Philip Haney’s Death Not a Suicide


Philip Haney was a Whistleblower who exposed the extant to which elements self-proclaiming to be peaceful Islam were in reality murderous transformist Muslims promoting an Islam that takes down America. Haney was silenced by Dem-friends of Islam looking for a fundamental transformation of America.

 

When it appeared imminent that Haney was returning to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), it was reported that Haney mysteriously committed suicide. Following a long line of people who died suspiciously that might have exposed Dems to criminal culpability. (Can you say Jeffrey Epstein, Seth Rich and a horrendously long line deaths connected to the Clinton crime cartel? [Consevapedia & Akdart])

 

Is Philip Haney yet another death that no one will face justice in a court of law? FPM has the latest on the Haney murder.

 

JRH 3/17/20

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee, that includes immune boosting products.

 

BLOG EDITOR (In Fascistbook jail since 1/20/20): I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protester restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”

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

Philip Haney’s Death Not a Suicide

DHS whistleblower did not kill himself, say Reps. King and Gohmert.

 

Philip Haney (FPM photo from YouTube)

 

By Lloyd Billingsley

March 17, 2020

FrontPageMag

 

Former Department of Homeland Security Whistleblower Philip Haney was found dead in Amador County, California, last month. Early reports said the death was due to a self-inflicted gunshot, but Haney’s friends in Congress say that isn’t so, with the support from a February 24 Coroner’s Investigation Update by the Amador sheriff’s office.

 

As that report explains “there was misinformation immediately being put out that we have determined Mr. Haney’s death to be a suicide. This is not the case.” Mr. Haney was “located in a park and ride open area immediately adjacent to State Highway 16 near State Highway 124. Highway 16 is a busy state highway and used as a main travel route to and from Sacramento. The location is less than three  miles from where he was living,” in the Sierra foothills east of Sacramento.

 

As Michelle Mears noted in the California Globe, Haney’s relatives and friends did not believe he had killed himself. According to Kerry Picket in the Washington Examiner, Haney was “recently in contact with top officials about returning to work for the DHS.”

 

As Haney explained in The Hill on May 5, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security ordered him “to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS).” Haney described the campaign in See Something Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad.

 

The Amador County Sheriff is cooperating with the FBI to analyze “documents, phone records and a lap top that were recovered from the scene and Mr. Haney’s RV.” The sheriff has also obtained “the firearm located at the scene” but has not revealed the type of weapon. A forensic autopsy has been scheduled and as Cheryl Chumley reported in the Washington Times, Haney’s friends in Congress are weighing in.

 

“I don’t believe that Phil Haney committed suicide.” Rep. King said on the House floor this week. Rep Louis Gohmert, Texas Republican also disbelieved the suicide story. “I’d been concerned about his safety, with all the information he knew and people who could’ve gotten in trouble.”  Gohmert and King said Haney carried a thumb drive containing sensitive documents and according to the Washington Times report “that thumb drive is curiously missing.”

 

Philip Haney worked as a field agricultural entomologist in the Middle East, where he began studying Arabic and the Quran. In a 2016 interview, with Frank Gaffney Haney said Islamic jihadists “always say that Islam is a religion of peace. Because for them, shariah equals peace.” They also leave “scent trails” and Haney proved adept at tracking them.

 

The mosque that San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook attended was part of the Tablighi Jamaat network and the Obama administration deleted sixty-seven records out of the system that Haney worked on as a component of the Tablighi case. Had those records not been deleted, Haney said, it was plausible that Farook would not have been able to travel to Saudi Arabia, Tashfeen Malik would never been given a visa, “and then we would have stopped the attack.”

 

The attack was not stopped and on December 2, 2015, Syed Farook and wife Tashfeen Malik murdered 14 people and wounded 22 before being taken down by police. Farook’s mother Syed Rizwan Farook the U.S. Attorney for California’s central district reports, “has agreed to plead guilty to a federal criminal charge of intending to impede a federal criminal investigation by shredding a map her son generated in connection with the attack.”

