If Social Security and Medicare are not “rights” try repealing them and see what the people think. They are constitutional only under the 10th Amenment which would exclude any federal involvement.

Affirmative action, an executive order which has assumed the power of law is a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment.

Abortion, if indeed it is a privacy issue covered under the 4th Amendment should allow prostitutes to hawk their wares nationwide.

And if it is true that laws are laws because a considerable number of Americans support those laws why is Obama Care the law of the land?

The slow creep of tyranny doesn’t advertise itself as tyranny. It calls itself “progressive”, “helpful”, good for everyone. And it doesn’t need considerable support to rule. It needs demonization of its enemies and an apathetic and ignorant populace.

Sharia is as political as it is religious. Islam is not a religion-it is a theocracy. It won’t be here in your lifetime unless you step up your efforts on its behalf. But your posterity may be divorcing their wifes by simply stating that intention 3 times.

Thank you for making my point so effectively. You wrote, “I would ask Mr. Steinback if the right to abortion, social security, medicare, and affirmative action, rights that are now assumed, can be found in the constitution?”

First of all, the measures you listed are (or were) provisions passed into law, not “rights” (except for legal abortion, which is based on the right to privacy), and as you know, laws only need to be constitutionally enacted, not actually found in or placed into the Constitution. More to the point, each of the measures you’ve listed have considerable support among the American people — which is why they are laws at all. Do you honestly believe there is — or could ever be — enough support for Shariah law among 300 million non-Muslim Americans for Shariah to actually become the law of the land? (And remember, Constitutional changes require supermajorities.)

“Unlikely” doesn’t even begin to describe it.

Robert Steinback
Deputy Editor, Hatewatch blog
Southern Poverty Law Center

Also, please show where capitalism can be found in the US constitution, since you want to play semantic word games.

I would ask Mr. Steinback if the right to abortion, social security, medicare, and affirmative action, rights that are now assumed, can be found in the constitution?

These are just a few of the assumptions three or four generations have inherited from progressives who began their quest for an American utopia more than a century ago.

If you wish to know how easy it would be to sneak Sharia into this country you must be completely unaware of how easy it was to sneak communism into the White House. All it takes is a dedicated effort to demonize American culture and promote “diversity”. Today we call it “political correctness” but it’s always been known as tyrany.

You wrote, “SPLC seeks to minimize the seriousness of Shariah Law and how it has become a legit cause for concern in European countries with large Muslim Immigrant communities.”

First: There simply is no threat of Shariah law ever being implemented in the United States. I would ask you how that could possibly occur in a nation with a fully functioning 220-year-old Constitution, and more than 300 million non-Muslims? SPLC does not study European trends as a practice, so I can’t address your evaluation of Shariah’s presence there.

As for Ms. Gabriel, it is difficult to take seriously someone who claims to have solid evidence of foreign infiltration of the U.S. government, but chooses to use that knowledge to build membership and income rather than turning the information over to the proper authorities. Imagine if, during World War II, an organization declared, “We have proof that Nazi agents have infiltrated our government,” and, in the next breath, said, “So pay to join our organization and we’ll tell you all about it.” Wouldn’t that strike you as odd? Her speaking “passionately” about the subject should not be confused with talking credibly about it.

Lastly, it is incorrect to assume, as it appears you might, that someone who rejects Islamophobic rhetoric is thus secretly an enemy of Israel and its supporters. That is a false linkage.

Robert Steinback
Deputy Editor, Hatewatch blog
Southern Poverty Law Center

GET YOUR PHONE NOW!! DIAL 1-800-IMTERRIFIEDOFMYOWNSHADOW. ORDER NOW!!!

Madolynn Cronk

Uhhh……a few Muslims suffered in Lebanon “at the hands of Muslims”, too. More to do with its dictator. You might have caught that on the news.

Frosty, I’m a Christian who has worked for years with Muslim groups here in the US, both American-born and from various countries. Can you say the same? Our organizations have worked hand-in-hand with Jewish friends—as well as Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus, among others—so you are leaping to substantial unfounded conclusions when you try to relate this to some kind of anti-Israel bias.

The point is not all Muslims are guilty of “something”, just because they are Muslim. Please read the MPAC website to gain another insight, if you don’t believe SPLC.

I’ve lost friends in Afghanistan. These friends also were “very passionate and compelling.” Every one of them would tell you it was worth it and to focus on creating constructive, direct relationships.

It is not naiveté. It is simply a choice about how one wants to live in today’s world.

I have heard Brigitte Gabriel speak. I found her to be very passionate and compelling, many in her audiance, like myself were hearing her for 1st time. She cares very deeply about the issue of Islamic Extremism, and with her life experience* who can blame her? There is no intellectual pretense in her presentation.

*Brigitte Gabriel grew up as a Coptic Christian in Lebanon. She and her family suffered prosecution at the hands of Muslims. Her family was given medical assistance and sanctuary in Israel. It is only logical that she feels a sense of gratitude for Israel.

I am saddened that she has to sell herself in such a tacky manner. These are not easy times for fund raisers. I am even sadder to see SPLC deteriorate the way it has.

ACT is focusing on real or perceived terrorism from one specific group, based on religion and/or ethnicity. Domestic terrorism is an act of white racist skinhead groups also, for example. There are plenty of documented incidents, found on the SPLC website.

The question is why ACT does not consider ALL groups that are guilty of acts of hate and violence to be of concern for Americans?

When a group demonizes one group based on their religion or ethnicity, and ignores other groups guilty of the same reported acts, then there is another agenda. Social media, websites, books and speaking tours can make groups look all shiny and legit, but Stormfront does the same thing, too, right?

You mention the fact Akram got convicted of aiding terrorists groups, Akram has a playbook by the Muslim Brotherhood for it’s North American initiative — hmmm common sense says hey it would be logical to conclude this Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist group.

Granted the ACT fundraising letter is tacky but then again I haven’t seen too many fund raising efforts that weren’t.

I have grown to expect more thoughtful analysis from the SPLC. However, in this report I get the sense of a personal vendetta against Brigitte Gabriel.

Why do you hate ACT For America?

If it hadn’t been posted here, I almost would have laughed it off as a joke, too. Then again, considering who’s behind it…

Really, folks, you can’t make this stuff up.