Smearing Geller on Perry

NorquistPerry.jpg


I do not understand this unseemly rush to anoint Perry without vetting him. I've never seen anything like this: friends have broken with me, I've been attacked on hitherto friendly websites, I've gotten calls from people I haven't heard from in years, telling me to lay off Perry, and more -- all because I dared to raise some concerns about Rick Perry. Perry may be the greatest thing since microwave popcorn, but I remain concerned about his closeness to Grover Norquist and other matters. And I don't think it's illegitimate to ask Perry to address these concerns.

And today, Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi, whom we have seen do this kind of thing before, attacks Pamela Geller in the American Thinker because she dared to question Perry. Also in the Thinker today, Geller responds:

In his piece attacking me for raising questions about Rick Perry's associations, "Smearing Perry on Jihad," Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi leaves out the most salient parts of my information about Perry, and then attacks me as if they don't exist.

He says that "the Ismailis favor an interpretation of jihad as working on and financing charitable, economic projects to improve the well-being of humanity as a whole," accuses me of "smear-by-association," and points out that "the Ismailis do not advocate violence or advancement of Shari'a in politics anywhere in the world today." He adds that "it is therefore difficult to see how Perry and the Aga Khan are working to advance an Islamization cause via 'taqiyya,'" although I never suggested any such thing.

Jawad ignores what I wrote here: "The Ismailis are peaceful, yes, and the Aga Khan Foundation is an established Islamic charity. But the Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development is also part-owner of the Pakistan-based Bank al-Habib, which Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl's widow Mariane sued in 2007 for damages relating to its funding of al-Qaida and involvement in the murder of her husband by Islamic jihad terrorists. She dropped the suit later that year without explanation, except to note that the Habib Bank had never answered her charges."

There is more. The Aga Khan Development Network made has signed agreements with the Syrian Government to develop "microfinance, healthcare, and cultural tourism" in Syria. Between 2003 and 2008, the Aga Khan spent $40 million to develop business in Syria. Syria is, don't forget, still listed as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. And according to investigative reporter Mark Mitchell, "the Aga Khan Foundation's membership and supporters also include top military officers in Syria, such as General Moustapha Sharba, who had a hand in the early stages of the covert nuclear weapons program that Syria was developing with help from North Korea (and probably Iran)."

Don't Sharba and the others know that the Ismailis are peaceful? Is it really illegitimate to ask questions about a candidate who is friendly with someone who owns an alleged al-Qaeda bank, and spends millions to develop a State Sponsor of Terrorism?

Also, in an interview with Spiegel, the Aga Khan doesn't sound so moderate. He says there is not a clash of civilizations, but a "clash of ignorance," for which the "Western world" is "essentially" responsible. Never mind all the jihad terror attacks. The problem is the West's "ignorance." He says that the West should negotiate with Hamas, and says that the cartoons of Muhammad should not have been published, so as to show "civility" to Muslims. Free speech? Forget it.

Jawad also criticizes me for pointing out that the curriculum that Perry has gotten from the Aga Khan for Texas schools is "whitewashing Islam's bloody historical and modern-day record." I stand by my words. A reader of my website AtlasShrugs.com has examined the curriculum and found numerous questionable aspects of it. "The religion that the Prophet Muhammad preached provided his followers an ethical and moral vision for leading a life of righteousness," it tells kids. Muhammad's jihad conquests and cultural annihilations? His child marriage? Forget it. The curriculum also discusses "the beauty and perfection of the Qur'an." Calls to jihad? Calls to hate unbelievers and wage war against them? Nothing.

Then Jawad turns to my criticism of Perry's ties to Grover Norquist, saying, "one need only note, as Pipes did, that all of Perry's connections to Norquist concern taxation issues, not Islam." That's the kind of thinking people use to say that Hezbollah is a fine group, because look, they run schools and hospitals. No candidate worth his salt should have anything to do with Norquist, for tax issues or any other reason. You can't come out for cutting taxes without playing ball with Norquist? Please.

And Perry's ties to Norquist are extensive: Robert Spencer notes that "Perry and Grover Norquist held a joint press conference in March 2011. Perry appeared at a fund-raiser for Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform group. Also, Norquist actively campaigned for Perry back in 2009. Their association is longstanding: Perry was investigated by the Texas Ethics Commission in 2004 for allegations that the Governor illegally used campaign money to finance a trip to Bahamas; the point here is not the allegations, but the fact that along on the Bahamas trip at his own expense was Grover Norquist. Perry and Norquist are clearly not just casual acquaintances."

So what will happen when Norquist approaches his good buddy Perry and asks him to give an appointment to or do some favor for some Islamic supremacist? Will Perry then turn against his old friend? I hope so. But if we don't call out Perry on his ties to Norquist now, how can we be sure of that?

Read it all.

| 131 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

131 Comments

| Leave a comment

Days after the 9/11 attacks, Perry wrote the following in part:

"I ask that all Texans be mindful that the attacks on New York City and Washington are not the work of the Islamic faithful, but the work of terrorists – of fanatics – who have HIJACKED (emphasis mine) the name of religion for their campaign of hatred.....Like most of the world’s major religions, the Islamic faith preaches peace, love and tolerance. Indeed, terrorism is the antithesis of the basic tenet to which the one billion Islamic followers all over the world adhere."

Do you wonder if he's still just as ignorant? I do.

Ok, so since we don’t want 4 more years of President Obama who do we elect?

Demonizing people over Perry is almost religious...Is he another 'savior'? The one we have now is not working out too well...So is Perry now the 'one we have been waiting for'?
Saviors have a habit of popping up out of no where or at least obscurity...I'm not sure I want to vote for anymore saviors...If Jesus was running, I might vote for him, but the rest of the saviors have defects...Perry seems to have a number of them...Sarah Palin has less defects, but she is still a savior...She will run to save the country...from who? Why Rick Perry of course...

The Republican party has been bought and paid for by the NWO, and will not resist Islam. The Tea Party needs to unite and nominate Palin /West or we continue with the stealth Jihad.

@Courreges W, No I don't wonder if he's still just as ignorant? I can tell from his connections with Islamists.

@duh_swami, Jesus isn't here yet so we need to elect someone else. Do you have actual dirt on Sarah Palin other than her popularity?

][/url]">

@duh_swami, Jesus isn't here yet so we need to elect someone else. Do you have actual dirt on Sarah Palin other than her popularity?

Jesus isn't here yet? I talked to a Christian yesterday who told me Jesus never left...I don't think he's interested in the job of POTUS anyway, he's not too keen on filling out applications, and can't produce a birth certificate...

As far as Palin, I don't have any dirt on her, unless you count hunting wild boar with a bowie knife, or grinning down a few grizzly's...But I consider that a plus...She may have to grin down Putin some day...Popularity is good, but cute is better..,.,America loves cute and will vote cute over substance every time...

If anyone chooses to be aligned with Norquisling, let him be anathema.

As my father would say, "Stick to your guns," Robert.

"I do not understand this unseemly rush to anoint Perry without vetting him. I've never seen anything like this: friends have broken with me, I've been attacked on hitherto friendly websites, I've gotten calls from people I haven't heard from in years, telling me to lay off Perry, and more -- all because I dared to raise some concerns about Rick Perry...."

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

Job 19:14 "My relatives have failed, And my intimate friends have forgotten me."


On a much (much) smaller scale, I've similar treatment. I cannot say it does not hurt just a little but I am such a congenital loner the pain is not overwhelming. Yesterday evening I wrote a friend:


I think I lost some "friends" sending all those articles on Perry's Muslim connections. Some people will not respond to me anymore. Oh well.


Her response: 'If that is the case, they weren't "friends" to begin with'.


The Powers That Be are afraid people will listen and follow you, Mr. Spencer.

"Jesus isn't here yet? I talked to a Christian yesterday who told me Jesus never left...I don't think he's interested in the job of POTUS anyway, he's not too keen on filling out applications, and can't produce a birth certificate..."

Ha-Ha! As usual, swami, you crack me up...in a good way!

Great sentiment, swarmi,

With 350 million people in the US, it is virtually impossible and probably not desirable to get a President who will strongly reflect the views of any one segment. So, we have to pursue the art of the possible.

What we really need in a President is someone who will make the levers of government run smoothly, including security, and give people and states a certain amount of autonomy to pursue their own preferences and affairs.

I don't really mind the Obama amnesty, as long as they really pursue the illegal aliens who are criminal, and who are philosophically opposed to the US government. Perry, with his history as border state government, might very well favor that approach.

Perry will likely not be the cheerleader in a movement to exclude Muslims from immigrating. The question is, will he direct the Department of Immigration and Emigration to be blind to potential threats, or will he allow and encourage the professionals to follow their professional instincts? Recall that the Saudi Ambassador wanted to disapprove many of the visas from Saudi citizens prior to 9/11, but was overruled by the CIA bureau chief.

A people who look for a savior is a people who wish someone to do their work for them.

Perry's an idiot; literally, stupid and simply a con man using whomever he can for power. He represents the worst in contemporary conservatism (well, Bachmann is a close second). I remember something about gift horses and mouths. You may hate Obama but Perry would make you long for Obama (i.e., something with a functioning brain).

Robert:

Listen, I am afraid it is simply wrong to characterise the manner in which you and Pamela have behaved towards Perry as simply 'asking questions'. You have both engaged in a smear campaign against Perry (with sensationalist headlines such as the 'stealth jihad candidate' and a fifth columnist), using the same tactics you rightly decry when employed against you. You are both playing a game of 'Gotcha!' and I think most conservatives would appreciate it if you stopped acting as though you were Perry's prosecutor.

In any case, this is my response to Pamela's article:

---

To begin with, you claim you 'never suggested' that Perry and Aga Khan have an Islamization agenda to promote via 'taqiyya'. In your original article, you wrote:

'including a comprehensive program to feed children in Texas public schools and taqiyya nonsense about how Islam is a religion of peace.'

As for that curriculum you highlight, the abstracts of content you draw attention to don't vindicate your case. It is not telling students that the Qur'an entails 'beauty and perfection' as the literal word of God, but only that Muslims think this is so, and the curriculum is not saying that it's bigoted to think otherwise. In addition, you appear to be unaware of the fact that the development of Islam in the 8th to 11th centuries was due to borrowings and plagiarisms from other religious traditions in the region (e.g. the 5 prayers a day was taken from Zoroastrianism). I don't see why you object to that point in the curriculum. Finally, with regards to Western colonialism, it is true that the European legal systems were instated- the curriculum is not necessarily condemning that; and it is also correct that the local Muslim populations often tried to make clear rejection of European modernity by applying Shari'a to themselves more vigorously. And nowhere does it say that the Europeans deserve to be blamed for this development. I could go on, but you get the picture.

But even then, I am only relying on the evidence given by your one of your readers. It turns out that her reader's own information is flawed. David Stein at http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/1945 completely refutes the myth that Perry is working to promote a pro-Shari'a curriculum.

Likewise, your reasoning on the al-Habib bank wildly stretches the facts. For example, the Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development and the Aga Khan are not one and the same, and even so the former is only a part-owner of that bank, not necessarily the main one. In addition, you appear to be unaware of the legal principle of innocent until proven guilty. There is of course abundant evidence that al-Qaeda had Daniel Pearl murdered, but there is nothing to show that the Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development has given money to Al-Qaeda (and why would the fund do such a thing? al-Qaeda and affiliated groups regularly target Shi'a in Pakistan for terrorist attacks). As you note, the lawsuit against the bank was dropped, but clearly not on grounds of practicality (which was probably the issue concerning why the lawsuit was also dropped against al-Qaeda).

But what conclusion do you draw from all this? You state that the Aga Khan is the owner of an alleged al-Qaeda bank. Quite a stretch, I am sure you would agree.

As for the ties with Syria, all those agreements and activity date from between 2003 and 2008. In any case, it was merely based on a false hope- held also by Western governments- that Bashar al-Assad would reform. The Aga Khan was of course wrong on that and should have realised it from the beginning- one can only presume this is why the agreements and business activity stopped after 2008. Finally, this alleged tie with Moustapha Sharba is only on Mark Mitchell's word (no sources given etc.). Surely Western governments would have long been aware of this and onto the Aga Khan Development Network if it had been the case?

The interview with Der Spiegel: like you, I disagree with many things he says, but he did not call for laws to ban publication of the cartoons, and as for the remark on Hamas, it was again based on a hope that Hamas would change their views and platform. Again, he was wrong on that, and should have recognised it from the beginning, but Haim Saban- an entrepreneur who created the Power Rangers franchise and has given millions in support of Israel- also said that there should be negotiations with Hamas, in the hope they might moderate. Like the Aga Khan, he was always wrong, but it doesn't show he is sinister- just naive.

As for the Norquist connections, they are hardly worth worrying about: the issue is solely taxation; and it's a platform essential for winning votes.

Finally, you have missed the point about the Jewish Division connection, on which you are also being dishonest. Roberta Moore (thanks for the correction on her name- sincerely) did not merely make one inquiry into aligning with the JTF. As the EDL itself notes:

http://englishdefenceleague.org/the-english-defence-league-standing-firm/


''The decision made by individuals within the EDL Jewish Division to ally themselves with the JTF (Jewish Task Force), an organisation whose leader, Victor Vancier, was imprisoned on terrorism charges, was made without the authority of the EDL Leadership, and we have ensured that all ties have been severed with that organisation. Israel itself has proscribed the JTF as a terrorist organisation, and Vancier has been recorded making incredibly offensive and inflammatory statements about black people, Christians, and homosexuals. This could hardly be further from the objectives and beliefs of the English Defence League, and it is hugely disappointing that in the fallout of this sorry episode a small number of Jewish Division members saw fit to make personal attacks on members of the EDL Support Group for criticising their decision to align themselves with known extremists.''