 

A man who writes a book exposing U.S. government submission to jihad is bound to have enemies. High on the list of suspects would be Islamic terrorists and those who deny their jihadist cause.

 

As they investigate the death of Philip Haney, the FBI should take a hard look at every DHS official who blocked him from telling the truth about jihadist networks in the United States. The FBI should also have a long talk with Jeh Johnson, DHS Secretary from 2013-17.

 

After Haney’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2016, Sen. Ted Cruz asked Johnson if Haney’s testimony was accurate. “I have no idea. I don’t know who Mr. Haney is,” Johnson replied. “I wouldn’t know him if he walked into the room.” If federal investigators disbelieve those claims it would be hard to blame them.

 

Haney said the DHS investigated him nine times and revoked his security clearance. The Department of Justice charged that Haney “misused a government computer,” charges later dropped. The news that Haney might be returning to DHS would not thrill Obama “wing man” Eric Holder, who has been telling reporters looking into DOJ malfeasance to “shut the hell up.”

 

Meanwhile, reports that DHS whistleblower Philip Haney killed himself amount to misinformation and at this writing the killer is unknown. According to the Amador County Sheriff,  “no determination will be made until all evidence is examined and analyzed.”

+++++++++++++++++++++

BLOG EDITOR (In Fascistbook jail since 1/20/20): I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protester restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”

__________________________

© Copyright 2019, FrontPageMag.com

 

Donate to FPM

 

The brazen plot against Trump by the Obama-era FBI and DOJ continues, enabled by a complicit media


Earlier today I cross posted the Geller Report (which was actually a Catherine Herridge/Fox News source) on FBI corruption with a shortened title, “Corrupt FBI leadership debated…” In the course of sharing the FBI corruption post, I came across an awesome Fox News post on the same situation.

 

Fox News Contributors Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova effectively write a scathing pierce which does a much better job in showing the hypocritical/corrupt nature the FBI used to target President Trump with FALSE Russian spy incriminations.

 

JRH 1/14/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

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

The brazen plot against Trump by the Obama-era FBI and DOJ continues, enabled by a complicit media

 

By Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova

January 14, 2019

Fox News

 

Fox VIDEO link: Rep. Peter King: ‘Absolutely disgraceful’ of FBI to question if Trump’s motivation for firing Comey was tied to Russia.

House Republican sounds off on revelations that senior FBI leadership debated whether President Trump was directed by the Russian government to fire FBI Director James Comey. (Youtube Version of Rep. King interview)

A stench has been emanating from the J. Edgar Hoover Building (FBI headquarters) for over two years. It landed Saturday on the front page of the New York Times in an article citing “former law enforcement officials” claiming they had to deal with “explosive implications” that President Donald Trump was “knowingly” or “unwittingly” working for Russia. Thus, the story goes, there was a basis to begin the Russia collusion investigation.

 

In fact, “The Gray Lady” was covering the derrieres of the Obama administration officials involved in the cabal to frame Trump, who now fear an imminent Special Counsel finding that during the 2016 campaign there was no collusion between Trump and the Russians. The article is intended to convey the following message: Even though there was no evidence to support the allegations, those making the decision to investigate Trump did so in good faith.

 

No, they did not. The rotting of the FBI hierarchy began when then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and then-agent Peter Strzok, enabled by former Director James Comey and the Obama-era Justice Department, utilized an “unsubstantiated” dossier created by former British spy, Christopher Steele, and financed by the Clinton campaign, to request a FISA warrant to wiretap Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. Yet, the New York Times described the dossier as a “factor fuel[ing]” the “FBI’s concerns.”

 

GREGG JARRETT: AN FBI THAT IS CORRUPT AND DISHONEST — LATEST REPORTS OFFER ONLY MORE PROOF

 

We have been involved in the criminal justice process for decades. Never have we seen a law enforcement person concerned about anything unsubstantiated.

