What you are not getting is that those Muslims who do want to live here peacefully are the first targets of the radicals. Islamists seek to drive a wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims, so that they can carve out enclaves of influence. We see this in Europe, where the first Muslim immigrants were westernized people who wanted nothing to do with Sharia law. The radicals would come in, set up mosques, create incidents and then demand concessions. Those moderate Muslims who objected were terrorized or ostracized, while their kids were taken in. The non-Muslims would accede to the demands of the radicals in a misguided attempt to appear open-minded and tolerant, but every concession empowered the radicals at the expense of the moderates. For example, those Islamist who demand the imposition of "voluntary" arbitration in accordance with Sharia law know that a Muslim who doesn't want to submit to a Sharia court can be accused of apostasy and denying the prophet, so the moderates are under tremendous pressure to submit their cases. Eventually, the imams are the only ones who can dispense justice (or what passes for it) and the community has no choice but to go along with it, because the secular courts will enforce the Sharia court's rulings. The fact that the Islamic Society of North America, a Muslim Brotherhood front, controls the leases of 80% of the mosques in the US (and therefore the staffing therein) is a serious indicator of how dangerous the situation is. King's hearings are the only hope that moderates have to escape the control of the radicals.
If you really want to help your Muslim friends, expose the wolves in their flock.
Of course. And the same people who thought that Joseph Welch's tears in the McCarthy hearing were real.
I find it a tad embarrassing.








