Hearings on U.S. Muslims called McCarthyism

Mar 11, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: National Post

New York protesters rally against hearings. Representative Peter King says the issue is "too important to ignore." Sheldon Alberts, Postmedia News A Wednesday, Mar.

Comments
1 - 20 of 22 Comments Last updated Feb 15, 2012
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
In the Dark

Hollister, CA

#1 Mar 11, 2011
[reposted from http://www.montereyherald.com/opinion/ci_1759... ]

The problem that obviously concerns everyone is radicalism. Peter King could have held hearings on that, to try and learn the causes of radicalization, whatever they may be. But rather than beginning the process with an open mind about the causes, which any investigator must do if he/she intends to generate anything useful from the exercise, Mr. King had to go and focus the hearing on _Islamic_ radicalization, indicating a predetermined conclusion—that it takes observance of Islam to become a radical.

And if that weren't enough disrespect to his Muslim constituents in New York, that the religion they follow is automatically the cause of the trouble, Mr. King dismissed the reasonable objections and demands for fair, decent discourse as "political correctness." Political correctness is when, to avoid politics, you refrain from speaking the truth. Therefore Mr. King is accusing his critics of repressing what he thinks they already know as truth. And because he implies he's figured out the "truth" already, the fact that Mr. King lets the hearing proceed means his hearing is of little value, a waste of Congress's time, and a great show of unfairness in a country that prides itself on being the fairest in the world.

Since: Mar 08

Allentown, PA

#2 Mar 11, 2011
In the Dark wrote:
[reposted from http://www.montereyherald.com/opinion/ci_1759... ]
The problem that obviously concerns everyone is radicalism. Peter King could have held hearings on that, to try and learn the causes of radicalization, whatever they may be. But rather than beginning the process with an open mind about the causes, which any investigator must do if he/she intends to generate anything useful from the exercise, Mr. King had to go and focus the hearing on _Islamic_ radicalization, indicating a predetermined conclusion—that it takes observance of Islam to become a radical.
And if that weren't enough disrespect to his Muslim constituents in New York, that the religion they follow is automatically the cause of the trouble, Mr. King dismissed the reasonable objections and demands for fair, decent discourse as "political correctness." Political correctness is when, to avoid politics, you refrain from speaking the truth. Therefore Mr. King is accusing his critics of repressing what he thinks they already know as truth. And because he implies he's figured out the "truth" already, the fact that Mr. King lets the hearing proceed means his hearing is of little value, a waste of Congress's time, and a great show of unfairness in a country that prides itself on being the fairest in the world.
You got this off a website or a newspaper, clearly you did not watch the hearings yesterday.
.
Fairness is pointless if you leave dead bodies all over the place. If you happen to be a victim of the Ft Hood shooter, you would have a different view of fairness.
In the Dark

Hollister, CA

#3 Mar 11, 2011
No, I wrote it and posted it somewhere else first.

Whatever happened at the hearings yesterday, I still say it's unfair, for the reasons I stated above, to schedule a hearing on radicalization with an intended focus on Muslims to the exclusion of all other groups, as if Muslims are the problem.

If Mr. King had chosen to study radicalization—of any type, of any group—do you think the Fort Hood shooter and similar radicals would have been overlooked? Do you really think principles of fairness would be kind and easy on Nidal Hassan after what he did? If our lawmakers and justice officials were to act in true fairness, no. The way Mr. King's going about it, the kind-and-easy treatment is what the Timothy McVeighs and Hutarees of this country are getting, despite being indisputably radical.
McCarthy was right

Colchester, CT

#4 Mar 11, 2011
In the Dark wrote:
No, I wrote it and posted it somewhere else first.
Whatever happened at the hearings yesterday, I still say it's unfair, for the reasons I stated above, to schedule a hearing on radicalization with an intended focus on Muslims to the exclusion of all other groups, as if Muslims are the problem.
If Mr. King had chosen to study radicalization—of any type, of any group—do you think the Fort Hood shooter and similar radicals would have been overlooked? Do you really think principles of fairness would be kind and easy on Nidal Hassan after what he did? If our lawmakers and justice officials were to act in true fairness, no. The way Mr. King's going about it, the kind-and-easy treatment is what the Timothy McVeighs and Hutarees of this country are getting, despite being indisputably radical.
“The causes of radicalization?” Well, now, isn’t that a swell “can’t we all just get along” meme?