 

Another “factor” was that Trump “refused to criticize Russia on the campaign trail.” Really? Where was the FBI or DOJ angst in 2012 when President Barack Obama requested then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev tell Vladimir Putin that after the election, he would have “more flexibility” to deal with serious stuff like missile defense?

 

Where was the angst when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attempted a Russian reset? Was anyone in law enforcement tossing his cookies in 2010 when her spouse, Bill Clinton, took $500,000 from a Russian entity comprised of former Russian intelligence operatives? Or when the Obama administration allowed corrupt Russian-controlled companies to purchase Uranium One, thereby acquiring 20 percent of the U.S. uranium supply.

 

Another “factor” was that in July 2016, candidate Trump “called on Russia” “to hack into” Clinton’s emails. No. Trump’s remark, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you will be able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” was not a request to hack. Hillary had already used BleachBit to delete the emails so “even God cannot read them” according to former Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. Trump was joking to attack his political opponent for destroying evidence or, in legal jargon, obstructing justice.

 

Which raises another New York Times “factor”: that firing Comey in May of 2017 was “obstruction of justice” calling for a criminal investigation in addition to the counterintelligence investigation already in place because of the pretextual factors cited above. Set aside the president’s clear constitutional authority to fire any executive branch person for any reason or for no reason.

 

The fact remains that a person cannot be charged with obstruction of justice if the act at issue cannot obstruct justice, meaning it cannot thwart the investigation. Even if a special counsel had not been (improperly) appointed, the FBI top dog’s departure does not affect in any way the continuing work of the FBI employees below him. Indeed, it has not. Where is the obstruction?

 

Moreover, if firing Comey obstructed justice, why wasn’t Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who recommended the firing, also placed under investigation?

 

The New York Times story was created to obfuscate the real criminal conspiracy: violation of Title 18 of U.S. Code Section 242, which prohibits any person under color of law (i.e. Obama administration personnel) to deprive another of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution.” Such legal protection includes being free from a criminal investigation based on false charges.

 

Perhaps the bizarre January 20, 2017 email Susan Rice wrote “to herself” purporting to document a January 5, 2017 meeting with President Obama, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, FBI Director Comey and Vice President Joe Biden, gives a clue as to some of those conspirators. The meeting discussed the Steele dossier and Russian collusion, but curiously Rice stressed that the former president said every aspect should be handled “by the book.” Yet, Strzok had told his FBI colleague and paramour Lisa Page not to worry about Trump being elected because “We’ll stop it.”

 

The brazen plot against President Trump by the Obama-era FBI and DOJ continues, enabled by a complicit media. The odor of corruption has long been noxious. But the Democrats and media hold their collective noses. The criminal clique, via the New York Times, has announced to the world, “Catch me if you can.”

 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY VICTORIA TOENSING

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY JOSEPH DIGENOVA

 

Joseph diGenova is a former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, co-founder of the law firm of diGenova & Toensing and an informal legal adviser to President Trump.

 

Victoria Toensing is a former chief counsel for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and former deputy assistant attorney general at the U.S. Department of Justice, where among other assignments she created the anti-terrorism section. She is a founding partner of diGenova & Toensing.

______________________

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2018 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

 

Blog Editor Disclosure: Permission was not acquired hence upon Fox News request for removal, this Blog will comply.

 

Inside the 5th King hearing


Lisa Piraneo 9-11-10

 

Act for America has sent the report of Lisa Piraneo’s observations on the recent Peter King hearing on Radical Islam in America.

 

JRH 6/25/12

Please Support NCCR

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

Inside the 5th King hearing

 

Sent by Guy Rodgers, Executive Director

Report By Lisa Piraneo

Sent: 06/25/2012 11:01 AM

 

I strongly encourage you to read today’s email. As you do, you will see the importance and the value of having someone of Lisa Piraneo’s character, professionalism, experience and expertise representing us on Capitol Hill.

