[pgyanke]

I see the difficulty but also the necessity when you understand their religion and goals. You can't trust what they say--lying to the infidels (Taqiyah) is holy writ. What you can trust is that moderate or extremist, they have the same goal--to turn Dar Al Harb (the world at war--the world not currently under Islam) into Dar Al Islam (the world that has submitted). Their tactics differ just as a logistician's tactics differ from a tank commander... but they are in the same company for a common purpose.

I would submit to you that we would never have elected a Nazi to Congress (or if we did he would have been rejected by the Congress) during WWII. The problem now is that we don't identify our enemy now as we did then. However, our enemy is having no problems identifying us.

[r9etb]

I see the difficulty but also the necessity when you understand their religion and goals.

Here's the deal, though. Suppose an elected Muslim really does try to institute Sharia law -- which would be explicitly unconstitutional. If our nation is unable to reject such moves on that basis alone, then the Constitutional foundations of the nation are rotten anyway.

The words of the Constitution are meaningless without an informed and responsible citizenry are willing to defend and live by the spirit of the Constitution. It all boils down to our real difficulty, which is that we'd rather "be nice" than do what's right.

A Muslim in Congress poses no real risk unless we're already in trouble.