All right, y'all, welcome back to the show.
It's anti-war radio.
I'm Scott Horton, and we're going to our first guest now.
It's Eli Clifton, formerly, I think, at IPS, writer at the Low Blog.
Now at the Center for American Progress, where he took part in creating this incredible new report, which actually I better page up and get the title right.
Fear, Inc.
All about Islamophobia, who's behind it, and how it works, and why it isn't true.
Welcome to the show, Eli.
How are you doing?
I'm doing well.
Thanks for having me, Scott.
Well, I'm really happy to have you here.
This is such an important piece of journalism that you guys have got here.
First of all, can you break it down for us into the sections?
What all are we looking at in this?
Yeah.
Yep, absolutely.
So, as you just said, it's Fear, Inc., and the goal is to basically break down the Islamophobia network and show where its roots really come from, and trace out how exactly it works.
Now, there's five categories, as you just mentioned.
There's the money trail, in which we examine the seven funders.
They've given nearly $3 million to the anti-Muslim organizations and think tanks that we look at in our report.
Then there's the Islamophobia scholars and policy experts.
These are five individuals in their respective organizations, and they act as sort of a nervous system, if you will, for the Islamophobia network.
They're the ones in a lot of ways that put together the talking points.
They package it.
They give it credentials, and then they throw it out there.
Then we have the grassroots organizations and the religious right, the media enablers, who repeat and give a megaphone to these messages, and the political players.
Many of them are in the GOP primary presidential field right now for 2012.
Some have run with the Islamophobic messaging, and a few of them, like Herman Cain and Rick Perry, have actually made an effort to avoid it.
So I'd say that that's an area in which there's a lot of shifting grounds, and in some ways maybe a little bit of room for hope.
Okay.
Now, I want to read just this one paragraph from the introduction.
It's at AmericanProgress.org.
It says, due in part to the relentless efforts of this small group of individuals and organizations, Islam is now the most negatively viewed religion in America.
Only 37 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Islam, the lowest favorability rating since 2001, according to a 2010 ABC News Washington Post poll.
According to a 2010 Time Magazine poll, 28 percent of voters do not believe Muslims should be eligible to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, and nearly one-third of the country thinks followers of Islam should be barred from running for president.
So I mean, these are just sort of checking the oil and seeing what the level of hate and fear and ignorance is there.
It doesn't seem to me very likely anybody would try to appoint a Muslim to the Supreme Court any time soon, probably for this very same reason.
But the important part here, I think, is the lowest favorability rating since 2001.
We haven't been attacked in a major attack here in this country in a decade, and people are now more fearful of Islam than they were right after the giant thing happened.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
And just to throw another statistic out there, in September 2010, Washington Post and ABC did a poll, and they showed that 49 percent of Americans held an unfavorable view of Islam, which was a 10 percent increase from October of 2002.
I mean, that's pretty wild that in the meantime it's been 10 years since the 9-11 attacks, and actually people fear their distrust, and more broadly speaking, Islamophobia is really on the rise.
And, you know, kind of our sense of it, and what we try to conclude is, once again, there's a hopeful message here, is that it's not unique to Muslims, the type of distrust and paranoia that's out there right now, and in so many ways it closely mirrors things that we've seen before in American history, and things that when we look back on it, everybody, bipartisan, by far the bipartisan consensus is that these were mistakes, and you look back at the treatment of, for instance, Irish Catholics, or Jews, or the Red Scare, the McCarthy hearings, and I think generally, or even a better example, Japanese Americans on the West Coast, and I think when people look back on it, the sense is that, you know, that people's paranoias and the misinformation simply got away from them, and that you look back on it and say that was a huge mistake.
Yeah, well, and the thing about it is, well, let's get right to the heart of this.
What is Sharia, and, you know, what's with your rose-colored glasses, isn't it a terrible threat to us?
What's, you know, what's going on here?
Well, I mean, I think so much of what we hear about it, and frankly, even the fact that we hear the term so much these days, is largely a product of what we identify as the Islamophobia network.
You know, that there's all sorts of broad claims now being made, you know, about Sharia and about practicing Muslims, and that they can't be trusted or something, and so many of these are just factually wrong, if not just clearly fabricated with the intent of stoking fears.