Guy Rodgers, Executive Director

______________________________

A Report from the Hill

 

Round 5: Chairman Peter King Holds Another House Homeland Security Committee Hearing on Muslim Radicalization

by Lisa Piraneo, Director of Government Relations

 

Last Wednesday, I attended Chairman Peter King’s fifth hearing addressing Islamic radicalization in the United States. This particular discussion was entitled: “The American Muslim Response to Hearings on Radicalization within their Community.” The hearing room was filled to capacity. The witnesses were all Muslims or Muslim-Americans and the hearing was designed to take their pulse on the effectiveness of the Committee’s approach to addressing the problem of Islamic radicalization throughout American communities.

To accompany the hearing, Chairman King released a report entitled, “The Radicalization of Muslim-Americans: The Committee on Homeland Security’s Investigation of the Continuing Threat.” Click HERE to read the report in its entirety.

In 2010, prior to the start of the 112th Congress, Congressman King promised that if he were to serve as Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, he would place a top priority on understanding and addressing the threat of Muslim radicalization within our nation. The Chairman has proven true to his word – but it hasn’t been an easy road for him.

As Congressman King noted in his opening remarks, from the moment he announced the hearings, he was “attacked by politically correct special interests and their unthinking allies in the media…” He noted that more than 1000 protestors came out in the rain to rally against him in Times Square, just days before the first hearing. Even so, Chairman King stayed the course. Why? Because as he put it, “the necessity of these hearings was obvious – and there should have been bipartisan support.” See Chairman King’s full opening statement HERE.

Unfortunately, after almost two years of his Chairmanship, that bipartisan support has yet to materialize. This is disappointing to say the least. As Brigitte Gabriel likes to say, “the threat of radical Islam to our national security is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue, it’s an American issue.”

The witnesses for this particular hearing were all of the Muslim faith:

 

§  Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, MD, President and Founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, who spoke about the importance of the separation of Mosque and State and noted that “ten years after 9/11 our heroes at the Department of Homeland Security remain occupied predominantly with a highly sophisticated whack-a-mole program…” See HERE for Dr. Jasser’s full testimony.

 

§  Ms. Asra Nomani speaking as a “Private Citizen,” though she was a former reporter for the Wall Street Journal and a journalist who reported on extremism for the last decade for publications such as the Daily Beast, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and Washingtonian magazine. She titled her statement, “Toward an Islam of Grace: Owning Up Instead of Being Wound Collectors.” Ms. Nomani told the Committee that “inside much of our Muslim communities, we have departed from our very clear sense of holding ourselves accountable…we are very much a culture of denial, fixated on perceived wounds.” See HERE for Ms. Nomani’s full testimony.

 

§  Dr. Qanta A. A. Ahmed, a British citizen and Permanent Resident in the United States, currently working with the World Trade Center First Responder patient population in New York. Dr. Ahmed’s fellowship at the University of Cambridge in England was on the “psychological manipulation of Islam into the service of terror.” She spoke of how her family not only has supported Chairman King’s hearings on radicalization, but has welcomed them, even though they “remain aware of the risks” that her participation as a witness “can pose to me in my everyday life.” See HERE for Dr. Ahmed’s full testimony.

 

§  Ms. Faiza Patel, Co-Director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. Ms. Patel expressed her opposition to the Chairman’s hearing topic as she felt they did not “rest on a firm factual basis.” She elaborated that the hearings “proceed from a premise – which is contrary to empirical evidence – that ‘radicalization’ is prevalent among American Muslims and poses an existential threat to our country. Moreover, they adopt a view of ‘radicalization’ that treats religious belief as a precursor to terrorism.” See HERE for Ms. Patel’s full statement.

 

 

Yesterday’s hearing presented yet another wonderful opportunity to understand and address the threat of radical Islam within our nation – this time spoken by those of the Muslim faith. Unfortunately, some members of the Committee used this as an opportunity to sidetrack the discussion, frequently in a way that was rude and disrespectful to the witnesses.