It's actually obvious that this was the reason Moore fell out with the EDL leadership. She and her followers in the Jewish division were smearing as 'Nazis' anyone in the EDL who objected to the alliance with JTF. I also have the testimony of one of the editorial board members for official statements by the EDL to confirm that this is so.

The Jewish division- after Moore left- also denigrated the victims of the Norway massacre as 'scum' (http://www.edlnews.co.uk/edl-news/jewish-div-endorse-norway-attacks). Do you condemn that? The whole point of this affair is that you cannot go around smearing Rick Perry and tying him to Islamism with wild stretches of the facts unless you want to vet yourself for supporting the Moore and the (ex-EDL) Jewish division (and one could name numerous other connections, such as your endorsement of Vlaams Belang as the 'Jewish party', whose sole concern is to glorify Flemish Waffen-SS veterans, not to support Israel as you have repeatedly claimed). In short, please stop having double standards.

Someone who calls Obama a 'Mohammedan president' and Goldberg a 'Jewicidal Jihadi' cannot be taken seriously. As for Robert Spencer's forums, I never insinuated- contrary to your claims- that he is a neo-Nazi or fascist solely because there have been commentators on Jihad Watch threads who have declared support for the BNP. Otherwise, why would I have made it clear in that same article that he unequivocally repudiated the BNP?

---

Now back to you Robert. On further investigation of this matter, it turns out that the source for the Aga Khan-Rick Perry connection was a reporter at Salon. He predicted, on the basis of what he reported, that someone would soon start attacking Perry on these grounds and stir up a storm. You and Pamela fell right for the bait. If you wish to heal the rifts created, i suggest you put up a formal apology to Perry for your nasty insinuations about him.


"You may hate Obama but Perry would make you long for Obama...."

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

I cannot imagine anyone who would make me long for Barack Hussein Obama. Obama has been a nightmare for me personally. He is single-handedly destroying the institutions that make America prosperous. Under Obama the value of property Americans own has plummeted.

With respect to fiscal conservatism, I've not read anything yet that concerns me about Perry. This is about Islam and Perry's disposition toward it. Unlike a governor, a President Perry will be under tremendous pressure (as was Bush) to give way to immoral Saudi demands and the demands of other Muslim and Muslim-Arab states. (Obama needs no pressure.) America deserves a president with a steely spine who understands Islam, it teachings, its history, etc.

Would be nice if the Governor hisself would respond...........but letting others do the heavy lifting, that is presidential........just like our Dear Leader would do.........the level of damage control seems to be rather high...........sort on the level of left wing attacks on the Tea Party.

I guess the response leaves me a little suspicious.

For some reason some people will latch onto a candidate because they agree with them on one or two issues and then overlook everything else. If you point out their flaws, even major flaws, they will turn on the messenger. To them I say "good riddance".

I've lost friends and had family members turn against me because I am very outspoken about my political views, but one does not have to agree with me about anything for me to like them. It's childish to turn against someone because they disagree with you on an issue and it is dangerous to be blindly loyal to a political candidate who is playing patty-cake with jihad sympathizers.

"Would be nice if the Governor hisself would respond...........but letting others do the heavy lifting, that is presidential...."

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


Indeed it would be nice but with all these apologists and defenders coming out in his defense - even Daniel Pipes defends Perry's long-term associations with Grover Norquist - why would he feel the need to address the issue?

"well, Bachmann is a close second"

I've never liked Bachmann but this past week when she made a big deal in South Carolina about singing Happy Birthday to Elvis - which happened to be the day he died - just sealed the deal for me. What a moron. Elvis was born in January - Good Grief, doesn't she have fact checkers if she doesn't know the date herself? I'm not even so much of an Elvis fan but I definitely know he died in August!

If she can't even get Elvis right, forget about the Presidency.

Actually, I generally like Bachmann. My problem is not that she got Elvis' death / birth date wrong; I could care less when he was born and when he died. My problem is that candidates pander to unhealthy American obsessions, whether they be sports idols, popular singer idols, actor / actress idols, what have you. I don't argue the merits of their work. Most, like Elvis, are not good role models for children or adults. Americas obsession with idols over important issues is in large measure the reason we are in the mess we are in. If Americans paid as much attention to the issues, we might not have terrible leaders like Obama. Why pander to the lowest common denominator?

The impression I get so far about Perry, which I admit is very superficial, is that he is a very capable person who, unfortunately, will continue the shallow degree of understanding of Islam that we have seen in Obama and Bush.
I simply see no evidence that Perry has a realistic grasp of the nature of Islam.
We've been running a very crucial aspect of our foreign policy for years now based on misconceptions and platitudes, and it's costing us.
I worry that Perry is basically a blustering cowboy, a Texas version of New Jersey's Christie. He said something brash about Bernanke that I thought reflected very poorly on him.
One does not need to be an intellectual to be President, but the occasional use of the brain is always welcome.

Giles,

I've been more fortunate I guess. Even though some of my friends don't agree with my positions, they haven't "abandoned" me because of those positions. I've only had one co-worker from my old job that de-friended me on facebook. No great loss for me to be honest.

My methods for posting info to friends has been more temperate. As Citizen Warrior has suggested, don't over-do it with postings that are of the anti-jihad flavor. Mix it in with other stuff so it doesn't seem like you are "obsessed" with anti-jihadism.

When I visit some of the postings that people here suggest, I always "like" posts that say something I agree with. Strength in numbers and showing solidarity in places that the opposition tend to talk us down helps our cause. It still seems that people are more reluctant to talk about something unless they know there are enough others out among them who agree with what is being said. In other words most people don't like be ostracized.

"I could care less when he was born and when he died"

That's not the point. The point is that one can't help but know particulars about Elvis as he's an American icon and it's been 34 years since his demise. There's no way, generally speaking, that Americans can be ignorant about Elvis. His life and times and accomplishments are too embedded in the collective American consciousness. In addition, Elvis is a gigantic figure, a titanic figure, in American music, for many reasons. If you want to condemn him as not being a "good role model" (I guess because of his drug use) then you may as well condemn the entire pantheon of American writers/poets/musicians/singers because they had flaws no one else should emulate. Ridiculous. Sylvia Plath killed herself, no, nothing anyone should emulate, so let's just trash all of her brilliant poetry because she had a flaw and decided to commit suicide. Absurd. And numerous other examples.

One doesn't have to be "obsessed" with Elvis to know he died in August, 1977. I'm not "obsessed" with Elvis at all. But I definitely am aware of his life, times, and death. So, sorry, I still consider Bachmann to be a real moron for singing Happy Birthday to Elvis on the day he died. That she got that wrong, so easily, easily, simply, researched - I hate to think of what she'd get wrong in the oval office.

Actually, making a mistake over some celebrity trivia a terrible reason to reject a candidate. When Bachmann had made an error about John Wayne some time ago, the feminist author of a CNN editorial, while supposedly defending Bachmann against sexist coverage, claimed in passing that she was "sickened" by Bachmann's error. Honey, if something like that actually sickens you, then you perhaps ought to see a psychiatrist... People regard facts, as such, with undue attention; they demand absolute perfection when it comes to strict mechanical accuracy while the most atrocious ideas get a pass. The country would be better off if more people realized that the Presidency of the United States takes more than skill at trivial pursuit.

It strikes me that far too many critics of our position and miserable islamic reality, likely applying to Perry himself, fail to follow the sage observation of Mark Twain:

"A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read."
Mark Twain

"If you want to condemn him as not being a "good role model" (I guess because of his drug use) then you may as well condemn the entire pantheon of American writers/poets/musicians/singers because they had flaws no one else should emulate. Ridiculous...."


Actually, I was not thinking of his drug use. I was thinking of the way he treated his wife which became public. I saw some kind of a documentary many years back on his marriage. I am not a role model. No way! But I am not famous and people do not hold me up as someone to emulate. You say, there's 'no way, generally speaking, Americans can be ignorant about Elvis'. I am ignorant about Elvis, other than hearing his music from time to time over the years. No doubt he is an accomplished artist. Who is saying no? I do not know when he was born or when he died. That does not make me a bad American because I am ignorant of all things pertaining to Elvis. To me this kind of American obsession with celebrity is not healthy. Why do you think it is? I don't know the date of John Adams birth or the date of his death, yet I have studied some on the life and the philosophy of Adams; Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, Madison, Lincoln, Roosevelt, etc. I hope to study more. These men I think are worth some time. The life of Elvis is not in my opinion. That Bachmann has no idea when Elvis died might indicate, like me, she was not much interested in the man's life to any degree. That she panders to the lowest common denominator - America's obsession with fame, with stars and idols - speaks to a lack of good judgment in my opinion; not that she was ignorant of date Elvis died.

Ron Paul.

There is only one candidate who will stop all aid and wasted military expenditure and lives in muslim countries.

Ron Paul.

There is only one candidate who is automatically opposed to sharia law as it is un-Constitutional.

Ron Paul.

There is only one candidate who stands for full approval of anything Israel feels it needs to do to stop the Islamic supremacists who want to wipe it off the map.

Ron Paul.

There is only one candidate who has an infallible record of doing exactly what he says he's going to do and has nothing to hide. No special interest groups. No bribes. No Islamic supremacists in the closet.

Ron Paul has only one mandate: restoration of the Constitution and the Libertarian Republic which America was founded as and intended to be (which is clearly laid out in the Constitution). And has eroded away since the early 1960's into the mess it is now.

Ron Paul.

Get your head out of the sand and think about.

Would it have been prudent to check Presidential candidates for links to the Nazis in 1939? Or even check them for links to 'moderate' Fascists such as Mussolini?

Islam is the Nazism of our time, and all the more insidious because it seeks to conquer stealthily from within, rather than launch obviously aggressive blitzkriegs.

Beware the tentacles of the Octopus of Islamic Conquest, they reach everywhere.

Interesting piece. Maybe most have already seen this:

Earlier this week, Michelle Malkin went after Rick Perry over the human papillomavirus vaccine mandates he authorized as governor. Two days later, she followed up with a second scorching post, this time saying Perry was “soft on illegal immigration,” “prone to crony capitalism” — and that he “demonstrated Nanny State tendencies that are anathema to Tea Party core principles.”

(By the way, two months ago, I predicted Perry would face many of the questions that are now being raised by Malkin).

Some conservatives, of course, weren’t happy with Malkin’s criticism. When it comes to covering conservative primary candidates, some people think conservative writers should just turn a blind eye — or solely focus on attacking Obama. (A common criticism is: “You’re doing the left’s work for them!”).

On this, I side with Malkin. It is healthy for center-right journalists and conservative bloggers (there is a major distinction between the two — but time doesn’t allow one to address every nuance) to vet candidates. Skepticism is good. As The Jim Antle Doctrine advises conservatives: “A political alliance isn’t a marriage. You don’t have to take a presidential candidate for better or worse. Only when they’re right.”

Others, however, like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, seem to believe center-right media should function simply as “team players” or cheerleaders for conservative politicians. (Note: They get to decide who is “conservative” at the given moment).....

(What do Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin deem "conservative?" -- wj)

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/19/michelle-malkin-v-rick-perry/#ixzz1VaU8wkFM

Ron Paul has yet to see Hamas or Hezbollah terror, kidnappings / rocket attacks on Israel's cities that he could not justify or defend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08gTWqWrI4M&feature=player_embedded

A friend, Texas Republican party activist, Republican National Committeewoman, election judge, member of the district, state and national resolutions/platform committees, etc., and a supporter of Governor Perry, says the governor made a priority of pushing legislation which bars the consideration of shariah (or foreign) law in Texas courts, but was blocked by a prominent House Speaker and Texas' Lt. Gov., who both killed the legislation.

She sent me the following:

Note the bill number 911: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=HB911

Identical bill, HB 3027: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=HB3027

An identical bill, HB 3027, was filed by another State Rep. Neither went anywhere. Gov. Perry then put it on a "must pass" bill as an amendment. It was removed by Senator Robert Duncan. TWICE Perry put it on a bill. Once in regular session and secondly in special session. Duncan removed it both times.

Two Words:

Allen West.

Thanks for reminding me that Bachmann also confused American icon John Wayne with mass-murdering serial killer John Wayne Gacy. Again, what a moron. She has no business being president. Perhaps you should see a psychiatrist.

Oh Good Grief! Elvis Presley's dates are so easily checked it's not funny. And such a titanic figure in American music is not the "lowest common denominator." Presley is a pioneer in American music. Perhaps you're the lowest common denominator.

She's still a moron for proclaiming his birthday on the day he died. If she didn't have the perspicacity to check his dates she should have shut-up. Didn't she learn from her John Wayne mistake? Apparently not. What a fool. But, she won't be president, so that's good.

Two Words:

Allen West.

Yes!

We agree on one thing. She should not have mentioned him or his birth date. You missed my point. I am not saying Elvis is the lowest common denominator. I am saying celebrity-worship is the lowest common denominator. Why worship a human being? Any human being? Of all people - Bachmann is a devout Christian - she should be familiar with the First Commandment. Let's drop this subject.

Hold fast on these issues, Robert. Rick Perry needs to be vetted across the board on all matters pertaining to both past performance and likely future stances, including Islam in particular. Based on his public comments, he appears to be as ill informed about the basics of Islam and its history as other presidential contenders, Rick Santorum being a notable exception. His sidling up to the Agha Khan is troubling, and gives the appearance that he is a sucker for a good line.