And, I mean, I think a good example would be Bridget Gabriel of Act for America, who made the statement that a practicing Muslim, who she defines as one who believes in the teaching of the Quran and who prays five times a day, quote, cannot be a loyal citizen to the United States of America.
Now, challenging a specific group's loyalty within the United States has never been something that's gone well.
We've been down this road before, we know how it ends, and we always, and people like Bridget Gabriel, people who make statements like that end up, as my colleague Wajahat Ali has coined it, being the villains in our children's history books.
Well, so, but they are trying to force our wives and daughters to wear headscarves and all these kinds of things, right?
Absolutely not!
We'll have no choice, we'll live under an American Ayatollah suit?
Absolutely not.
Those are exactly the types of statements which the network has put out.
And it's interesting, because it's not even true to say that the types of statements coming out of the Islamophobia network were always accepted by even what we would consider right-wing media.
I think a good example is the Islamic Community Center in the Financial District in Manhattan, which gets referred to as the Ground Zero Mosque, which Fox's Laura Ingram, at first, when it was brought up, she said she didn't see a problem with it.
But then, you know, the Victory Mosque meme sort of grew, the network amplified it, bloggers like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer took it and ran with it, and we wind up where we are now.
Well, and, in fact, that's such a great example, because, as I understand it, the guy that was putting the thing together is a Sufi, who are like the Unitarians of Muslims, right?
Exactly.
I mean, there was really no basis in so much of the fear-mongering that went on around the Community Center, and it was, for lack of a better way of putting it, you know, the decision to build it sort of, it came at a choice time for people who wanted to really promote this misinformation about American Muslims and about their role in our diverse society.
Well, a big part of this is just the whole they're all in on it together kind of thing, which it, you know, I wasn't alive back then, I didn't live there either, but it reminds me at least of the history I learned, you know, really my whole life about Europe and particularly Germany in the 30s, where all Jews are in on this thing against us, whatever it is.
They all amount to this fifth column of disloyalty on the inside, it's the protocols of the elders of Islam.
The only reason these people are here is because they're trying to take something from us, and somehow this is allowed to, I mean, I don't mean by law, but I mean by popular opinion, this is tolerable in America, that people don't immediately just shout this down.
I mean, what if they were saying this about Jews right now?
We'd be flipping out.
It seems like, man, that's the break already.
We'll be right back with Eli Clifton from the Center for American Progress.
All right, y'all, welcome back to the show.
It's Anti-War Radio.
I'm Scott Horton.
I'm talking with Eli Clifton.
He's at the Center for American Progress, investigative reporter there.
And Eli, are you still at IPS working with Jim Loeb, too, or not?
No, I am now full-time at the Center for American Progress.
I blog on their fantastic blog, ThinkProgress, but my material there frequently gets cross-posted back to Loeb Blog, and Loeb Blog continues to be a great platform.
I'm so conflicted about the ThinkProgress blog.
I mean, there is such great stuff there, and sometimes things that just make me mad.
All right, well, anyway.
I've always loved your stuff, Jim Loeb's blog here, and the Interpress service, and this piece of journalism that you've taken part in here with some other colleagues, Fear Inc., The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America is so important.
I hope every congressman's office, every state, house, and senate just gets bombarded with copies of this thing, that they can begin to see through this madness.
But I should be quiet with all my moralizing and let you get to the heart of this thing.
Who is paying for the Hate and Fear Muslims campaign in America, and why?
Well, I can give you answers to one of those questions, and that's who.
And that's really where we started our report at, was let's just, let's take our blinders off, let's not make assumptions, let's just throw a wide net and see who it is that have been the most committed and the biggest funders of a set of key organizations that we look at.
So, I would summarize the recipient organizations that we used in our study, which were the Investigative Project on Terrorism, the Counterterrorism and Security Education and Research Foundation, which if you haven't heard of it, that's okay, they seem to mainly be a funding source for the investigative project, Middle East Forum, that's Daniel Pipes, Center for Security Policy, that's Frank Gaffney's outfit, the Clarion Fund, which distributed the Islamophobic documentary The Obsession, Radical Islam's War Against the West, Jihad Watch, that's Robert Spencer's blog, the David Horowitz Freedom Center from California, and the American Congress for Truth.