Muslims who practice radical Islam are the primary problem, and, frankly, your denial of that fact gives a pretty good idea of the ideology behind your viewpoint.

As for focusing the hearings on "radicalization", there's little doubt that you and others would quickly emphasize the left's standard "moral equivalency" argument...as your entire posts already attempt to do.
In the Dark

Hollister, CA

#5 Mar 11, 2011
If this hearing is not meant to figure out the "causes of radicalization," than what in the world could this hearing possibly be meant to accomplish?

Let's talk about equivalency. You do a bad deed; you get punished for it. You spread harmful ideas; you get scrutinized and criticized for it. If your bad deed is the equivalent of another bad deed, the doers are punished equally. If your harmful idea is as harmful as another, the thinkers are scrutinized and criticized equally. That's fairness. It applies to radical Muslims; it applies to radical non-Muslims. Fairness is not impotence; it's one of the strongest weapons we have.

Since: Mar 08

Allentown, PA

#6 Mar 11, 2011
In the Dark wrote:
No, I wrote it and posted it somewhere else first.
Whatever happened at the hearings yesterday, I still say it's unfair, for the reasons I stated above, to schedule a hearing on radicalization with an intended focus on Muslims to the exclusion of all other groups, as if Muslims are the problem.
If Mr. King had chosen to study radicalization—of any type, of any group—do you think the Fort Hood shooter and similar radicals would have been overlooked? Do you really think principles of fairness would be kind and easy on Nidal Hassan after what he did? If our lawmakers and justice officials were to act in true fairness, no. The way Mr. King's going about it, the kind-and-easy treatment is what the Timothy McVeighs and Hutarees of this country are getting, despite being indisputably radical.
I watched the hearings (first panel). The response from the panel was positive and pleased. I watched the Democrats on the committee do their darnedest to turn the hearings into a race riot. You can see who the real terrorists were.
.
Studying radicals as a group is a way of deflecting the issues in the Muslim-American community. Somehow. if we look at the KKK, it makes their terrorists less terrible somehow. I suppose it's a See? Everyone does it approach.
.
Fairness is a silly child chant, just stop it. If fairness was so key, Muslims would been looked at as often as "white" groups have been in the past. Using YOUR standard, then we should be looking long, deep and hard at Muslims.
.
This logic is just as bad as Shelia Jackson Lee going on about the hearings being used as recruitment tool for Muslim radicals. She then continues ranting we should be investigating the KKK. Well, I suppose those hearings could be used as a recruitment tool for the KKK, right? Who would make a better poster girl for the KKK than Shelia Jackson Lee, a woman who I think is losing her mind.
.
I had watched part of a press conference organized by Muslim groups the day before the hearings. I couldn't watch much of it, but I got the sense the real problem was King didn't invite the right kind of Muslim, those that are pre-approved and will give the right kind of testimony. The nerve of King, to bring to the hearing Muslims that would qualify as the average Joe Muslim.
.
I will say I learned more from the Average Joe Muslims on the panel than I have ever learned from CAIR's pre-approved panel witness package types.
McCarthy was right

Colchester, CT

#7 Mar 11, 2011
In the Dark wrote:
If this hearing is not meant to figure out the "causes of radicalization," than what in the world could this hearing possibly be meant to accomplish?
Let's talk about equivalency. You do a bad deed; you get punished for it. You spread harmful ideas; you get scrutinized and criticized for it. If your bad deed is the equivalent of another bad deed, the doers are punished equally. If your harmful idea is as harmful as another, the thinkers are scrutinized and criticized equally. That's fairness. It applies to radical Muslims; it applies to radical non-Muslims. Fairness is not impotence; it's one of the strongest weapons we have.
“Figuring out the causes of radicalization” is a simplistic leftist meme that always results in finger-pointing at the United States.