It would be good if in future presidential debates a question could be posed about the candidates' understanding of the differences between Sunni and Shi'a Islam, and the relevance this has for Middle East politics. The last thing we need is another president proclaiming "I thought they were all Muslims!" (Bush's response when presented with the news that Sunnis and Shi'as were fighting each other in Iraq).

I used to think that Chris Christie was going to be our man until he made that "I'm getting sick of that Shariah law crap" remark. Now Perry is not looking too good as well.....
Is there no one who will watch our backs?
I think we'll have to side with the boys above...

"Two words
Allen West!!"

Agreed!!

I just don't want Obama to win the election. I'm afraid if we choose the POTUS that is a long-shot we just might help Obama win the election. That fact makes me scared!

I agree with Pamela, but at what cost?

"It would be good if in future presidential debates a question could be posed about the candidates' understanding of the differences between Sunni and Shi'a Islam, and the relevance this has for Middle East politics..."

Good question. I would like to know which candidates will, as president, pursue the Bush / Obama doctrine; the implantation of democracy / free elections in the Muslim and the Muslim-Arab world.

Which candidates will pursue the "peace" process between Israel and her Muslim 'neighbors' with the aim of establishing a Muslim state in Judea, Samaria (the West Bank), Jerusalem and Gaza.

Which candidates agree with Bush and Obama, Israel illegitimately occupies Palestinian land. Which of the candidates agree with Obama, Israel should stop building apartments in Judea, Samaria and the parts of Jerusalem Palestinians claim as a part of a future state.

Which candidates will continue to reach out - as Bush did and Obama is doing - to representatives of the Muslim American community, like CAIR, and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups. Will the next Republican president consider Grover Norquist when he or she needs advice on tax-related matters?

Who is "celebrity-worshipping?" No one is doing that!

Both John Wayne and Elvis Presley have made enormous artistic contributions to American culture. Much more so than Bachmann! Who the heck is Bachmann?! She should have checked whether her information was correct! That's a no-brainer. That she didn't do so shows what an inept moron she is. I'm beginning to think the recent magazine cover of her was entirely correct! Any American running for president and gets John Wayne and Elvis Presley wrong is a dingbat.

No one is "worshipping" them! What's your problem?

I agree with JCB, Eastview and all the other reliable folks who advocate staunch resistance to any candidate being approved before thorough vetting on the issue of Islam and the jihad ideology.
I would also be happy to see a secularist candidate rather than an overt evangelical or similar candidate. I think people like Palin and Bachman will scare away the more mainstream voters. Can anyone tell this Brit if there is anyone who fits that bill? I can't see a credible candidate in the running.

Chris Christie is an Islam-loving moron. He recently appointed a Muslim judge and called all Americans who opposed that "crazy," and other insults. Fatso Christie is an enemy of the United States. But, he's finished, just as Herman Cain, who recently apologized to Muslims, is finished.

All good questions to ask the candidates, to be sure, but they are likely to be dodged by the usual sort of mush-mouthed PC'isms about "respecting the rights of everyone" blah blah blah, and hedged in such a way as not to offend anyone. My question is intended specifically to expose publicly the candidates who are ignorant of Islam and its history at the most basic of levels.

About the creation of a Muslim state in Judea, Samaria (the West Bank), Jerusalem and Gaza, i.e., "Palestine." One of the stated goals is to create a "contiguous" Palestinian state. Anyone who knows how to read a map can see that this is impossible without some serious readjustment of the present borders at Israel's expense. Gaza is physically disjointed from the other areas, so to create a contiguous Palestine will require taking land from Israel in order to connect Gaza to the West Bank. The candidates could be asked a question about this, the intent being to see if they have even thought about this issue. They'll still squirm and hedge, of course, but the manner in which they do this will in itself be telling. (FWIW, my solution to this is for Israel to annex Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights, maybe also Sinai, and then, once the inevitable spastic reaction of Muslims has settled down, get on with the serious business of integrating all of it into a new Israel, call it Israel v2.0, if you will.)

This needs to be read, understood and spread, and published again and again:

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/08/rick-perry-and-islam.html

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/19/the-islamic-political-takeover-of-america/

Enjoy, we need strong people who can lead and educate America, and we need it yesterday. No fools can be suffered of the Perry, Christie class, among the most dangerous of fools! Read the enclosed URLs and you'll understand!

Why is there a religious curriculum in public schools that highlights one,or any, religion ?

Why is a religious entity allowed to run " a comprehensive program to feed children in Texas public schools ?"
This country pays billions in social programs,is suffering from widespread obesity and supplies meals,daycare etc to citizens.Religious involvement is neither needed or wanted in public schools.Parents do not send their children to school to learn religion.

Mr.Khan is "investing in" foreign governments,health care and tourism but what about in the U.S.'s? Does he support and practice Sharia banking? Does he support any interests other than his own popularity, financial gain,accumulation of power and Islam ?

Will Mr.Norquist take me to the Bahamas for tax advice?

We simple minded Americans need simple answers.
Simply answer the questions.
What are Perry's views on Islam?
Does he have political and financial interest in muslim organizations,states and politics?
What will he do about illegal immigration of Mexicans,Middle Easterners,Africans etc.
Does he support the Ground Zero Mosque?
What are his opinions on Israel ?
Palestinian statehood ?
What about our troops in Iraq,Afghanistan,Pakistan,Philippines etc.?
Financial aid to countries at war,under religious conflict or border control fights?

Does he find the idea that our troops,many who voluntered after/because of 9/11, will come home scarred,wounded and emotionally damaged and will look at the great American skyline in NY ,with horror, to see a reminder of what caused their national and personal pain?

"I would also be happy to see a secularist candidate rather than an overt evangelical or similar candidate. I think people like Palin and Bachman will scare away the more mainstream voters..."

It is unlikely that any candidate who explicitly refers to him/herself as being "secularist" would gain much traction in today's political climate in the U.S. Palin and Bachmann know this, of course, but they do not appear to have matured enough politically to know that, however popular they might be with their base, in the overall vote count their positions may work against them. Both of them are rock solid in their principles and commitment to conservative values, in my opinion, but they have yet to articulate them in such a way as to calm unfounded fears by the hysterical Left that upon election they would somehow try to pursue a nonsecular agenda.

"Can anyone tell this Brit if there is anyone who fits that bill? I can't see a credible candidate in the running."

In terms of there being a candidate who is overtly secular, no there isn't, and it is unlikely there will be one. You'll have to be happy with trying to read the tea leaves like the rest of us.


Liana, it has already been established that this curriculum is not being used to promote Islam, but provide a rather objective take, as one lesson plan shows:

'Muslims often lack respect for Western traditions and points of view. The Muslim relationship to the West is colored by the belief that Western beliefs [whether Christian or atheist] are defective and therefore inferior to Islam. From its early days, Islam reacted aggressively toward its civilized neighbors the Byzantines and the West. Muslim attacks against the West can be viewed as occurring in three waves.'

http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/1945

'What are his opinions on Israel? Palestinian statehood?'

It has already been established that Perry is an ardent supporter of Israel: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Perry-urges-punishment-for-Americans-protesting-2081813.php.

What more do you need?

If the candidate dodges by the 'usual sort of mush-mouthed PC'isms about "respecting the rights of everyone" blah blah blah, and hedges in such a way as not to offend anyone', then he or she supports Muslim-enemy state in Israel; he or she supports this charade of a peace process. It is as simple as that.

Whether Huckabee would have made a good president is uncertain. Huckabee, while in Israel, showed solidarity with Jewish communities that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama say are illegitimate. Huckabee said there should be no Palestinian state in Israel. It's as simple as that.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/international/middle_east/view.bg?articleid=1313687&srvc=rss

I would expect Michele Bachmann to give Huckabee's answer though nothing would surprise me.

http://minnesotaindependent.com/55061/bachmann-america-cursed-by-god-if-we-reject-israel

Video: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/06/029314.php

Maybe Herman Cain? Ron Paul might say Israel is a sovereign state but then he would hedge with, Palestinians have rights too. The rest, I would expect to talk about "respecting the rights of everyone" blah blah blah, and hedge in such a way as not to offend anyone....

'What are his opinions on Israel? Palestinian statehood?'

It has already been established that Perry is an ardent supporter of Israel: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Perry-urges-punishment-for-Americans-protesting-2081813.php.

What more do you need?

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

You are joking, aren't you? While Perry's position on the illegal Gaza flotilla raid is commendable, I need an unequivocal statement from Governor Perry, that like former Governor Mike Huckabee, he (Perry) is opposed to the establishment of a Muslim-enemy state in Israel's heartland.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/international/middle_east/view.bg?articleid=1313687&srvc=rss

It does not matter where Perry thinks such an entity should be; whether in Jordan or Saudi Arabia or Egypt.

Can you produce such a statement from Governor Perry?


dear eastview,

"FWIW, my solution to this is for Israel to annex Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights, maybe also Sinai, and then, once the inevitable spastic reaction of Muslims has settled down, get on with the serious business of integrating all of it into a new Israel, call it Israel v2.0, if you will.)

i believe that not only you are 1000% spot on, but this is the ONLY available solution as there is NO DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION.
no musloid will ever honor an agreement previously signed... as written in their accursed book, the concept of hudna ....

Does he support the Ground Zero Mosque?
What are his opinions on Israel ?
Palestinian statehood ?
What about our troops in Iraq,Afghanistan,Pakistan,Philippines etc.?


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

Perry, I read, believes the ground zero mosque is a local decision; a decision for New Yorkers. That means, like Christie, he supports building the ground zero mosque at ground zero - unless I am missing something. This is wrong. The ground zero mosque is a national issue; not a regional or a local issue. The 9/11 Muslim-terror attacks were attacks on America; on every American. Every American has a stake in it.

I am guessing, like Bush and Obama, Perry supports a Muslim-enemy state in Israel's heartland; one dedicated to Israel's destruction, because he's not said otherwise. I hope I am wrong.

I do not know what his position is on our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Philippines, etc.? I don't know what Perry's position is on the Bush doctrine of implanting democracy in the Muslim world or the ideal of winning the minds and hearts of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq.


@wildjew:

I can find no such unequivocal statement (probably because he hasn't been explicitly asked the question you have in mind), but are you saying that Perry must oppose the very idea of a Palestinian state in any form? By that logic, Barry Rubin (analyst at the IDC and a friend of both Spencer and myself) is a 'stealth jihadist' because he supports a two-state solution in theory.

However, back to the main point, Perry has also stated:

"My faith requires me to support Israel." He also said that the Obama administration is "out of tune with America" on the question of Israel.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/10/rick_perry_the_hawk_internationalist

''Perry, I read, believes the ground zero mosque is a local decision; a decision for New Yorkers. That means, like Christie, he supports building the ground zero mosque at ground zero - unless I am missing something.''

Sorry- how do you extrapolate that statement by Perry to claim he 'supports building the ground zero mosque at ground zero'?

''I am guessing, like Bush and Obama, Perry supports a Muslim-enemy state in Israel's heartland; one dedicated to Israel's destruction, because he's not said otherwise.''

argumentum e silentio is a logic fallacy.

If memory serves me right, you are the one who tried to act as Spencer's prosecutor on the basis of some statements made by Melkite bishops.

AJAT, again to me that means Perry, like Bush and Obama support a Muslim-enemy state, dedicated to Israel's destruction. You quote Perry: "My faith requires me to support Israel." What does that mean? Supporting Israel's destruction is NOT supporting Israel. If Perry were a true Christian, like Bachmann, he would quote Genesis 12:3. Genesis makes clear all the land of Israel belongs to Abraham, Jacob and their descendants and the nations (read America) who seek to divide it will bear the consequences. It is an eternal compact between Israel's patriarchs and the Creator. People of faith like Bachmann, Palin and Perry should understand this simple truth. Whether Bachmann will stand by her ealier position if she is asked in debate format is another matter. I simply do not know. I hope the candidates are asked in a manner they cannot equivocate or dodge.

Like Daniel Pipes - who is now condemning those who question Perry's long-term associations with Grover Norquist - Barry Rubin is an accomplished scholar. He, like Pipes, is not an unqualified supporter of Israel. The land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel. There is no middle ground. Both supported Israel's pusillanimous, immoral retreat from Gaza, August 2005.

Eastview,
You say, about Palin and Bachman:
'Both of them are rock solid in their principles and commitment to conservative values, in my opinion, but they have yet to articulate them in such a way as to calm unfounded fears by the hysterical Left that upon election they would somehow try to pursue a nonsecular agenda.'
The link above in which Bachman cites Genesis 12:3 to back her crazed notions about curses and blessings from God...
well, it does nothing to assure me of her adherence to a secular agenda. Plus the persistent statements about teaching 'intelligent design' in science classes alongside evolution (Genesis again).
Or are these things just conservative values?

You wrote: "Sorry- how do you extrapolate that statement by Perry to claim he 'supports building the ground zero mosque at ground zero'?"

Because the local authorities have given the go-ahead. You know it. Perry knows it. Besides it is not a local issue. It is a national issue. This is a side issue (yet it is to the point), when Governor Perry said New York law legalizing gay marriages was a state's-rights issue, conservative pro-family individuals and groups (Gary Bauer - American Values for example) demanded clarification. Perry apparently backtracked.

That Perry's silence on a Muslim state in Israel is "argumentum e silentio or a logic fallacy?"