And in total, we tracked $42.6 million in funding that went to these groups.
Now, the biggest, I should say, individual donor that we can track is Richard Scaife, and his combined foundations, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Allegheny Foundation, and the Carthage Foundation, contributed $7.8 million to these organizations.
That was $1.5 million to the CTSURF that went to Investigative Project on Terrorism, $2.9 million to Center for Security Policy, and $3.4 million to the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
So, I think it gives you an idea of what level of donors we're looking at, and where they fit in the political right.
And now, with Daniel Pipes and Frank Gaffney, the Center for Security Policy, their biases have been on their sleeves for years and years now.
But there was also, I think I detected some surprise in the writing of this report, that here, some of these foundations are paying quite a bit of money for this, but these foundations are also financing completely innocuous things that do not portray this kind of agenda whatsoever.
The Bradley and Olin Foundations, they've always funded the neocons, and always put Israel first, and, well, the Likud Party, and the settler movements in Israel first.
So, you know, Frank Gaffney, we know what he's about.
But some of these others, did you come up with any explanation for how they got roped into this?
Well, you know, we reached out to all of them before we published our report.
We wanted to give them a chance to respond, to explain themselves, and in some cases, we figured they'd stopped, and they would like to clarify that, and say, you know, we noticed what these people were doing, we didn't want to be a part of it, we stopped our funding.
We didn't receive answers from any of them, and you're right, that when you look closely at the philanthropy that some of them engage in, it doesn't always, you know, line up to where we could say, oh, well, there, we nailed it, that's their political ideology.
The Russell Berry Foundation is a good example, they're based in New Jersey, Russell Berry actually made his fortune in stuffed toys for children, like teddy bears, and his foundation is quite, he's now deceased, but his family operates his foundation, and they're quite committed to a number of social causes, certainly ending terrorism is one of those things, but the ways in which they do it are quite diverse, and it includes giving money to, for instance, the New Israel Fund, which is very progressive.
Now, we actually have heard from a board member from one of these foundations who expressed surprise that the foundation was still engaging in the type of philanthropy that we described, and was quite upset to hear that their name was brought up, and so it is having, that's the effect we wanted, we want to call people's attention to it, and that includes the donors.
It seems so incongruent, 50 million bucks over 10 years is enough to just completely dominate all discussion of Islam and terrorism in America this way?
Well, Scott, that's not all the money that goes to these foundations, we identify that as some of the most committed, and very often the seed money that started off a lot of these foundations, but there are other donors, so this is a portion of it, this isn't everything, but I think this is some of the most important money that goes to them.
Well, and I should give you a chance to comment on my radical assertion that the Center for American Security Policy and some of these others quite clearly put the interests of the right-wing parties in Israel first, do you get any hint of that here?
You know, I think in some cases you could make that assertion, I think in others they're very focused about their dislike of American Muslims, and they want to marginalize American Muslims in our society, so I think that both in terms of the donors, and in terms of the recipients, you'll get a range of motivations for what they're engaged in.
I think Richard Gates as a donor is just generally involved in right-wing causes, and it goes back 50 years, his right-wing philanthropy, he's a major donor to the Heritage Foundation, and he sits as their vice chairman, and he played probably the largest role of anyone in pushing the Vince Foster conspiracy scandals, or conspiracy theories around Bill Clinton, and he did that through his ownership of a newspaper in Pittsburgh.
So, I mean, Richard Gates is a good example of somebody who I believe is on the right, and their motivations are broad, but the way that they operate can be very disciplined, in the case of creating an echo chamber, and then boosting the experts, who then get a chance to put out talking points.
Right.
I mean, that's really the thing, you've got to hand it to these guys, is they've really got it together.
Absolutely.
And as I went back to with sort of the comment of Laura Ingraham with Fox News, in many ways, you know, the American right and the conservative movement haven't always ran counter to American Muslims.
So, it's a relatively new thing, and these groups and these individuals who promote these talking points, in many ways, sort of hijack the right-wing media, for that matter.
I mean, there's not a long history of them going out to marginalize Muslims.
It's a relatively new thing, and it's actually steadily increased, as we were discussing earlier, from the year or so after 9-11, when you would have thought that would have spiked.