And your definition of equivalency is exactly what I expected. While the individual acts of violence should be punished, one or two acts within our borders are in no way equivalent to the multi-country war being waged by radical Islamic Muslims intent on establishing a new caliphate.
In the Dark

Hollister, CA

#8 Mar 11, 2011
LookingToEscape wrote:
<quoted text>
I watched the hearings (first panel). The response from the panel was positive and pleased. I watched the Democrats on the committee do their darnedest to turn the hearings into a race riot. You can see who the real terrorists were.
.
Studying radicals as a group is a way of deflecting the issues in the Muslim-American community. Somehow. if we look at the KKK, it makes their terrorists less terrible somehow. I suppose it's a See? Everyone does it approach.
.
Fairness is a silly child chant, just stop it. If fairness was so key, Muslims would been looked at as often as "white" groups have been in the past. Using YOUR standard, then we should be looking long, deep and hard at Muslims.
.
This logic is just as bad as Shelia Jackson Lee going on about the hearings being used as recruitment tool for Muslim radicals. She then continues ranting we should be investigating the KKK. Well, I suppose those hearings could be used as a recruitment tool for the KKK, right? Who would make a better poster girl for the KKK than Shelia Jackson Lee, a woman who I think is losing her mind.
.
I had watched part of a press conference organized by Muslim groups the day before the hearings. I couldn't watch much of it, but I got the sense the real problem was King didn't invite the right kind of Muslim, those that are pre-approved and will give the right kind of testimony. The nerve of King, to bring to the hearing Muslims that would qualify as the average Joe Muslim.
.
I will say I learned more from the Average Joe Muslims on the panel than I have ever learned from CAIR's pre-approved panel witness package types.
However well or not well the hearing has gone, my point is the same—Peter King organized this event on the problematic assumption that Islam and Muslims are the problem. If he didn't think that, this would just be a hearing on radicalization.

If radicals from the Islamic world were overlooked before, now would be an appropriate time to take a look in that direction. But this in no way means our Congress should divert its attention from others who could pose a threat, like neo-Nazis, nor should they send a message to us and the world that the only possible threat to us comes from Islamic radicals. It's true that right now probably the greatest threat comes from individuals who call themselves Muslims—but it takes plenty of factors other than adhering to the Quran to become a radical. This event should study those factors.

It's interesting that the Muslims who were present at the hearing somehow represent "Average Joe Muslims." Who really knows the political stance of the "Average Joe Muslim"? Maybe a statistician, but probably not us, Peter King, or the real-life "Average Joe Muslim." But if "Average Joe Muslim" himself is in favor of what Mr. King is doing, that does not at all disentitle others from holding differing opinions, especially dissenting Muslims whose lives could potentially be negatively affected by the hearings' findings.
In the Dark

Hollister, CA

#9 Mar 11, 2011
McCarthy was right wrote:
<quoted text>
“Figuring out the causes of radicalization” is a simplistic leftist meme that always results in finger-pointing at the United States.
And your definition of equivalency is exactly what I expected. While the individual acts of violence should be punished, one or two acts within our borders are in no way equivalent to the multi-country war being waged by radical Islamic Muslims intent on establishing a new caliphate.
So sorry if, among the conclusions, the USA is found to hold some degree of responsibility in an individual's radicalization, as with associates of the mujahideen funded by Carter and Reagan's CIA. If it's true, so be it, and let's see what lessons can be learned.

Anyway, it's very doubtful that this Republican, non-leftist congressman would allow his hearing to be steered in a blame-America-first direction, even if the hearing took the "all forms of radicalization course."

On equivalency: "one or two acts within our borders are in no way equivalent to the multi-country war..." Funny, I think that's actually the same as what I implied earlier.
McCarthy was right

Guilford, CT

#10 Mar 11, 2011
In the Dark wrote:
<quoted text>
So sorry if, among the conclusions, the USA is found to hold some degree of responsibility in an individual's radicalization, as with associates of the mujahideen funded by Carter and Reagan's CIA. If it's true, so be it, and let's see what lessons can be learned.
Anyway, it's very doubtful that this Republican, non-leftist congressman would allow his hearing to be steered in a blame-America-first direction, even if the hearing took the "all forms of radicalization course."
On equivalency: "one or two acts within our borders are in no way equivalent to the multi-country war..." Funny, I think that's actually the same as what I implied earlier.
I'm not buying it.
You pretend at objectivity, but that you’re an ideologue is obvious and transparent. From your early pretense at looking for a balanced approach, to your simplistic leftist meme of looking for the “causes of radicalization”(which will certainly result in fingers pointed at the United States), to your prejudiced definition of “equivalency”, your far left ideology is clear.