Perhaps. I will eagerly wait for Governor Perry to weigh in on the matter. I hope he proves me wrong. If he does my opinion of him will be greatly enhanced as I am sure it will be for millions of pro-Israel Americans. Bachmann has weighed in on Israel.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27924.htm

Why hasn't Perry? Am I too impatient? Whether Bachmann has a titanium spine remains to be seen. Israel is the acid test.

Your bringing up our discussion about Archbishop Cyril Bustros anti-Israel statements is akin to Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi attacking Geller over the English Defence League. What does the one have to do with the other

Steve (and you can call me Aymenn):

''AJAT, again to me that means Perry, like Bush and Obama support a Muslim-enemy state, dedicated to Israel's destruction.''

I'm sorry: where do these assertions on your part come from?

''Supporting Israel's destruction is NOT supporting Israel.''

Where has Perry said or implied anything remotely along those lines?

''he would quote Genesis 12:3. Genesis makes clear all the land of Israel belongs to Abraham, Jacob and their descendants and the nations (read America) who seek to divide it will bear the consequences.''

How much is 'all the land of Israel'? And you're saying that true support for Israel can only be based on Biblical grounds? If so, then I'm afraid we're not going to get very far.

''He, like Pipes, is not an unqualified supporter of Israel.''

Yeah, so what? 'Australian Christians Supporting Israel' supports Israel on theological grounds, but emphasises its support is not unqualified ('[ACSI] does not feel the need to defend Israel 'right or wrong', as some mistakenly do'): http://www.acsisrael.org/about.html.

''Both supported Israel's pusillanimous, immoral retreat from Gaza, August 2005.''

Now you're simply lying. Pipes opposed the unilateral withdrawal: http://www.danielpipes.org/2861/the-gaza-withdrawal-a-democracy-killing-itself.


"The link above in which Bachman cites Genesis 12:3 to back her crazed notions about curses and blessings from God..."


It's not "crazed" notions. She is quoting directly from the Bible; the book from which millions of Christians and Jews draw wisdom and guidance. You may not believe in those promises in the Bible. You may not believe in a "Pomised Land." That is your choice Stephen.

Steve:

''Because the local authorities have given the go-ahead.''

No. What Perry means is that it is for New Yorkers as a people to decide (and I agree with him- it's not a national issue).

''Your bringing up our discussion about Archbishop Cyril Bustros anti-Israel statements is akin to Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi attacking Geller over the English Defence League. What does the one have to do with the other.''

The point is that you're acting like Perry's prosecutor just as you did when attacking Robert over some statements by Cyril Bustros. Also, you have misread the import of the issue concerning Pamela and the EDL. The crux is that if you want to smear Perry on these flimsy grounds, logically you should want to do the same thing regarding Geller and her ties with Moore and the (ex-EDL) Jewish division.

Steve (and you can call me Aymenn):

OK Aymenn. Let's begin with Daniel Pipes. I stand corrected (I think) and I am sorry. Pipes however has not been entirely consistent though I am sure he will deny it. It was pretty widely reported (in Arutz Sheva) and elsewhere that Daniel Pipes pondered publicly, 'Why didn't Ariel Sharon simply withdraw IDF protection from Gaza and Gush Katif' (?) and thereby avoid a potentially violent confrontation between the IDF and the Jewish residents. As we saw, the residents offered little to no resistance. I saw a statement from Dr. Pipes (on Arutz) to the effect that he had been taken out of context. Secondly, Pipes floated a plan whereby Israel would hand over Judea and Samaria to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt. Again that is a non-starter that supporters of Israel should not propose. Israel must retain sovereignty over these lands. Israel will have to re-occupy Gaza and I expect the Sinai in time.

The bottom line. I will eagerly await Perry on Israel and a Palestinian state. If he supports a Palestinian Muslim state anywhere in the land of Israel, like former President Bush and Obama, he is not a friend.

How much is 'all the land of Israel'? What Israel occupied after the 1967 Six Day war belongs to Israel Aymenn. Yes or no?

"And you're saying that true support for Israel can only be based on Biblical grounds?"

Yes. And especially from a self-professed Christian believer like Perry.

"If so, then I'm afraid we're not going to get very far."

OK.

"Yeah, so what? 'Australian Christians Supporting Israel' supports Israel on theological grounds, but emphasises its support is not unqualified ('[ACSI] does not feel the need to defend Israel 'right or wrong', as some mistakenly do'): http://www.acsisrael.org/about.html."

I do not understand why a pro-Israel Christian organization does not support Israel on Biblical grounds. I do not support Israel "right or wrong." When Israel helped Reagan administration provide arms in exchange for hostages in Lebanon, Israel's government was wrong. When Israeli officials used Jonathan Pollard to commit espionage on the U.S. - even if it was information the U.S. should have provided Israel at any rate - Israeli officials were wrong. That Pollard got a disproportionate punishment is another matter.

StevenA55, what is it that you're looking for? If it's a candidate who goes out of his/her way to distance themselves from Christianity, then in my opinion there is no chance that in the present political climate anyone like that stands the remotest chance of even being nominated, much less elected. Citizens here, the vocal Left and history ignoramuses notwithstanding, understand that the U.S. was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and any politician who denies this would be a fool with a very short political career.

Although by inclination I would not be prone to supporting evangelicals for public office if they wore their religion on their sleeves, given the urgency presented by the state of affairs in the Middle East and its spillover into the West, and given the choices presented by the multicultural Left as instantiated in the Democratic Party, I would not hesitate an instant to vote for Palin or Bachmann if it came to that. But my gut feeling is that neither of them will get the GOP nomination, so you can rest easy. They can, however, help shape the campaign narrative from behind the scenes, along lines that their supporters feel are important, and I hope they will do that.

Wildjew:
'It's not "crazed" notions. She is quoting directly from the Bible; the book from which millions of Christians and Jews draw wisdom and guidance. You may not believe in those promises in the Bible. You may not believe in a "Pomised Land." That is your choice Stephen.'

My point is that policies need rational not religious foundations. The voters will not elect a presidential candidate to the White House who advocates a manifesto based on Old Testament tenets. At least i hope not. There are plenty of rational secular arguments for support of Israel. Such as to point to the immoral nature of Islamic teachings that demonize the jews. The Old Testament with it's passages that command slaughter, should not be used to support present day land claims. As soon as you try, you lose credibility and descend to the level of the 'Palestinians'.

"The point is that you're acting like Perry's prosecutor just as you did when attacking Robert over some statements by Cyril Bustros. Also, you have misread the import of the issue concerning Pamela and the EDL. The crux is that if you want to smear Perry on these flimsy grounds, logically you should want to do the same thing regarding Geller and her ties with Moore and the (ex-EDL) Jewish division."

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

I hold self-professed Christian believers to a very high standard. It is Rick Perry who puts his faith out there in public for everyone to see. I took note.

Perry is a devout Christian, or he claims to be. I have high expectations for him on "fundamental" moral issues.

I am not acting as Perry's prosecutor. I told a friend - a long-time political activist in the Texas GOP / friend of Israel - and a Perry supporter, I remain undecided about Perry. I don't know what to make of him yet.

George W. Bush was a huge disappointment. I hope Perry is not like Bush on the Middle East, Israel and Islam. Some of what I am reading here on this site and elsewhere concerns me. Why shouldn't I be concerned? I read Pamela's piece on American Thinker this morning. Did you? I said at the time, Robert Spencer and Pam Geller were right to withdraw their support from the EDL until it can be ascertained that EDL has no racist or anti-Semitic elements. They cannot afford to be linked to that.

The UK has a history of strained relations with Israel, you may be aware, and strained is putting it mildly. A few months back PM Cameron said something to the effect, Gaza is an open air prison, conjuring up images of a concentration camp. British put Jewish refugees in squalid camps on Cyprus during and after the Holocaust / Shoah.

Geller says she warned Moore to not associate with Kahanists, JTF, etc. I think that is wise. It can be argued, the late Rabbi Meir Kahane was right in many respects. I cannot share his harsh or his militant tone. Maybe it is a matter of style. Roosevelt said, talk softly and carry a big stick.

Eastview,
Thank you for those comments. I find your remarks reassuring. I still fail to see who, among the GOP candidates, if not Palin or Bachman, has the broad appeal to win the presidency.
What are the chances of an Obama 2nd term?

Sorry gang, for Robert Spencer to use Geller as a source is not being credible. She most definitely had an article with links that did not work quoting some friend of hers.

This morning I had a good talk with a friend from S. TX. He called B.S. on the claims of Perry being sharia friendly. Both he and his wife have been extremely active on such issues. She in the school system, and now city council (she won with 86% against a popular incumbent a few years ago). They were Jewish couple of the year for TX early last decade. They are well connected in Israel and directly to Netanyahu.

Mr. A (my friend) has known Perry personally (via there mutual extra strong support of Boy Scouts) for several decades and would vote for him in a heartbeat. His wife has worked with Perry lobbying for the local college when she was on its board.

Let me remind everyone that Geller will jump on a lead and make Alex Jones type leaps to a conclusion. This would not be the first time.

I'm now wondering about Bachmann's role in the Perry smears. Ed Rollins IS her campaign head. She even made the really ignorant guarantee of $2 gasoline if elected. Is she going to nationalize the petroleum and refining industry to guarantee such prices in a global market? Does she know that the inexpensive crude oil is overseas? Does she know that it takes different types of refinery configuration to refine different types of crude oil?

There is no problem with vetting ANY and ALL candidates. Geller jumps to make claims without enough evidence. Spencer blindly vouches for Geller. THAT is what the uproar is about, not the vetting process.

I have not seen any question about whether or not Perry has used the appeasers/sympathizers, rather than the other way around.

Geller/Spencer are yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theater without first asking if anyone is smelling smoke. That is the problem.

My point is that policies need rational not religious foundations. The voters will not elect a presidential candidate to the White House who advocates a manifesto based on Old Testament tenets. At least i hope not. There are plenty of rational secular arguments for support of Israel. Such as to point to the immoral nature of Islamic teachings that demonize the jews. The Old Testament with it's passages that command slaughter, should not be used to support present day land claims. As soon as you try, you lose credibility and descend to the level of the 'Palestinians'.

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

Faith is not irrational unless it is.

If that makes any sense. I do not generally use the Bible publicly to justify Israel's right to the land, though that is my justification and I do invoke the Bible from time to time. Like you say, Israel's rights can be defended on a moral/rational basis. I believe our policies with respect to Israel should be based on both, rational-secular and religious foundations. I generally agree with your statement, voters will not elect a presidential candidate to the White House who advocates a manifesto based on Old Testament tenets. I suspect were America a theocracy based on the Hebrew Bible, we might see something akin to the Salem witch trials all over again. Consequently America's Founders were wise to separate religion and state to the extent they did. I do not believe a candidate who says the land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people by divine right will be dismissed by the American people. I don't want to beleive Americans have degenerated that far. If we have, then we are done as a nation.

It is a national issue, it is a Moslem victory mosque.

"I'm now wondering about Bachmann's role in the Perry smears. Ed Rollins IS her campaign head."

Ed Rollins - though his is considered a political pro - has his own problems with respect to Islam. If Bachmann wants to confront Perry on the Middle East and Islam, I would welcome the public debate.

"I would not hesitate an instant to vote for Palin or Bachmann if it came to that. But my gut feeling is that neither of them will get the GOP nomination, so you can rest easy."

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

If not, I would like to see Bachmann in a future Republican administration, somewhere important. I would like to see her ideas tested. Maybe Palin, though she has yet to announce.

Rollins is a known smear merchant. Remember Huckster vs. Romney in 2008?

That $2 gasoline comment shows her ignorance except to the uninformed. She is clawing for traction and sliding quickly.

Wildjew,

You speak much good sense.
But then:
'I do not believe a candidate who says the land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people by divine right will be dismissed by the American people. '

Why evoke a dubious divine right when the legal and moral case is more powerful and persuasive?
How many American Jews and Christians are literal fundamentalists?

"Geller jumps to make claims without enough evidence. Spencer blindly vouches for Geller. THAT is what the uproar is about, not the vetting process.....Geller/Spencer are yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theater without first asking if anyone is smelling smoke. That is the problem."

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

Time will tell if you are right. Perry has tremendous momentum. If the economy continues on the current trajectory, Obama will be vulnerable, like Jimmy Carter was at the end of his first term. Rick Perry might well be America's next president. Right now, he is the favored Republican candidate, though much can happen in the months to come. I think it is fair to scrutinize Perry's record on these critical issues in the event he is our next president. Don't you?

"Why evoke a dubious divine right when the legal and moral case is more powerful and persuasive?
How many American Jews and Christians are literal fundamentalists?"

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

Sorry, I do not agree with you. It is not dubious. I talk to average Americans all the time about Israel. These are not fundamentalists. I speak to only one Christian fundamentalist.

Unless they are rabid atheists, most Americans are not offended by the concept of Israel as a Promised Land; promised to the Jewish people by God. Why is it offensive to you? My guess is, if a poll were taken we would find that a plurality of Americans believe God gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people. I would agree with you, it is the literalists that understand "all" of Israel was given to the Jews and only to the Jews. Non-literalist accept that the Jews can share the land with the Muslims. Literalists do not. More and more people seem to accept that the land should be shared between Jews and Muslims. It will never work. That is why I am a literalist.

"Rollins is a known smear merchant. Remember Huckster vs. Romney in 2008?"

