well as his own background in supporting Irish terrorists??
Unfortunately, "religion" is being used, again, to stir up fear and hate...King could never be discribed as "religious." Hypocrite. GET BACK TO THE JOBS ISSUE!

Posted by: fairness3 | March 11, 2011 9:43 AM | Report abuse

It amazing that no one is talking about the fact that the Michigan Militias are still living among us Americans, in front of our own eyes and everywhere from north to south. They recently got caught in Michigan planning terror plots, and then were let go free by our own justice system.

The question that needs to be investigated the most is; who is behind this so called preset hearing? What is the real purpose of this investigation? The audience for this calculated frenzy should be asking these real questions, rather than getting caught in and feeding the ill agenda of Mr. King and others like him.

Posted by: nltb457 | March 11, 2011 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Where is the outcry of Muslims, for their brothers to stop killing,maiming,and torturing their fellow muslims in Libya,Iran,Pakistan,and Afganistan?

Why can't muslims get along with their own.muslims?

Why all the silence?

Posted by: stormpost | March 11, 2011 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Fact-Checker can conveniently choose to ignore events that occur seemingly on a daily basis here in the U.S. These hearings are not over. I am hoping Mr. King will present evidence occurring WORLDWIDE. Of course, I expect Democrats to cry foul if even one foreign event is brought to bare. The whole point of King's argument, and the reason why he has singled out radical Muslims, is that the problem is worldwide, not simply isolated in excusable (by Dems!) U.S. locations.
Does Fact-Checker recognize that Shariah Law is unconstitutional or do they suddenly insist on States Rights as the sole authority determining the legality of Shariah? Where does Fact Checker stand on Shariah Law???

Posted by: urbisoler | March 11, 2011 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company