For example, the Committee’s Ranking Member Bennie Thompson (D-MS), asked witness Dr. Qanta Ahmed if she was a U.S. citizen. When she replied that she was not, he insinuated that because she didn’t have “any kind of security clearance or anything” she wasn’t qualified to speak on the issue. Congressman Dan Lungren (R-CA) responded that he was “kind of bewildered, frankly, by some of the questions and comments by my colleagues – that somehow your testimony isn’t valid because you don’t have a security clearance.” He continued, “The longer I’m here, I guess, the less I’m surprised by what I hear at times.” I think he spoke for many Americans that were watching the hearing from back home.

Congresswoman Laura Richardson (D-CA) belittled some of the panel’s Muslim witnesses by saying, “This Committee – we’re not a talk show, this isn’t Oprah, this isn’t entertainment, this isn’t radio. This is the United States Congress. I would just ask that in the future, if we are going to have a U.S. Congressional hearing…I believe that at least some of the panelists should be people who have the authority, who receive the regular information to give us the most accurate and helpful information as possible.” I found it amazing that after almost 6 years serving her constituents in California’s 37th congressional district, Congresswoman Richardson apparently believes hearing from a regular U.S. citizen was beneath her and her colleagues.

As a final detailed example, Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) reminded those in the committee room of the Japanese internment camps, warning the Muslim witnesses who supported examining the Muslim religion when attempting to understand the Islamist threat, “be careful what you wish for. Our nation has a history that we don’t like to connect often times, but be careful what you wish for in America.”

I was impressed with Dr. Ahmed’s response to Congresswoman Clarke: “Having these hearings is not going to lead to the internment of Muslim-Americans. It is exactly the lack of that kind of nuance which I draw to your attention respectfully, madam, that can damage the outcome of what is something that can be so positive. It’s the lack of nuance in our academic community, our politics and our media that’s missing.”

You can see for yourself how the different committee members handled themselves by viewing the archived video of the entire hearing HERE. If you missed today’s hearing (and especially if one of your Representatives sits on the Committee), I encourage you to watch it in its entirety so you can be informed about how your legislators are addressing the issue of Islamic radicalization.

We are approaching the final months of the 112th Congress, and a very important election cycle is upon us. I don’t know if Chairman King plans to hold any more hearings on Islamic radicalization during this term. What I do know, however, is that we should be tremendously thankful to him for his efforts to increase the visibility, and maintain the discussion, of the Islamist threat in America — and for his unrelenting work to protect our nation by finding a solution to that threat. That is one reason he will be awarded the 2012 National Security Eagle Award (our top honor) at our National Conference in Washington, DC next week.

As the Chairman stated during yesterday’s discussion, “to somehow deny that there is any correlation between certain people of the Muslim faith and the greatest terrorist threat facing this country today just defies credulity…it just does not add up at all.”

ACT! for America’s 235,000 grassroots members thank you, Chairman King, for all that you do on behalf of our national security.

_____________________________

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

 

Would you like to get Lisa Piraneo’s live Tweets from Capitol Hill? Click on the following link: @LisaPiraneo



Don’t have a Twitter account yet? Sign up at the link below—it’s free
: www.twitter.com

Inside the King Hearing


Lisa Piraneo

This ACT for America update about Rep. Peter King’s (R-NY) inquiry into the radicalization of Muslim-Americans and/or homegrown Islamic terrorism is written by Lisa Piraneo. Piraneo managed to barely make it into the overflow room to witness the questions of Democrats and Republicans of the hearing in question.

 

Piraneo’s observations show me the Democrats are hell bent to turn a blind eye to what is happening with Islamic radicalization in America. The Committee Democrats were just plain hostile and rude to testifying Muslims who do not appreciate the cruelty of Sharia Law.

 

JRH 3/11/11

Leftist Delusions about Radical Islam


Leftist & Islamic PC

 

John R. Houk

© March 8, 2011

 

I found an awesome article written by Lisa Graas at NewsReal Blog about the idiocy of the Left having a blind eye when it comes to the detrimental aspects of Islam that translates into activist political hatred toward non-Muslims and Jews, particularly if the non-Muslims have the word “American” in their pedigree.