No. I didn't pay close enough attention. Can you enlighten me? I did not like Rollin's comment about Bachmann being equally attractive to Palin but having the added benefit of being smart or intelligent. I thought that an extremely unkind remark. Bachmann may be smart, but like you and others point out, she has a penchant for making gaffs. I would have demanded Rollins issue a public apology to Sarah Palin. Then there is Michael Savage complaining night after night, Bachmann will not come back on his program. Little doubt Rollins is advising her not to go back on his radio program because he thinks Savage will only hurt her and not help her. I think that is a mistake, even though Savage irritates me on Israel. He has a huge Israel problem. Still, Bachmann does not need an enemy in Savage. I used to hear Spencer interviewed by Savage. For some reason, I've not heard Spencer in a long time. Savage can use some coaching on Islam, that's for sure. Still, unlike Bachmann, he doesn't say anything negative about Spencer.

Rollins coordinated an effective smear campaign against Romney in 2008. I was not for either candidate at all.

Dear Aymenn,

I'm somewhat surprised that Mr. Spencer hasn't responded to you here himself; so, lightweight syncophant that I am, I presume--with trepidation--to say something.

First, I cut Ms. Geller generous slack for her feisty, combative zeal and hyperbolic--you may call it shrill--rhetorical style. She gives vehement voice to our deep dislike of Islamophilic pusillanimity--"'Mohammedan president'"--and of manifest Stockholm Syndrome--'"Jewicidal Jihadi.'"

Robert Spencer is my personal hero, even if--perhaps--he takes the fight "A Bridge Too Far."

And to the degree that Governor Perry pals with Islamist enablers and incrementally accommodates stealth-jihad, then Robert is right to treat the Governor as little better than an infidel. He's a mere candidate for our highest office--not a legal defendant on trial--and a Big Boy, besides. Spencer doesn't "owe" him an apology, just an honest and courteous hearing.

Sincerely yours,

J.C.B.

Sorry, extremely savvy friends of mine of very high intellect do not think him an idiot at all. One of these operates a math education foundation and doles out grants to top notch mathematics professors. He is also on par with his Oxford degreed geophysicists.

Maybe in low life overrated circles he is considered an idiot but not among those whose livelihoods are dependent upon practical successful application of advanced sane and logical education.

Excellent well stated argument with a sane rational assessment.

If we speak of moderate Muslims, we must also speak of moderate Nazis.

Eastview: "unfounded fears by the hysterical Left that upon election they would somehow try to pursue a nonsecular agenda."

Is there any candidate that would dare propose that we end all faith-based gifting? Though it superficially is neutral among religions, it leaves out folks who speak the truth that all notions of God are man-made. It also constrains all Islam discussion to that of Inter-faith crap. Islam discussion must be framed as Muslim versus apostate from Islam and counter jihad forces.

Will "faith-based" gifting to Islamists be matched not with gifts to other delusional religious folks but rather to groups dedicated to apostates from Islam and to counter jihad groups? If not, then the whole faith-based gifting thing should come to a complete end.

There are secular anti-totalitarians among you, if only you look for them.

dear wildjew,

"It can be argued, the late Rabbi Meir Kahane was right in many respects. I cannot share his harsh or his militant tone. Maybe it is a matter of style. "

the late (unfortunately) rabbi kahane, was 100% right.
i see moshe feiglin and shmuel sackett as the only hope that tiny israel has to survive.
i have always felt arik sharon to be the hero that saved israel with his brilliant outflanking manoeuver in 73 to cross over the suez and encircle the egyptian 3rd army.
(of course being a member of the legendary unit 101 together with meir hartzion helped boost his image in my mind)

and then....disaster!
forcefully removing jews from their homes, to give it all to the murderous terrorists that inhabit gaza...
incredible!
painful!
not to be repeated again!!!

it now appears that bibi is ready to make 'painful concessions' (translation: repeat performance of sharon's actions in gaza, to be done in judea and samaria...) and this, to placate the muslime in chief that is fraudulently sitting in the w.h. ...

the answer my dear wild jew is to remember that in 1948 israel had no weapons no ammunition no trained soldiers, nothing! bubkes! it was a mouse that thought it was a lion and fought as such.

today, this magnificent powerful lion that israel is, it has been brought to whimper and think that it is a mouse...

it is time to bring authentic jewish leadership to israel. the ones that can deliver this are the leaders of 'manhigut yehudit' and i am saying this in spite of being the secular jew that i am.

their platform is nonapologetic, and it need not be.

it is my firm belief that regardless who is in the white house, israel will be ok with the right leadership.
i am exagerating now in order to make a point:
even with a palin/huckabee president in the w.h. but a tzipi livni (god forbid!) as prime minister, israel is doomed!

I want to ask if Spencer and Geller supported the anti-sharia law in Oklahoma which only served to invite sharia into the courtroom?

It was a poorly written law. On the side of good, other states have passed laws similar but they do not invite sharia into the courtroom.

wildjew,

I listened to the Ron Paul video carefully.

In a lot of ways, he is prescient in 2009. He opposes the adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, citing them as at best a budget-buster. He opposed the government bailouts of the bank debts, correctly predicting that inflation, rather than inflation, would be the bigger problem. He correctly questioned whether investors, including other countries, would continue to buy US bonds when the US government is consistently overspending its revenues.

But, as you point out, there are many problems in his world view. He opposes US support of Israel, not mentioning, however, that US support of Israel in no way involves US military involvement. He also doesn't mention that most of US military and economic support of Israel actually involves joint technological development, which benefits the US as much as Israel. Finally, he has no tolerance of Israel's invasions of Gaza in response to rocket attacks against Israel. This is rather paradoxical, as Paul, being a Libertarian, should recognize the absolute right and responsibility of a government to protect the security of its citizens.

Again, the question for Paul is, would he as President, continue to shield Israel from one-sided UN resolutions and possible economic sanctions? Doing so does not involve the US in foreign adventures, and definitely does not go against any accepted Libertarian principles. But, it seems quite obvious that Paul would not use the prerogatives of the US to protect Israel in international bodies. Thus, he would allow a free, democratic, ally to go down the tubes. And, for what? The "good will" of the Arab states.

"i am exagerating now in order to make a point:
even with a palin/huckabee president in the w.h. but a tzipi livni (god forbid!) as prime minister, israel is doomed!"

I believe you are right. I prefer National Union over Manhigut Yehudit. NU is the only party that hasn't sold out to the "land for peace" delusion. Feiglin, although I believe he is a good man, keeps urging his supporters to vote for Likud. Likud, like Kadima is now the party of surrender and reatreat, albeit a more gradual retreat than Kadima. I'm not a religious Jew. I would vote for National Union.

Ronald, I have no beef with Paul's economic policies. So long as his policies are conservative I support them. My beef is with his foreign policy. In the video, he makes it appear Operation Cast Lead came out of no where. He does not mention Israel left Gaza entirely - expelled every last Jew - only to me met by thousands of rockets on her cities. Rockets, kidnappings and attempted kidnappings. Paul talks about preemptive war. Iraq was anticipatory or preemptive war. Many argue the wisdom of that war. Few argue the need to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan. It's the occupation of these countries that is at issue. Israel's 1967 Six Day war was a preemptive war but not without Egyptian and Syrian mass-mobilization on Israel's borders. Egypt blocked Israel's shipping through the Straits of Tiran. That was an act of war. Operation Cast Lead, contrary to what Dr. Paul maintained, was not preemptive war. Hamas fired thousands of rockets on Israel's cities. They are firing rockets even as we speak. Would Paul advise Israel to sit on her hands?

Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi makes the following claims, none of which he supports with evidence:

"[...]the Ismailis do not advocate violence or advancement of Shari'a in politics anywhere in the world today."
"[...]the Aga Khan, the philanthropic head of the Ismaili Shi'a sect that rejects the traditional, orthodox concept of jihad as aggressive warfare against unbelievers. Instead, the Ismailis favor an interpretation of jihad as working on and financing charitable, economic projects to improve the well-being of humanity as a whole. However, while Geller concedes the Ismaili rejection of violence, she goes on with her smear-by-association in pointing out that the Assassins were historically Ismailis."

Ismailis* do not reject jihad, and do not reject violent jihad.

Ismailis* do not reject the Quran or Muhammad.

Ismailis* do not reject sharia.

(BTW, another famous minority Muslim group, the Ahmadis, also does not reject sharia, the Quran, or Muhammad, and the Ahmadis are at best equivocal on the question of violent jihad).

*In general. There may of course be some individual Ismailis who reject sharia and violent jihad.

That the Ismailis have adopted some additional mystical ideas, and that they may at present be more moderate than mainstream Sunnis or Shias, does not really help us much as non-Muslims. As has been pointed out here many times before, one of the negative effects of allegedly "moderate" groups is that they fool non-Muslim westerners into thinking that Islam is more moderate, more "diverse", etc., than it really is. In terms of propaganda, they defend Islam and attack Islam critics, just like regular Muslims do. Thus, the Ismailis in general (and for that matter the Ahmadis) are, at best, running interference, causing confusion, and disrupting our all-important attempts to educate the non-Muslim masses about the problems with Islam, Islamization, sharia, and jihad.

Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi also claims that

"[...] the Ismailis, at the zenith of their influence, also gave rise to the Fatimid ruling dynasty in Egypt (969-1171 CE) that was notorious among orthodox clerics for flouting the discriminatory restrictions for dhimmis."

Yet the only evidence he provides for this, in a linked article, is his own (hearsay) account, based second-hand on the opinion of apologist-for-Islam Mark Cohen:

"Meanwhile, as evidence from the Cairo Geniza makes clear, during the Fatimid dynasty's rule in Egypt (969-1171 CE), Jews were frequently able to get involved professionally in the Fatimid government. For a good overview of the treatment of Jews in practice under Islamic rulers during the High Middle Ages, see Mark Cohen's work "Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages.""

Even if we assume that Cohen is reporting accurately that some Jews were allowed to attain government positions, so what? Does this mean sharia was suspended? No. Does this mean the rest of the dhimmi restrictions were suspended? No. It does not even indicate that Jews were normally allowed into government positions.

Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi is welcome to come here and try to defend himself on his claims which I have cited here.

You ought to look closely at his earmarks especially beyond each on which contains "For Free Trade" in its title. They are actually of direct benefit to the "corporatists" he flogs.

His rhetoric does not match his actions, in fiscal matters.

It is the only way he could retain his seat in one of the highest concentrations of AFL-CIO employees in TX.

"Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi is welcome to come here and try to defend himself on his claims which I have cited here."

Don't hold your breath.

Citizen K wrote:

I want to ask if Spencer and Geller supported the anti-sharia law in Oklahoma which only served to invite sharia into the courtroom?

It was a poorly written law. On the side of good, other states have passed laws similar but they do not invite sharia into the courtroom.
................................

This issue has been dealt with extensively at Jihad Watch. The general consensus is that the Oklahoma bill was well-intentioned but poorly written. Proposed state Shari'ah bans following in the wake of the attempted Oklahoma ban have generally been well-written, and avoided the unintentional consitutional pitfalls of Oklahoma.

This is just one article of many:

"Over a dozen states now moving to ban Islamic Sharia law"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/03/over-a-dozen-states-now-moving-to-ban-islamic-sharia-law.html

Check back through the archives.

Dear Robert, My take on all of this is that there is an inherent long buried desire for another Ronald Reagan, a spiritual resurrection of sorts, to arrive on the political scene. Its deja vu all over again. Its Carter and Reagan. Its the Goober and the Gipper. This, I believe is the desire of most older gen Americans. Our current economic peril mirrors the Carter years as does our current war and Jihadis holding hostages in Iran up until Reagans Inauguration day. We want the Gipper back in the White House. Prosperity and power and respect instead of what we have now. I believe the electorate can see glimmers of that in Gov. Perry and behind that ah shucks demeanor is a man intelligent enough to see that electorate desire and has begun to emulate the best President of my lifetime. As the vetting begins we will see how this all shakes out. Expect the MSM to "Bush" Perry. These musings are not an endorsement of Gov. Perry as such.We can pray that whoever is the candidate will have the Lords Wisdom in regards to Islam.

Interesting thread. Very. I would opine here that such a thread would not exist in the first place if Islam were not the burden to the world which it is. But then, of course, if that were the case Jihad Watch would have never been started up by Robert Spencer. There would have been no need. After all, there's no need for Methodist Watch or Orthodox Jewish Watch or Catholic Watch or Buddhist Watch or...

Islam is like the crazy aunt or looney grandfather or some other relative that is a pain in the ass for most everyone in the extended family but no one knows for certain what to do with this relative, though most every family member has suggestions, some better than others. But the bottom line is that it would be better for all if the "problem relative" had never existed in the first place or had died an early death. But no such luxury has been forthcoming respecting this relative, continuing the metaphor here, i.e., Islam.

Sorry for this expository comment which decidedly offers no solution, not just about Perry but far more than merely him (though he does seem to be one of the less helpful relatives about the "problem relative"). It's "only" an assessment of the situation. I would close here by simply saying that if there has ever been a bigger pain in the ass for mankind over so many centuries as Islam has been, I can't at the moment think what that bigger pain might be.

Sorry for no solution here. Thanks to all, e.g., wildjew and Eastview, who offered cogent analyses. Much appreciated. That is all. Good night. See you tomorrow.

I've been doing a bit of reading on the Ismailis, and in particular on the Naziri Ismailis, led by the Aga Khan. I was wondering if the Aga Khan and his Naziri sect of Ismaili Shia Islam were really as modern and moderate as he and they seemed, judging from the kinds of positive statements made by various pro-Islam secondary sources. From what I've read thus far from his Constitution of the Shi'a Imami Ismaili Muslims, which is binding on all followers regardless of geographic location, he is certainly not modern or moderate, from my perspective.