It's actually continuing to go up.
Well, and part of this, again, it's called Fear, Inc., the Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America, and in part of this, y'all focus on John Hagee and Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson and what I would consider the mainstream religious right in America, and they're picking up on all of this narrative.
The Christian right plays a very important role in this echo chamber we just discussed, because they have their own media outlets, like the Christian Broadcasting Network.
Right, and so what that means, in effect, is millions and millions of people are subject to this, and do you know, in the Cornerstone Church, they talk about this on the pulpit on Sunday morning?
The threat of Islamic Sharia here?
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, it's really broadening, where all you hear this stuff.
All right, hold it right there.
We'll be right back, one more segment, with Eli Clifton from the Center for American Progress, Fear, Inc., the Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America.
All right, y'all, welcome back to the show.
It's anti-war radio.
We got Eli Clifton on the line from the Center for American Progress.
He, Wajahat Ali, Matthew Duss, Lee Fang, Scott Keyes, and Faiz Shakir have put together this incredibly important piece of journalism called Fear, Inc., the Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America.
And now, Eli, I was hoping we could talk a little bit about the effect that this has had in American society, the victories these guys have won.
For example, I've never heard of anyone going around and teaching local police departments across the country that Islam's not a threat.
The September 11th attacks were never about Islam or radicalism.
It was about revenge for foreign policy, and if people in your neighborhood don't actually know any Al-Qaeda guys, then they're probably not going to blow anything up.
Instead, all they're hearing is that mosque, you know, in your town is probably hatching plots against everyone else.
Yeah, I mean, and I think that the people you need to look at who are probably some of the key individuals in forming that, you know, largely fictional threat are Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy and his attorney, who was also the attorney for Pamela Geller, I might add, and her Stop the Islamization of America group, David Yerushalmi.
And they have played no small role with both reports that they've issued, as well as their ability to push things through their network of graft-root, supposed organizations, to really push this idea of, you know, a stealth jihad or this supposed danger of Sharia law.
But when you take a closer look at these people, and when you really look at the things they've said, I mean, they come off as truly just bigots that anybody, and certainly Americans who have seen this type of thing before, I believe will identify them as.
I mean, Frank Gaffney, he released his quote, Sharia, the threat of America, and that frames Sharia as a totalitarian ideology, and a quote, legal, political, military doctrine.
Now, very few people share that definition with Frank Gaffney, but it's become accepted in this small network, and that's what we really try to highlight, that when you look at the things these people have said, there's just no question that they're bigots.
Let's use an example from Frank Gaffney.
You know, he wrote in the Washington Times, most mosques in the United States are actually engaged in, or at least supportive of, a totalitarian, seditious agenda they call Sharia.
Its express purpose is undermining and ultimately forcibly replacing the U.S. government and its founding documents.
Now, what Gaffney is mirroring is the type of fear-mongering that he was doing 20 years ago, because he got started not as an Islamophobe, but about raising concerns about the Red Scare and about the rise of communism.
So it's really sort of, you know, he goes full circle, it's constantly a threat out there, there's always got to be a threat to justify the existence of the Center for Security Policy.
It might be fun to go back and try to find some Gaffney quotes about the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, I bet you you could find some good ones there.
Yeah, the more you believe in Islam, the better a freedom fighter you are, everybody knows that.
Yeah, exactly.
But, you know, and I do want to go back to something you were saying earlier about, well, you know, what can we draw parallels to with what we're seeing right now?
And I don't believe it's actually fair to draw the parallel to the rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish thought and opinion in Germany, because in many ways that was, it found success in what it did, which was awful.
What I think is really important...
Well, I didn't really say they'd gone that far yet, but it's the same kind of conspiracy that, you know, they can all hear each other thinking and they're all in on it against communism.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
You're dead on with that.
And I think what we should be looking at, though, is actually, it's funny, I was just listening to the promo on Antiwar Radio and there was a, you were playing a fake headline from Onion News about the Japanese internment camp that had been overlooked and was only now being decommissioned.
And I think that that's actually a far, far better parallel.
We've seen this type of bigotry before, we've seen this type of intolerance before, we've seen this type of paranoia before, and it always goes the same way in the U.S.