Because it focuses on the very group from whence the anti-American radicalism comes, the very existence of the hearings is an assault on your far-left sensibilities.
McCarthy was right

Guilford, CT

#11 Mar 11, 2011
P.S. The assumption that radical Islam and the Muslims are the problem is correct.
i got a tip

Laurinburg, NC

#12 Mar 11, 2011
how nice. a "patriot" who wants to stop the terrorist his country helped create for its own gains. technically all the deaths that have happened from groups like al quada are americas fualt.

king is a great symbol for america...a hypocrint...selfish...no moral fiber at all...a dagger smile that tells you your going to be betrayed...closet tyrant...

and supports people with blood on there hands...

yes a great symbol.

Since: Mar 08

Allentown, PA

#13 Mar 11, 2011
In the Dark wrote:
<quoted text>
However well or not well the hearing has gone, my point is the same—Peter King organized this event on the problematic assumption that Islam and Muslims are the problem. If he didn't think that, this would just be a hearing on radicalization.
If radicals from the Islamic world were overlooked before, now would be an appropriate time to take a look in that direction. But this in no way means our Congress should divert its attention from others who could pose a threat, like neo-Nazis, nor should they send a message to us and the world that the only possible threat to us comes from Islamic radicals. It's true that right now probably the greatest threat comes from individuals who call themselves Muslims—but it takes plenty of factors other than adhering to the Quran to become a radical. This event should study those factors.
It's interesting that the Muslims who were present at the hearing somehow represent "Average Joe Muslims." Who really knows the political stance of the "Average Joe Muslim"? Maybe a statistician, but probably not us, Peter King, or the real-life "Average Joe Muslim." But if "Average Joe Muslim" himself is in favor of what Mr. King is doing, that does not at all disentitle others from holding differing opinions, especially dissenting Muslims whose lives could potentially be negatively affected by the hearings' findings.
If lives could potentially be negatively affected, we should stop publishing newspapers and end news broadcasts.
.
You should watch the hearings yourself instead of reading about them.
In the Dark

Salinas, CA

#14 Mar 12, 2011
I'm sorry, McCarthy was Right, but what am I not understanding about equivalency? Did I not say, or imply, that acts of an equal degree of bad ought to be treated with the same degree of condemnation and punishment? That's equivalency, right?

If some anti-IRS guy attempts to kill a load of IRS employees by flying a plane into a building (Joe Stack, 2010), that's fairly close in degree of "bad" to another guy who wants to bomb a bunch of people in a major public gathering place (Faisal Shahzad—or, oops, that also describes Eric Rudolph). In either case, it's pretty malicious, hateful, and radical, and it's quite a threat to us, the public of the USA.

And what really matters, that a) some people don't like the USA and its principles or that b) some people intend violence against innocent people like us? The latter is what Osama bin Laden, Timothy McVeigh, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and Eric Rudolph all have wanted. Our government should be protecting its citizens by going after all people like those guys, all people and groups who significantly threaten the American people. It should not limit itself to tracking threats associated with a single religious identity; it should be tracking threats, period.

Look, there's plenty of radical malice in the Islamic groups you want the hearings to study, and a truly fair hearing that addresses radicalism of both Islamic and non-Islamic association would study those Islamic radicals, because they truly do threaten you and me. But when Peter King schedules a hearing only on Islamic radicalism with no apparent intent to have hearings on other forms of radicalism, he sends a message that he just doesn't care much about a threat to us Americans unless it has a Muslim face on it. And this tells us that he's less bothered by the "radical" part than the "Muslim" part. That's a shame for the couple-million-or-so Muslims in America, that their Congress is spending its precious time scrutinizing their religion over other groups.