Here is a link to the Constitution:
http://ismaili.net/Source/extra1.html
Here's another copy:
http://www.ismailiuniverse.com/pdf/constitution.pdf

Here are some examples from the Constitution (my emphasis):

QUOTE:

"Article Fourteen DISCIPLINARY ACTION
14.1 Any Ismaili shall be liable to disciplinary action who:
(a) subjects to contempt or ridicule the Holy Quran, the Holy Prophet, the Ahl-al-Bayt, Mawlana Hazar Imam, this Constitution, any Rules and Regulations, any Farman, or any Ismaili religious literature or any rite or practice;

[...]

(d) conducts himself in a manner likely to offend the religious sentiments of the jamat, or to cause disaffection in the jamat, or to create disturbance or nuisance in any jamatkhana or any assembly of the jamat, or acts in any other manner prejudicial to the dignity or prestige of the jamat;

[...]

14.2 Proceedings for disciplinary action against any Ismaili shall be commenced upon a complaint lodged by:

(a) any member of a Council authorised in that behalf by the Council; or

(b) any Ismaili.

A complaint shall be lodged with such Regional Conciliation and Arbitration Board or, if none, then such National Conciliation and Arbitration Board within whose jurisdiction the respondent is resident at the time of the alleged contravention.

14.3 If the matters alleged in the complaint are established, the Regional Conciliation and Arbitration Board or the National Conciliation and Arbitration Board may make one or more of the following orders:

(a) order the offender to be conditionally or absolutely discharged;

(b) order the offender to observe or perform any religious rites;

(c) order the offender to pay compensation to any aggrieved party;

[...etc.]"

Thus, at a minimum, the Aga Khan, whose authority cannot be questioned (see below), legislates real punishments for Ismailis who express "contempt or ridicule" for the Quran, Muhammad, Muhammad's family, etc., and the Aga Khan himself; or for those who "offend the religious sentiments" of the "jamat" ["Ismailis residing in any particular area"].

END QUOTE


Another cause for concern (my [brackets] and my emphasis):

QUOTE:

"Article Fifteen PERSONAL LAW

15.1 In this Article the term "Personal law" shall mean the rules governing the personal relationship of an individual to others in the society in which he lives, and shall include, but without limitation, rules in relation to birth, infancy, marriage (including prohibited degrees of consanguinity, affinity or fosterage, and marriage with non-Ismailis), mehr, nullity, restitution of conjugal rights, divorce (including iddat and maintenance), care and guardianship, legitimacy, succession and apostasy.

15.2 Subject as provided in Article 15.4, the personal law applicable to Ismailis shall be such personal law as has evolved within the Shia Imami Ismaili School of Thought of Islam.

15.3 Mawlana Hazar Imam [Aga Khan] has the sole right to interpret the personal law evolved within the Shia Imami Ismaili School of Thought of Islam.

15.4 To the extent that the territory of domicile or residence of any Ismaili does not recognize and apply or allow the application of the personal law of Ismailis, he shall be governed in that territory by such personal law as is applicable to him under the law of that territory."

END QUOTE
------------------------

In light of Article 14 concerning blasphemy (contempt, ridicule, offense to religious sentiment, etc.), it is hardly reassuring to find that the Aga Khan, in the classical sharia tradition, is specifying that apostasy be subject to legislation, and possibly penalty and or prejudice, as well. This is perhaps unavoidable, because an Ismaili follower who engages in significant blasphemy may be deemed an apostate by the Ismaili authorities or by the Aga Khan himself.

Also of concern are the rules of marriage and divorce. Although this document doesn't get into specifics, I have read elsewhere that Ismailis do not permit marriage to polytheists. In addition, the rules of iddat (the waiting period between divorce and marriage to the next spouse) as traditionally understood include an interpretation of Quran 65:4 which assumes the permissibility of marriage to prepubesecent girls.

In this document, in regards to personal law or the law in general, the Aga Khan frequently states that Ismailis worldwide must follow the legal system of their land of residence. This may seem reassuring to Ismailis and non-Muslims living in free non-Muslim lands. However, this is a concern because (a) some Islamic countries implement harsh elements of sharia, such as blasphemy and apostasy laws, which the Aga Khan does not dispute; (b) some non-Muslim jurisdictions are currently implementing elements of sharia (e.g., the U.K.); and (c) it is clearly part of this Aga Khan's project and instructions to followers to set up at least Islamic Ismaili personal law in non-Muslim jurisdictions. Moreover, it is clear from his constitution that if he had his way, there would be real legal punishments for blasphemy against Islam. I wonder how many times the Aga Khan has actually approved of punishments of Ismailis deemed to have blasphemed in their countries of residence?

A major concern in the document is that the Aga Khan has assigned to himself absolute powers [my brackets]:

QUOTE:

"Article One POWER AND AUTHORITY OF MAWLANA HAZAR IMAM

1.1 Mawlana Hazar Imam [Aga Khan] has inherent right and absolute and unfettered power and authority over and in respect of all religious and Jamati matters of the Ismailis.

1.2 Mawlana Hazar Imam has the sole authority to:

(a) determine all questions that may arise as regards the meaning and interpretation of any religious or jamati tradition or custom of the Ismailis and amend or discontinue it at any time;

(b) confer a constitution on the Jamat and amend or discontinue any such constitution or any provision thereof;

(c) determine all questions that may arise as regards the meaning and interpretation of any such constitution and grant dispensation therefrom;

(d) constitute or discontinue any body or Organization under any such constitution and define or change its composition, functions, jurisdiction or powers;

(e) constitute or discontinue offices under any such constitution, make appointments to any such office and terminate such appointments which shall all be held at Mawlana Hazar Imam's pleasure; and

(f) prescribe the Rules and Regulations to be made under this Constitution."

END QUOTE

In other words, he's like Muhammad: He can make up whatever he wants to suit is desires and circumstances, and explicitly order heavier-duty sharia when he (or his successor) has the power and opportunity to implement it directly.

typo: "to suit is desires and circumstances"
-is should read his

Another typo. I wrote:

"Thus, at a minimum, the Aga Khan, whose authority cannot be questioned (see below), legislates real punishments for Ismailis who express "contempt or ridicule" for the Quran, Muhammad, Muhammad's family, etc., and the Aga Khan himself; or for those who "offend the religious sentiments" of the "jamat" ["Ismailis residing in any particular area"].

END QUOTE"

The END QUOTE of course should have appeared before my comment.

Guide Inside,
Yes, the rush has a lot to do with yearning for another Reagan.

There is also a desperation to find a candidate who can defeat Obama.

In my view, the GOP does not have any ELECTABLE candidate who recognizes the Islamic threat and who is running for 2012.

We are in a sorry state as a nation as neither of our political parties will satisfy the voter on several major issues.

I agree! Perry and all Presidential candidates must be thoroughly vetted. Right now I like Governor Perry a lot but there are many unanswered questions still...like immigration for instance...

I noticed this yesterday. Access to the Aga Kahn curriculum can no longer be accessed:

"Up until a few days ago, the Texas school curriculum could be viewed on the SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT's own website:

www.saisd.net/admin/curric/sstudies/mhcp/mhcproject.html

This link has now mysteriously disappeared. I wonder if that has anything to do with the following posting on Pam Gellar's Blog, which exposes the entire enterprise, and which thankfully saved the curriculum abstracts:

LINK

Before the link to the San Antonio Independent School District Website was disabled and the website scrubbed, Gellar and company had lifted the curriculum abstracts from it, which show...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2766609/posts

People: I expected this smearing of Geller to happen, one way or another. Call it the ongoing “Breivik Syndrome.” And there will be more smearing of Geller, Spencer, and others “counter-jihadist” writers. But, does it really matter if the Ismailis are “peaceful” and have an “interpretation” of the Koran that eschews violence? No. Why not?

As Ayn Rand pointed out decades before Islam raised its Medusa’s head in the headlines and began its campaign to subjugate the West, there are two kinds of mystics: mystics of the mind and the mystics of muscle. The Koran is a guide for the mystics of muscle. There is no benign “interpretation” of it possible. If so many verses in it command killing, enslavement, rape, subjugation and the acquisition of power over others – specifically the ones that abrogate the “peaceful” ones, there is no rational interpretation of it that could be acceptable to a man of reason. Fundamentally, there is no such thing as a “peaceful” Muslim, whether he’s a Sunni, a Shiite, or any other sub-sect of Islam. They all base their mysticism on the same texts, the Koran and the Hadith. One can't “interpret” “slay the Jews” and make it sound like a Sesame Street jingle. It means what it says.

This is a war of ideas, people, not a squabble over a bylaw of freedom of speech. Geller’s and Spencer’s revelations about the Aga Khan, the head of the Islmaili sect are important – like Imam Rauf of the GZ Mosque – a master of taqiyya. And Rick Perry is another of those evangelist “outreachers” who parley with Islamic supremacists for political gain.

If Perry deserves vetting, here are some questions to put to him, and his answers should be reveal his true colors: As president, would you continue the tradition, started by Bill Clinton and continued by George W. Bush and Barack Obama, of holding Ramadan dinners in the White House? And if so, do you think it’s fair for American taxpayers to pay for these dinners? We, Americans who endorse the separation of religion and the state, interpret these dinners as a form of jizya, or an Islamic tax on non-believers. Do you know what jizya is? Mr. Perry, which Koranic verses to you consider benign, and which homicidal, or at least felonious?

More on the Aga Khan, re freedom of expression and blasphemy. Note that in his Constitution, his actual policy that those who are deemed to have committed blasphemy or offense against Islam are to be punished. Compare this to his da'wa speech at Evora University in Portugal in 2006, in the wake of the 2006 Danish Muhammad cartoon "crisis" [my bolding]:

http://www.iis.ac.uk/view_article.asp?ContentID=106291
Remarks by His Highness the Aga Khan at Evora University Symposium: “Cosmopolitan Society, Human Safety and Rights in Plural and Peaceful Societies”
His Highness the Aga Khan
Évora, Portugal
February 12, 2006


Excerpt:

"This brings me back to the current headlines. For I must believe that it is ignorance which explains the publishing of those caricatures which have brought such pain to Islamic peoples. I note that the Danish journal where the controversy originated acknowledged, in a recent letter of apology, that it had never realized the sensitivities involved.
In this light, perhaps, the controversy can be described less as a clash of civilizations and more as a clash of ignorance. The alternative explanation would be that the offense was intended—in which case we would be confronted with evil of a different sort. But even to attribute the problem to ignorance is in no way to minimize its importance. In a pluralistic world, the consequences of ignorance can be profoundly damaging.
Perhaps, too, it is ignorance which has allowed so many participants in this discussion to confuse liberty with license –implying that the sheer absence of restraint on human impulse can constitute a sufficient moral framework. This is not to say that governments should censor offensive speech. Nor does the answer lie in violent words or violent actions. But I am suggesting that freedom of expression is an incomplete value unless it is used honorably, and that the obligations of citizenship in any society should include a commitment to informed and responsible expression.
If we can commit ourselves, on all sides, to that objective, then the current crisis could become an educational opportunity—an occasion for enhanced awareness and broadened perspectives.
Ignorance, arrogance, insensitivity—these attitudes rank high among the great public enemies of our time. And the educational enterprise, at its best, can be an effective antidote to all of them."

End of excerpt.

Note the careful choice of words here, and compare those with his real policy in his constitution which I quoted earlier. From his constitution, it is clear that he not only believes that those who engage in expressions deemed offensive to Islam should be criminally prosecuted and punished, he is ordering that this be done.

What could it possibly mean, then, for Aga Khan to say, in this speech to a western audience that he's "not saying" that "governments should censor offensive speech"? Clearly, if he had his way, he'd be punishing those who engaged in offensive expressions against Islam. Taken at face value, it would seem that

1) Aga Khan is lying or misleading in the speech to westerners but not in the Constitution, or
2) Aga Khan is lying or misleading in the Constitution but not in the speech to westerners, or
3) Aga Khan genuinely changed his mind some time after writing the Constitution (1986) and before delivering the speech (2006) and hasn't gotten around to updating the former as of yet (2011),
4) Aga Khan may in the speech be implying or indirectly acknowledging that there is one law for his Ismaili followers (punishment for blasphemy) but another for non-Muslims (no punishment for, or at least no "censorship" of, blasphemy).

I consider 3) to be unlikely enough to dismiss outright. None of the other options look good for the Aga Khan; in the first two he's a liar, and in the last one he has egregious double standards. I think it is most likely that his Constitution more closely represents his real views, whereas the speech is less clear and does not actually rule out that he wants blasphemy penalties imposed. Note again the phrasing: He's "not saying" that "governments should censor offensive speech". But note what he's also not saying: "People should have the right to criticize or lampoon Islam, even if it offends some Muslims." That's the key proposition, and he never says it.

And when he says "violence" is not the answer, that hardly rules out legal prosecution and punishment (i.e., of the sort he recommends in his Constitution).

With slick influential public-relations/da'wa experts like Aga Khan, Tariq Ramadan, etc., you can read/listen to hours and hours of endless opaque and ambiguous writing/speech and never get a clear explicit handle on what their views are on any number of contentious elements of sharia. Only in rare instances do they slip up and reveal their real intentions, like when Ramadan said Muslims should "colonize" the west and not be colonized, or when the "tolerant" "pluralistic" Aga Khan ordered that those who offend Islam should be punished.

"Note the careful choice of words here, and compare those with his real policy in his constitution which I quoted earlier. From his constitution, it is clear that he not only believes that those who engage in expressions deemed offensive to Islam should be criminally prosecuted and punished, he is ordering that this be done."