 

Graas’ article is aptly entitled “The Ten Commandments of Leftist Reporting on Islam”. Here is a list of those Leftist Ten Commandments:

 

I. Thou Shalt Not Take the Name of Muhammad in Vain

 

II. Thou Shalt Compare Radical Islam to Conservatism

 

III. Thou Shalt Keep Holy the Name of Islam

 

IV. Thou Shalt Honor Radical Islamists

 

V. Thou Shalt Ignore Islamists’ Murderous Jihad Against “Infidels”

 

VI. Thou Shalt Not Put the Rights of Women Above Islam

 

VII. Thou Shalt Bear False Witness to Protect Islamists

 

VIII. Thou Shalt Not Be Troubled by the Muslim Brotherhood

 

IX. Thou Shalt Embrace Dhimmitude

 

X. Thou Shalt Attack Those who Warn Others About the Dangers Within Islam

 

The reason this article is so important is because of the Congressional Hearing Chaired by Rep. Peter King (R-NY) about radical Islam in America. The Left and Muslim Apologists have gotten their backs up about the King hearings like a mad scared cat seeing a dog with big teeth around the corner.

 

On Sunday night I caught a glimpse of Geraldo at Large covering this protest which I understand was themed “I am a Muslim”. On Geraldo I saw Hollywood stars which were Leftists with really no particular affiliation to any religious claim, proclaim that those old Right Wingers were a bunch of ignorant folks who have turned into haters much like Hitler hated the Jews. In fact I heard and saw a Reformed Jewish Rabbi stand alongside Imam Rauf and wife Daisy Khan, the Muslim orchestrators of the New York City protest, boldly expressing his solidarity with Muslims. Obviously that Rabbi had not read an English translation of a book Rauf wrote in Arabic that upheld the principles radical Islam. Here is summary of Imam Rauf’s actual beliefs as the chief promoter of the Ground Zero Mosque which he likes to call the Cordoba House:

 

More Americans now know that Rauf, as recently as March, said in Arabic that he opposes interfaith dialogue. They know he is a vocal supporter of sharia law, that he says governments which do not employ sharia law are “unjust” and that he has refused to label Hamas a terrorist organization. They know he has refused to sign the “Freedom Pledge,” issued by Former Muslims United, which pledges to oppose retaliation and punishment toward Muslims who leave Islam. The more Americans learn, the more concerned they become. (Brigitte Gabriel;
Waking Up to Radical Islam; Posted at
SlantRight.com 9/22/10)  

 

Imam Rauf is not the voice of moderate Islam and yet I am not surprised the who’s who of Left Wing Hollywood and Leftist Pundits turned out for this display of deluded support for a couple of Muslims that would end the right of Leftists to protest if Sharia Law (GOD FORBID!) became the legal practice rather than the rule of law U.S. Constitution.

 

Here is a list dhimmi-wits that protested alongside the Rauf’s according to a Jim Kouri article:

 

Holding placards that read “Today I am a Muslim, too,” a few hundred people gathered at what the news media termed “the interfaith protest.”  Attending the protest and speaking to the crowd were Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. Jesse Jackson and hip-hop producer Russell Simmons.

 

Other celebrities who showed their support include; Juelz Santana, Kimora Lee Simmons & Djimon Hounsou, Adrien Grenier, Cory Booker, Susan Sarandon, Swizz Beatz, Jermaine Dupri, Lorraine Bracco, John Legend, Heather Graham, Jim Jones, Kelly Bensimon, Reverend Run, Lamar Odom, Khloe Kardashian, Congressman Charles Rangel and others.

 

Getting back to the Leftist Ten Commandments on Reporting; there is commentary on each Leftist Commandment. Too bad the Leftists at the New York City protest did not read Graas’ for their own enlightenment out of the depths of ignorance. O shucks! It could be these here super smart intellectual Leftists might have kept their idiotic blinders to reality anyway.

 

At SlantRight.com there is simply way too much source html to handle Graas’ article. So posting at SlantRight.com will only have the links from the print page that divided the article into separate pages.

 

JRH 3/8/11