P.S. I disagree with i got a tip.
McCarthy was right

Bloomfield, CT

#15 Mar 13, 2011
In the Dark wrote:
I'm sorry, McCarthy was Right, but what am I not understanding about equivalency? Did I not say, or imply, that acts of an equal degree of bad ought to be treated with the same degree of condemnation and punishment? That's equivalency, right?
If some anti-IRS guy attempts to kill a load of IRS employees by flying a plane into a building (Joe Stack, 2010), that's fairly close in degree of "bad" to another guy who wants to bomb a bunch of people in a major public gathering place (Faisal Shahzad—or, oops, that also describes Eric Rudolph). In either case, it's pretty malicious, hateful, and radical, and it's quite a threat to us, the public of the USA.
And what really matters, that a) some people don't like the USA and its principles or that b) some people intend violence against innocent people like us? The latter is what Osama bin Laden, Timothy McVeigh, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and Eric Rudolph all have wanted. Our government should be protecting its citizens by going after all people like those guys, all people and groups who significantly threaten the American people. It should not limit itself to tracking threats associated with a single religious identity; it should be tracking threats, period.
Look, there's plenty of radical malice in the Islamic groups you want the hearings to study, and a truly fair hearing that addresses radicalism of both Islamic and non-Islamic association would study those Islamic radicals, because they truly do threaten you and me. But when Peter King schedules a hearing only on Islamic radicalism with no apparent intent to have hearings on other forms of radicalism, he sends a message that he just doesn't care much about a threat to us Americans unless it has a Muslim face on it. And this tells us that he's less bothered by the "radical" part than the "Muslim" part. That's a shame for the couple-million-or-so Muslims in America, that their Congress is spending its precious time scrutinizing their religion over other groups.
P.S. I disagree with i got a tip.
You claim to “not understand” because you have no honest argument. I think you’re being disingenuous when you claim to not see the difference between your simplistic views on equivalency and the events in the real world. You continue to pretend that the dangers represented by the neo-nazis or individual crazies need the same urgent scrutiny as those represented by organized radical Islamists. Only a leftist ideologue could attempt to claim that one or two acts within our borders by radical Americans are equivalent to the multi-country war being waged by radical Islamic Muslims intent on establishing a new caliphate.

And it’s ignorant and/or disingenuous to complain that King is investigating the Muslim religion. If he were to follow your wishes and investigate the neo-nazis, you know as well as I that you wouldn’t then complain he was investigating Christianity.
scout

San Francisco, CA

#16 Mar 13, 2011
translation: anti-Christ followers pull the McCarthy Card.

Since: Mar 08

Allentown, PA

#17 Mar 13, 2011
In the Dark wrote:
I'm sorry, McCarthy was Right, but what am I not understanding about equivalency? Did I not say, or imply, that acts of an equal degree of bad ought to be treated with the same degree of condemnation and punishment? That's equivalency, right?
If some anti-IRS guy attempts to kill a load of IRS employees by flying a plane into a building (Joe Stack, 2010), that's fairly close in degree of "bad" to another guy who wants to bomb a bunch of people in a major public gathering place (Faisal Shahzad—or, oops, that also describes Eric Rudolph). In either case, it's pretty malicious, hateful, and radical, and it's quite a threat to us, the public of the USA.
And what really matters, that a) some people don't like the USA and its principles or that b) some people intend violence against innocent people like us? The latter is what Osama bin Laden, Timothy McVeigh, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and Eric Rudolph all have wanted. Our government should be protecting its citizens by going after all people like those guys, all people and groups who significantly threaten the American people. It should not limit itself to tracking threats associated with a single religious identity; it should be tracking threats, period.
Look, there's plenty of radical malice in the Islamic groups you want the hearings to study, and a truly fair hearing that addresses radicalism of both Islamic and non-Islamic association would study those Islamic radicals, because they truly do threaten you and me. But when Peter King schedules a hearing only on Islamic radicalism with no apparent intent to have hearings on other forms of radicalism, he sends a message that he just doesn't care much about a threat to us Americans unless it has a Muslim face on it. And this tells us that he's less bothered by the "radical" part than the "Muslim" part. That's a shame for the couple-million-or-so Muslims in America, that their Congress is spending its precious time scrutinizing their religion over other groups.
P.S. I disagree with i got a tip.
Your argument is purely an emotional one, just as the CAIR type groups and the left wing press played on the emotions of others.
.
You are effectively saying we could not investigate the KKK unless we look at criminal activity by labor unions. We could not look into Black Radicalism unless we make sure some Asians groups are included as a balance and no one feels offended. Shelia Jackson Lee and other black Democrats want to look into the actions of the KKK from 100 years ago (talk about a useful hearing) so we should be looking into how non whites in the old west committed crimes against whites in the old west. It's only fair.
.
Considering we have Eric Holder at the DOJ, we certainly could use a Peter King to light a fire under Holder who I regard as a first class bigot.
.
King said he is open to investigations of other groups. He wanted this hearing to be the first.
In the Dark