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

Can you please reproduce the operative words from his constitution? You've posted much, it is hard to find. Did the punishment apply to Muslims (Ismailis) and non-Muslims or only to Muslims?

Welliington,
A bigger PITA (pain in the ass) than Islam would be malaria. Perhaps in the past the Black Death and smallpox but they have been marginalized if not defeated.

I can't help but recall a statement made by a great conservative in the congressional record!
There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me ... that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do they think they are?”
— Senator Barry Goldwater, R-Arizona, Congressional Record, September 16, 1981. Born Jan. 1, 1909. D. 1998.
Perry and Bachman have no business being nominated. If you don't like Obama at least get someone real to run on the republican side

Clearly no legislator in Washington D.C., has a clue about Islam, Muhammad, the Koran, the Hadith, Jihad, or its history over the last 1400 years.

I don't expect that will change soon. Yes I include Perry in that logic. But Americans want a good President so badly they stop using their commen sense. Its happened every four years since I can remember (I'm 67).

Fact is logic and commen sense gets put on the back shelf around election time. Some how lies and mud slinging distorts facts. Both political parties are guilty of doing it. I'd imagine the Tea Party will be no different.

Its easier to slam someone else than it is to have a workable platform of your own. And its that time again. So let the mud slinging began..... The Americans are going to have another election.

Sadly, Barry Goldwater became a radical, immoral (anything goes) libertarian in his old age. I don't mind a candidate or a politician with strong religious beliefs, so long as they are a "thinking" politician with religious beliefs. We don't need immoral, unethical politicians like Barry Goldwater dictating morals and ethics to the nation. Neither do we need kooks who cannot see when some of their bizzare religious fantasies are harming themselves and others.

Quoted from and linked to at my place in a new post about the need to hold No Quarter for those who either through ignorance or malfeasance will further enable the islamic supremacist conquest of America through jihad and sharia.
http://zillablog.marezilla.com/2011/08/no-quarter.html

If ANYONE really gives a darn about this nation, then they really need to look at Perry's voting record very closely. There are several polls on the internet regarding the responses of the various presidential hopefuls concerning a good number of items. Perry ranks right in among all the rest with bad grades. Personally, I would prefer "Joe the Plumber" to any of them who are running for the office of president. But who knows, Obama just may solve the problem of an election by creating a national emergency, thereby declaring martial law, and making himself into another Mussolini/Hitler dictator!

Thank you for this, Kinana of Khaybar. So, the Aga Khan turns out to have essentially the same mindset as the Ayatollah Khomeini and similar would-be interpreters and enforcers of Islamic rules, including proscriptions against apostasy and insulting the prophet. The penalties seem to be less severe than in, say, Saudi Arabia, but penalties there are.

It seems that throughout Islam there is this preoccupation with perceived insults and shame. The reaction appears to vary with sect, but a reaction there is in all of them, and it can, and often does, involve violence. Have these people no shame in behaving so childishly?

I take your point, glenkille, and it's a good one considering the way I worded things. I should have been clearer in the first place. I meant (but did not explicitly say) a PITA of man's creation.

You go, Girl--we need more citizen-patriots, like you!

Ayn Rand's distinction, Skeen66, between mystics of the mind and mystics of muscle is reminiscent of how Bertrand Russell put things. He observed that Christianity and Buddhism are contemplative religions while Islam is the only major faith which is totalitarian in structure and ideology. With either assessment, the message is clear: Islam is extra bad news.

This man is backed by the same elitists bankers who gave us Clinton, Bush, and Obama, three of the worst presidents in history.

This is why when two others tied for first in Iowa, the second one was not mentioned but suddenly Perry was pushed as the 'frontrunner' even though he'd been declared for 24 hours and only got 4%.

Fox News continued to push him down their viewers throats.. this is the corporate elite's ace in the hole because of Obama's sinking popularity.

Perry is a FAKE and not endorsed by any tea party despite his attempt to pander to them and the religious right. He could be their undoing however.

His abysmal record does not match his rhetoric.

http://www.nhteapartycoalition.org/tea/2011/06/23/rick-perry/

At the risk of being deemed a nut job, I posted that same thought low these many weeks ago. Conspiracy theories aside, I think you could imagine a scenario like that possibily happening. God help us all!

ronmorgan, Re: Sarah Palin.
You know nothing about Sarah Palin other than rhetoric. She is a RINO and someone who went back on her campaign promises as governor. She accomplished nothing. Her oil taxation program, ACES, is about to be changed, her AGIA pipeline plan is an abject failure, she grew our State gov't by 800 employees, she had the largest budget in the State's history to that time, she appointed an abortionist judge, the executive director for her Climate Change Sub-Cabinet--yeah, she believes global warming is man-made--was a federal EPA employee, and she disarmed the 32 USC Sec. 109(c) Alaska State Defense Force--which brings into question her support for the 2d Amendment.
I worked for her campaign, I wrote for her campaign, I have had to apologize to many of my friends for what she did not do.
I would not doubt that Palin would appoint a Muslim in her cabinet. She appointed Dems, she appointed practically her predecessor's entire cabinet after demonizing them on the campaign trail.
Sarah is a RINO.
Pam Geller's concerns about Perry are legit. She is taking him not at face value, but by his associations and record. You need to do the same with Palin.
Her record as gov sucks. And, she quit after just two years, because she could not stand the criticism. She made the governor's office a soap opera to the embarassment of Alaskans.
Beware of the rhetoric. Politicians.
We are too early into this race to be betting the house on anyone.

i couldn't tell you what month Elvis was born or died if my life depended on it, but when i hear it reported in the media or on a discussion forum that Bachman sang happy birthday to Elvis (or anyone else) on the day he died, i think "What a phony." If she doesn't care when Elvis was born, then don't pretend she does. that's what her 'gaffe' means to me, part of the mounting evidence of her fake politician image, untrustworthiness, someone who puts on a phony act to attract support instead of being herself.

Having said that, i think blaming US candidates for this kind of thing is blaming the victim. They are just doing what the system requires. The system demands mendacity, it's a rotten political system, corporate media based two party winner take all, extremely disenfranchising, and it encourages, even demands, substituting inane shallow sound bytes and mudslinging for serious debate and discussion.

Candidates don't have to be informed and aware of the complexity of the world in order to win office and then create policy that profoundly affects the world. The US system has brought one ignorant simple minded politician after another to leadership and power (and this poor quality does not have a lot to do with intelligence or education; the educated and intelligent can be as ignorant as anyone else, history proves).

Candidates who do communicate more intelligently and honestly are punished by the system and are marginalized out of the race (i would enclude Alan West and Ron Paul here). The US might as well elect Elvis, they wouldn't be any worse off.

i couldn't tell you what month Elvis was born or died if my life depended on it, but when i hear it reported in the media or on a discussion forum that Bachman sang happy birthday to Elvis (or anyone else) on the day he died, i think "What a phony." If she doesn't care when Elvis was born, then don't pretend she does. that's what her 'gaffe' means to me, part of the mounting evidence of her fake politician image, untrustworthiness, someone who puts on a phony act to attract support instead of being herself.

Having said that, i think blaming US candidates for this kind of thing is blaming the victim. They are just doing what the system requires. The system demands mendacity, it's a rotten political system, corporate media based two party winner take all, extremely disenfranchising, and it encourages, even demands, substituting inane shallow sound bytes and mudslinging for serious debate and discussion.

Candidates don't have to be informed and aware of the complexity of the world in order to win office and then create policy that profoundly affects the world. The US system has brought one ignorant simple minded politician after another to leadership and power (and this poor quality does not have a lot to do with intelligence or education; the educated and intelligent can be as ignorant as anyone else, history proves).

Candidates who do communicate more intelligently and honestly are punished by the system and are marginalized out of the race (i would enclude Alan West and Ron Paul here). The US might as well elect Elvis, they wouldn't be any worse off.

Very interesting (and unusal) perspective on Palin and I thank you for it. Well, if Palin's a RINO, it could be asked what Republican isn't who can also get elected President? Personally, I see no Ronald Reagan out there and even Reagan, as conservative and politically skillful (a political chess master in my opinion) as he was, still wasn't able to get rid of a single government program. As Reagan observed, the closest thing to eternal life on this earth is a government program. I fear that the Republic the Founding Fathers established may never be able to be retrieved from all the damage done to it by a century of TMG---Too Much Government (and Warren Buffett actually thinks that not enough taxes is the problem---would be hard to be more clueless than Buffett). Thanks again for your comment.

"i think blaming US candidates for this kind of thing is blaming the victim. They are just doing what the system requires. The system demands mendacity, it's a rotten political system, corporate media based two party winner take all, extremely disenfranchising, and it encourages, even demands, substituting inane shallow sound bytes and mudslinging for serious debate and discussion...."

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

What do you mean by the "system?" The system demands mendacity. The system would rather hear falsehoods -- like, the Islamic faith preaches peace, love and tolerance --- rather than hear the truth.

A few days after the 9/11 attacks, Governor Rick Perry wrote his fellow citizens (the Texas "system"): "I ask that all Texans be mindful that the attacks on New York City and Washington are not the work of the Islamic faithful, but the work of terrorists – of fanatics – who have hijacked the name of religion for their campaign of hatred.....Like most of the world’s major religions, the Islamic faith preaches peace, love and tolerance. Indeed, terrorism is the antithesis of the basic tenet to which the one billion Islamic followers all over the world adhere."

Isn't your word for the system really another word for "the people?" The American people demand mendacity, falsehoods, deceptions, otherwise why would the candidates and our leaders pander to the wishes of the people, which you call the system? What you are essentially saying is, the people get the government we deserve because we demand mendacity rather than truth-telling from our leaders. That is why Perry is popular in Texas. He tells the Texans sweet nothings about Islam. Isn't that what you are really saying?

Candidates who do communicate more intelligently and honestly are punished by the system and are marginalized out of the race (i would enclude Alan West and Ron Paul here).

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

Ron Paul and Allen West have different message on Islam and the global jihad, don't you think?

"And, she quit after just two years, because she could not stand the criticism. She made the governor's office a soap opera to the embarrassment of Alaskans."

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

For those of us who do not know Palin like the people of Alaska do, this sticks out as one of biggest drawbacks; she did not complete her term of office.

I came across this video over the weekend from pro-abortion, far-leftist feminist, Rachel Madow. I do not agree with her conclusion that every Republican is in the presidential race for the money - the Clintons are rolling in dough; are they in it for the money? - I thought this exchange between Tod Palin and an Alaskan voter was interesting in light of what you've written.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#44210468

"Raising questions" versus labeling someone a "fifth column candidate," as Pamela Geller did, are two VERY different things. Tone matters. Therein lies the problem here, I suggest.

"I worked for her campaign, I wrote for her campaign..."

It would appear that you are the Lawrence Wood of Palmer who took some excerpts from a longer post you published here http://www.examiner.com/alaska-gubernatorial-in-anchorage/sarah-palin-as-president-you-have-to-be-kidding . With respect, you sound a bit like someone who spent too much time on the floor of the sausage factory and is now warning everyone never to each sausage.

I live in Fairbanks and so am also somewhat familiar with the rise and fall of Sarah Palin. Concerning her resignation from the governorship, since you were close to the center you are likely very aware that she was in danger of being pecked to death by the ducks of her political opponents. They were swamping her with bogus ethics complaints (remember, the FBI essentially said there was no substance to these ethics complaints http://www.examiner.com/alaska-gubernatorial-in-anchorage/breaking-sarah-palin-fbi-says-no-investigation-for-any-reason [link to one of your stories], but that didn't stop them from coming, and Palin had to spend time, and money, dealing with them). So, she had a choice, waste her time on them and risk financial ruin, or get out of Dodge City. She chose the latter, thereby leaving somewhat of a mess behind that Parnell had to clean up.

I don't think you have to worry about Palin becoming president. The graybeards of the GOP will make sure she doesn't get the nomination.

But Sarah Palin still has a valuable role to play in the upcoming election, should she choose to exercise it, and that would be as a campaigner with a conservative message that resonates with a large segment of the electorate. Sarah was one of the first to come right out and say what she thought about liberal policies, and immediately struck a chord that resonated with large numbers of voters who felt that no one cared about what they thought. She is seen by conservatives as a refreshing antidote to the Slick Willies and over-credentialed but underperforming political and social elites who presume to lead the rest of us. She deserves more than a little credit for taking criticism of Leftism out of the hands of policy wonks and eggheads, to whom no one was listening, injecting some spice into it via her somewhat unique persona, and going directly to the people to speak in a language they understood (even if the MSM or Liberal commentariate did not - they never had a clue about why her popularity notched up a few points every time they slammed her, and still don't from what I can tell). Besides, some of her zingers against Obama are right on target ("How's that hopey-changey-thing working out for ya?" Her trenchant observation that the abbreviation of Obama's "Winning The Future" (WTF) was spot on, some others...). Not reflective of deep thinking, perhaps, but the do demonstrate a great ear for creating campaign bites.

FWIW, I enjoyed reading the many articles on your web site, despite being somewhat disappointed by your not acknowledging the positive role Sarah Palin is playing on the national stage. But I am glad to know that you have reached the same conclusion regarding Obama's incompetence as virtually everyone else here.

So, given the offerings, who would you like to see as the GOP presidential nominee?