It takes a little while, it gains some traction, people realize what it is, hopefully this report will be a part of that, and then you see people very quickly denouncing the people involved with it, feeling silly that they ever even remotely thought there might be a little bit of credibility to what was being said, and these people go down as the villains of the history books.
Well, and you know, I'm reminded while reading this thing of a Bill Moyers statement that in America something has changed drastically for the worse.
The delusional is no longer marginal.
Now here's this, you know, pretty much mainstream kind of narrative being pushed by somebody like David Urushami, who reads as though he might be a Jew who'd be welcome into the Ku Klux Klan for as much as he hates black people.
Yeah, I mean, when you look at the things that Urushami has said, I mean, the Klan analogy might not be that far off, you know.
The Southern Poverty Law Center concluded that, quote, he has a record of anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, and anti-black bigotry.
He described African Americans as, quote, a relatively murderous race killing itself.
And he believes that, quote, Muslim civilization is at war with Judeo-Christian civilization.
The Muslim peoples, those committed to Islam as we know it today, are our enemies.
So I think when you hear things like that, it's pretty clear where these people are coming from, and these are the types of quotes we really need to highlight.
Yeah, it's just amazing that the discourse is being set by people like this.
And for that matter, Frank Gaffney, you know, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush called the neocons the crazies in the basement, and they were to be kept in the basement.
And Gaffney never even could get confirmed, I don't think, as assistant secretary of defense or whatever.
And they were marginal, the neocons.
And now they still, even after being discredited from the Iraq war in almost all quarters, they still get to set the narrative here.
It's true, and especially people on the fringes like Frank Gaffney.
I mean, he says things that that simply just don't get highlighted.
But when you do see it, you're not going to believe anything else he says.
For instance, he said the Obama administration's missile defense logo, quote, appears ominously to reflect a morphing of the Islamic crescent and star with the Obama campaign logo.
I mean, that's just laughable.
Yeah, it was an atom.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
Exactly.
It was an atom.
It symbolized science.
Yes, yes.
I mean, this is really not, you know, stealthy or something.
They were trying to sneak in there.
It was actually pretty logical.
And I think that he was the only person who really raised some concern around it.
Yeah.
Well, I think you say in the piece, too, that even Bill Kristol denounced sort of this lower scum level of neoconservatism for opposing the Arab Spring.
You know, absolutely.
And that's and that's something that, once again, I think is reason for a little bit of optimism that the mainstream people within the conservative movement are actually starting to identify that these people are not folks you want to have anything to do with and that they're toxic to some degree.
I think I mean, you see Herman Cain, who had earlier said that he wouldn't want to have a Muslim in his cabinet unless they swore a loyalty oath, basically making a complete 180 once once he met with some Muslim community leaders, he broke bread with them.
And he very much changed his tune.
And this is somebody who at first was pretty much the poster child of the of the Islamophobes.
And over the course of it was about 24 hours, he completely reversed course.
And I think that, yeah, all he had to do was meet a couple and realize that, hey, these are people who who he has more in common with than he has, you know, difference.
And and suddenly, you know, I think it was a very it was a sign that, you know, he was he had a decent side to him.
And and he realized that the information he had been getting was just plain wrong.
And now, geez, there's there's so little time and so much to cover here.
But if we can get back to the cops thing, are they is that still going on?
I read in the past where where the Gafni were basically going around and teaching all the cops in America, this kind of thing.
You know, we didn't look at that too closely in our report, but I think that there is something to be said there.
You know, the Gafni will look for allies wherever he can find them.
And that includes, at times, misleading potential allies.
So they will, you know, spout the same type of of talking points that he wants them to do.
And him.
And once again, David Hiroshima have played key roles in promoting this type of thing.
Well, and now the thing is, too, is this is all about it.
Well, I don't know.
You said there are some who are just, you know, support right wing causes always and make me this.
They think this is good domestic politics or whatever.
But it seems to me like the root of this all goes back to September 11th and the political establishment's unwillingness to say, well, we brought this on ourselves by occupying Saudi Arabia in order to enforce the blockade on Iraq.
And so instead they hate us because we're good.
And why would anyone hate us?
Because they're good.
It must be that different religion of theirs that they believe.
And and maybe there's a great scale of extremism.