Salinas, CA

#18 Mar 13, 2011
The main thing I'm saying is that hearings of this type need to be two things—fair and on-target. Peter King and the rest of the federal government must send a message that they're fairly addressing radicals of all sorts, not only those radicals who happen to call themselves Muslims. And they need to say they're targeting the true threat, the _radicalism_ part, which is by definition the heart of the ill will. A threat is a threat, a crime is a crime, a bomber is a bomber, a radical is a radical, regardless of the individual's background.

As I said before, radicals motivated by the politics of the Islamic world do demand our attention right now, but not to the exclusion of all other radicals who threaten us. No, I did not say before that one domestic act is equivalent to a multi-country war; I said that bad deeds of the same degree of "bad" deserve the same response and punishment. An association of dozens or hundreds or thousands all wishing harm to us is capable of far more bad deeds than some lone person with a one-person plan, and therefore the association in fairness deserves way more scrutiny.

But by scheduling hearings not on radicalism—which would have paid huge attention to Al Qaeda types because they are both very numerous and very radical—but emphatically on Islamic radicalism, Peter King is expressing judgment on identity first, then on actions.

In this country we judge actions only, not religious identity, correct?

Since: Mar 08

Allentown, PA

#19 Mar 13, 2011
In the Dark wrote:
The main thing I'm saying is that hearings of this type need to be two things—fair and on-target. Peter King and the rest of the federal government must send a message that they're fairly addressing radicals of all sorts, not only those radicals who happen to call themselves Muslims. And they need to say they're targeting the true threat, the _radicalism_ part, which is by definition the heart of the ill will. A threat is a threat, a crime is a crime, a bomber is a bomber, a radical is a radical, regardless of the individual's background.
As I said before, radicals motivated by the politics of the Islamic world do demand our attention right now, but not to the exclusion of all other radicals who threaten us. No, I did not say before that one domestic act is equivalent to a multi-country war; I said that bad deeds of the same degree of "bad" deserve the same response and punishment. An association of dozens or hundreds or thousands all wishing harm to us is capable of far more bad deeds than some lone person with a one-person plan, and therefore the association in fairness deserves way more scrutiny.
But by scheduling hearings not on radicalism—which would have paid huge attention to Al Qaeda types because they are both very numerous and very radical—but emphatically on Islamic radicalism, Peter King is expressing judgment on identity first, then on actions.
In this country we judge actions only, not religious identity, correct?
I do not recall Peter King saying he is investigating peaceful Muslims just going about their business. It was the left that went into King spin cycle. King defined his point of concern many times over a period of years, radicalism and the mosques that steadfastly refused to cooperate with law enforcement.
.
In this country we do attack religions. I just hope the Muslims realize the price they will pay for the so called protection they got from the progressive left (a group that despises religion in all it's forms).
paul shykora arts

Calgary, Canada

#20 Mar 29, 2011
McCarthy was right wrote:
P.S. The assumption that radical Islam and the Muslims are the problem is correct.
...YES...TRUE...eh...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bennie Thompson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Syria vote poses dilemma for black members of C... (Sep '13) Sep '13 Go Blue Forever 3
Military ill prepared for homegrown threat (Dec '11) Aug '13 FACT 2
Medgar Evers remembered in a ceremony 50 years ... (Jun '13) Jun '13 Aprilvue 3
US Rep: FEMA Should Intervene in Shelter Contract (Jun '13) Jun '13 Jim 1
US Rep: FEMA should intervene in shelter contract (Jun '13) Jun '13 Citizen of Concern 1
Ruppersberger: Hacker group Anonymous made thre... (Apr '13) Apr '13 Skylodemylo 1
Texas fertilizer company didn't heed disclosure... (Apr '13) Apr '13 Mykro 72
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Bennie Thompson People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••