And once you get to a certain level of extremism in your Islam, that's when you attack good things or whatever.
But this all comes back to that big lie that the September 11th attack or any of the al-Qaeda attacks before that were about that, you know, that we're Christians and have primary elections over here in North America instead of our intervention in the Muslim world, supporting Hosni Mubarak and the kings and emirs and sultans of the region, etc.
Yeah, I mean, I think I think that although I'm slow to want to say that 9-11 was a turning point, because, you know, as the polling shows, anti-Muslim sentiment actually wasn't at its high point directly after 9-11.
And you've got to give, I think, the Bush administration a little bit of credit there.
Right after 9-11, he was quite quick to say, you know, that our Muslim American neighbors are not the problem and that we should not be directing our anger at them.
It took a little longer for people like Frank Gaffney, David Yerushalmi and bloggers like like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer to really mainstream that type of stuff.
Yeah.
Anthony Gregory from the Independent Institute pointed out that it was really the end of the Bush years and the bringing in of Obama that changed it, because one, Bush always said, no, no, no, this isn't about Islam.
And that was like a lid on the pot.
But then, of course, also you have Obama being black and the son of a Muslim and with a Muslim name and all the conspiracy theories about whether he's a birther and a Muslim and all these things.
And of course, he never came right out and said, look, I'm not a Muslim.
And what if I was anyway?
There's nothing wrong with being a Muslim and like that.
He never really stood up on the issue.
And so someone in my comment section point out he bears his own responsibility for that.
But that was really the end of the Bush years that sort of let the pot boil over, where now there's really no one organized except, I guess, the Center for American Progress to say, like, look, this just isn't right.
Yeah, I mean, I think I think you're right that there was a bit of a perfect storm that we had the Bush administration who had made an effort to keep a lid on that for two terms and only really at the end when you had when you had Obama running for president.
I think they just couldn't keep the lid on it anymore.
And, you know, although I don't think they ever participated in pushing it, I think just their ability to control these people, you know, that people they want people wanted to go forward with hitting Obama on supposedly being a Muslim.
I think Obama's been pretty clear that he happens not to be a Muslim, but that that shouldn't be an issue.
And again, you have Obama.
He has, you know, he has a funny sounding name for a lot of people and he's black.
And I think that probably does play some role in it.
I mean, the people that push this see that as just one more little hook they can use.
Yeah, I hate to say I agree with Colin Powell about anything, but he actually stood up and said, you know what?
What if Barack Obama was a Muslim?
What are you trying to say?
That Muslim children in America are to believe that, yeah, you can grow up to be anything you want, except, you know, a politician participating in our democratic system or that they're somehow illegitimate.
It's wrong.
Forget that.
You know, he's the only one who really denounced that from that level of politics.
Definitely.
And Powell had that great line about that's not how we do business in the US.
Right.
And I thought that that was dead on, you know, because he was able to tie in, you know, the fact that, hey, black people have been discriminated against.
Jewish Americans have been discriminated against.
Irish Catholics have been discriminated against.
Japanese.
But that's not how we do business.
We look back on that.
That's in our history books for a reason.
Right.
Yeah.
And as you said, I think earlier in the interview, we all agree now that all those things were wrong.
There's no dispute about it.
It's a unanimous consensus.
Exactly.
And it's hardly a partisan issue or a fringe issue where you know that if you bring up the Japanese internment, I mean, you're going to have, you know, somehow one of the political parties jumping on you for it.
No, I mean, everybody's quite clear on what happened.
And then there's the rest of us.
Exactly.
There's Michelle Malkin and there's everybody else.
And, you know, and it's hardly like she has much support within the Republican Party for having said things like that.
I mean, I think we're all pretty much on the same page with that.
And I'm very optimistic that we will be on the same page with stuff about Islamophobia as well.
Right on.
Hey, listen, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your time on the show today, Eli.
It's been great.
And thank you for your work, too.
Thanks.
It's been great.
Everybody, that's Eli Clifton from the Center for American Progress.
Americanprogress.org.
Get your hands on this PDF file, print it out, fax it over to all your politicians in your local area, whatever, your senators.
This is really important journalism.
Fear Inc., the roots of the Islamophobia network in America.
We'll be right back.