@wildjew
By 'the system'. i mean generally the two party winner take all electoral system and the dominant role of the corporate media in shaping opinion and determining the range of legitimate debate. I would want to say that blaming 'the people' is also blaming the victim. People don't have a choice about this system. Either they participate by voting or they don't, that is their choice, not much of a choice by my standards. A two party system is not a whole lot more than a one party system, as far as choice goes. Voters basically rubber stamp and legitimize the system by voting. Non-voters are blamed for the outcomes, "If you don't like it, you should vote," but doesn't that presuppose that there were meaningful choices in the first place? To vote for a lesser of evils, choosing between which one violates my values less, is not what i call freedom of choice.

I'm one of the many people who don't see all that much dfference between Republican and Democrat leaders about many important issues . i don't see a lot of choice there. And to make it even less representative of the large heterogeneous society that we are, it's a winner take all system, so that even though almost as many people vote for the losing candidate as the winning one, their interests unrepresented, they have no representative.

A proportional representation system, like Israel, is much more representative, more inclusive of the diversity of any complex modern society, more fair, more freedom of choice. The US system excludes a lot of people. When Gore got a majority of the popular vote, all the people who voted for him lost, and the people who chose Bush were represented. Not enough compromise there for my tastes and by my values.

About the mendacity, the electoral system depends on the corporate mass media for candidates to reach the public. Since Nixon in 1968, politicians have used a mass marketing approach to selling themselves to voters. They don't try to debate issues and inform; they try to hide and obscure their positions behind smoke screens of platitudinous talking points repeated ad nauseum, and to make their product seem all things to all people, or they tailor their presentation to particular demographics based on focus group research. It's all very expensive, along with the exorbitantly priced air time on the so-called public air waves.

if it wasn't winner take all, if there were diverse multiple parties, candidates could present their true positions, trying to attract voters that they actually represent, like minded people. In such systems, voter turnout is far higher than the US, political morale is high. The vote matters much more. The US has very low voter turnout, very low civic participation, and imo, for good reason. Again, if there aren't meaningful choices among the candidates, nonvoting seems like a more rational choice than voting. In the market, when consumers don't buy, this is supposed to regulate the market to offer more desirable choices, but in the political market, the two parties benefit from citizen alienation and nonparticipation, it means they are that much less accountable. If voters don't buy what either party is selling, it doesn't result in the entering into the marketplace of new parties and healthy competition. It's designed not to work that way and it doesn't, it can't, the two parties have created legal roadblocks. I don't see how that is the people's fault.

The system is designed so that the choice of candidates is controlled by the parties, and by large contributors and personal candidate wealth, and by the decisions of the media about what to present and how to present it. The media can make or break candidates. The two parties, pass bipartisan legislation setting the bar unrealistically high to prevent other parties from qualifying for the ballot. The system is locked up by these two parties.

That's what i mean by 'the system,' in part. I'm not seeing the logic of how you're equating 'the system' and ' the people.' (if that's what you're saying, i'm not sure i understood you). If Perry makes that speech after 911, personally, i don't think it's because 'the people' (of Texas) were demanding it of him. I think that was/is the dominant narrative of the US leaders and policy makers, a common talking point that i see as related to business and political relations with the Saudis and other Gulf state pro-US autocrats (and other factions throughout Islamic societies), i think oil politics and US geo-strategic positioning demanded that speech; there are quite a lot of US military bases and soldiers in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and all around that area, which the US leaders desire to have. I think that's why Perry made that speech, not because the people want to hear it (though some of them may like to hear it) but because the Saudi leaders and their US military and business partners want to hear it. It's best for business and political alliances.

Yes, Ron Paul and Alan West are extremely different and i would like to see both voices represented in the political system because they each speak for a lot of people, not just their local districts but nationally, and if they could represent those people in the political system, i think it would be a better system. Without their input, and that of various others, i think the representation of interests within the system is too narrow and leaves most people out. I think if those and other leaders were part of the national debate, that debate would be more informative and complex, people would feel more a real part of the political system and voter turn out would rise. I keep seeing the same pundits in the media over and over, there is plenty of air time to give a voice to others, but it's not happening. that's what i mean by the system.

"Tone matters."

Sure it does, but it's a secondary issue trumped by substance. To assert otherwise is to play the same game as Muslims who would ignore the substance of criticism of Islam and divert the discussion to the style in which the criticism is delivered. Or the Islamic police who forced girls who weren't wearing headscarves back into a burning building, where some of them died, because they weren't wearing correct female dress.

I would suggest that Pamela's "tone" is only an issue for new readers unfamiliar with her style of expression (strongly New York Jewish), or for those who disagree with her. Most people here not only emphatically agree with the substance of her remarks on Atlas Shrugs, but enjoy the style of her acerbic wit, as well.

I submit that there are huge differences between the Republican and Democratic parties, whether on abortion, taxation, defense spending, school vouchers, drilling for oil, federal regulations of all sorts, the kind of judges who should be appointed to the federal courts and much more. The idea that the two parties aren't that different is simply false.

Also, the two party-system allows for great stability. Multiparty systems create havoc on many occasions and shifting coalitions. As for the electoral college, it shows the wisdom of the Founding Fathers yet again. It insures that the entire nation counts, that fraud is reduced and it serves as a last barrier to a demagogue being elected.

@Wellington, different or not different partly depends on what you are measuring by. Yes, in all the ways you listed, there are differences that are meaningful to a lot of Americans, though i don't think it's clear that they are most salient to most American people who are potentially eligible to vote, most of who don't vote. If you are a person who feels represented adequately by one of these two parties on issues or a particular key issue, then voting and outcomes of elections will be meaningful to you.

There are many Americans who don't feel adequately represented on issues important to them by either party, including health care, foreign policy, finance/fiscal policy, regulation, taxation, and others. A multiparty system can include those people too. I think that is healthier. Obviously this is controversial, going back to the advocacy for the US constitution over the Articles of Confederation.

Yes, the system was designed for stabiity, and has been generally successful with some notable exceptions. The purpose of establishing stability was to create an environment that was optimum for wealth creation and expansion. The government has successfully done that in various ways, including the design of federalism, separation of powers, placing most power in organs of government most distanced from popular influences, fragmentation of popular influences through federalism, as well as evolving interventionist foreign policy for economic benefit, not originally intended but not inconsistent with what was designed. Having two parties and a presidential system rather than parliamentary also was designed for this purpose.

Under prosperous economic conditions, a system resistant to change like the American one, and discouraging of popular participation and limiting of popular influence, works well, whether it's a presidential two party republic or an autocratic monarchy or a one party secularist state--if the society is prosperous, the government is credited with creating and insuring stabiity. If economic and other conditions become negative, if the society is not satisfied with the performance of the economy, if the economy isn't growing, if opportunity is contracting, the gap between haves and have nots is growing, if there is a perception of corruption, stability deteriorates, regardless of the form of government; instead of stability, terms like stagnation, inflexibility, gridlock, paralysis etc are used to characterize a government that is not able to adapt its design to meeting challenges of economic decline and loss of confidence of the population.

Whether multiparty systems are less stable than those with more restricted participation and representation is not that clear. One and two party systems are as capable as any other of becoming unstable if they lose the faith and legitimacy of substantial numbers of the governed. Stability is a condition that can be optimum for prosperity, it generally is a necessary condition, but not sufficient one by itself. Policy makers must be able to adapt policy to meet changing needs and must address concerns of significant population factions, partiularly where dissatisfaction becomes a growing factor.

All things equal, in prosperous conditions, personally i share the view of many in the world that a multiparty system is politically more healthy than a one or two party system, or any system that discourages popular participation and encourages political apathy. The current US political situation doesn't speak well for the case that the US two party system is any more capable of meeting eoncomic challenges than any other system, and under circumstances where a society questions political legitimacy because of declining quality of life and growing insecurity, a system that excludes subtantial numbers from having a political voice and disenfranchises losers of winner take all elections by not having a design to continue to involve and include their concerns and voices in policy making decisions has historically presented many dangers in such situations.

I dont agree that the electoral college has reduced fraud compared with multiparty parliamentary systems. i don't know of examples where there is greater complaints of fraud in developmentally comparable societies that have such systems compared to the US. I'm not sure that there haven't been more complaints of fraud in the US. All i have to go on for the most part are US media reports, which are of limited reliability. In those reports i haven't heard over the years of complaints of corruption in developed societies with multiparty systems over the years. Isolated reports, yes, few and far between, and no more frequent than reports of political corruption in the US, if anything less frequent, but again, a limited source of information.

I would be interested in looking at examples of havoc in multiparty systems in developed countries compared to the havoc and gridlock of US policy making in the past two years, or the havoc of the Clinton impeachment, or of the disputed 2000 US presidential election, to name some of the most recent examples. Many people have not felt harmed by these examples; many other people have felt harmed by them. The conflicts were not resolved, for many, but where swept under the rug to continue to poison the human relationships involved, and i think that over time, in general, public opinion is becoming increasingly negative about the system and the leaders who manage it.

The campaigning style in the two party winner take all system is particularly frustrating to many, the mudslinging and empty shallow platitudes in place of informative debate and discussion. But in a system where the media will focus for days and weeks on a candidate's 'gaffe' and will have pundits seriously discussing what that candidate really meant by that comment, rather than discussing and analyzing the candidate's positions on the issues, to the extent they have taken any positions, in such a system, coming out openly and talking about positions is punished in the media, and a single verbal misstep can cost the candidate the whole election, with the public never really knowing what each candidate had in mind in terms of specific policies and their effects on the society. Questions of that nature are unasked, or empty replies to them are accepted. Where candidates and parties have hope of winning a proportion of the seats in the legislature and have the possibility of participating in coalitions to influence policy, this encourages the taking of clear positions brecause winning office depends on mobilizing a voting constituency who will reward rather than punish the candidate for articulating their policy intentions. It's a whole different mindset with very different effects.

I think it's noncontroversial to say that most Americans are disgusted with the way candidates run for office in the US. The dominant narrative is to blame the candidates, but i don't see how this system can provide anything different. I watch as many candidates start out being opem and clear about their positions, only to be trashed in the media and by their opponents, not debated but trashed, and then there is the obvious intervention of speech writers and marketers to help the candidate to avoid alienating more voting blocs. The 'system' takes over and the voters and the society lose. And the candidates lose something too, their idealism, their integrity, their civic pride.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think anyone who feels left out of the American political system is to blame, not the system. Voices can be heard at every level of government in America. In fact, America has more govermental units (boroughs, cities, townships, towns, counties, state government, etc.) than any other country on earth. It adds up to over 80,000 governmental entities. If one can't find ways to get his or her ideas across at one or more levels of American government, I would suggest that excuse making is the real problem and I don't believe that more parties would solve virtually anything. I also think the Big Tent approach, by which two parties exist predominantly and all kinds of differences can exist within each party, and not only between the two parties, is as healthy a political set-up as ever devised by man. Moreover, third (and fourth and fifth, etc.) parties have every right to exist and usually what has occurred throughout almost all of American history (well, from the 1820s onwards) is that third parties appear with some good ideas (bad ones too at times) that are at first ordinarily rejected by both of the two main parties (Democrats and Republicans since 1854) but then eventually are adopted by one or both parties a few decades later. I see this as another aspect of the genius of the American system. Instead of having a multiparty system in which splinter parties go on forever, third parties appear and then disappear, but some of their ideas are taken over by the two major parties. Brilliant and very stable I would argue.

Respecting the elctoral college reducing fraud, I did not mean to imply that parliamentary systems are more prone to fraud. What I meant was that doing away with the electoral college in America while still having a non-parliamentary type of government would definitely increase the tendency to cheat. Take Pennsylvania for example. It now has 21 electoral votes. When a Presidential candidate wins Pennsylvania he gets all 21 votes, regardless of the margin of victory, whether it's by 10,000 or 500,000 votes. If the electoral college didn't exist there would be a much greater likelihood that ballot stuffing would occur since only the popular vote would matter. Something else. If the electoral college were done away with, and the popular vote was all that mattered, then pretty much only major metropolitan areas would be courted by presidential candidates. Places like the Dakotas, Delaware and New Hampshire wouldn't matter much at all and gradually many places, entire states in fact, would feel left out of the Presidential election campaign. Remember, if Al Gore had won New Hampshire, which has just 4 electoral votes, he would have become President, even with losing Florida. The Founding Fathers also established the electoral college so that just in case the people en masse got snookered by a capable demagogue (an Aaron Burr type for instance), the electors would be the last resort to prevent such a person from becoming President. Again one can see the foresight and wisdom of the Founding Fathers when keenly examining the electoral college system and virtually every other aspect of the Constitution. William Gladstone, four times Prime Minister of the UK and one of the greatest PM's in British history, remarked that the greatest document ever created by man is the Constitution of the United States of America. I agree with Gladstone.

I have enjoyed our give and take on these issues. My best to you and to those whom you cherish most. Take care.

Leave a comment

NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.







Not Peace But A Sword by Robert SpencerDid Muhammad Exist? The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert SpencerIslamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian FutureMuslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer Obama and IslamThe Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran


Stealth Jihad


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam


The Truth About Muhammad


What they’re saying about Robert Spencer
“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”



Follow me on Twitter
facebook islam
RSS feed

Monthly Archives



Donate
Jihad Watch is a 501 (c) 3 organization. Donations are tax-deductible.


Robert Spencer debates on The Quran Teaches WarVideo: Robert Spencer on CPAC Breitbart News
SIOAFreedom Defense InitiativeJihad Watch VideosAmerican Freedom Law Center
Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site.

» ACT for America
» Always on Watch
» American Center for Democracy
» American Coptic Association
» American Council for Kosovo
» American Freedom Alliance
» American Freedom Law Center
» American Islamic Forum for Democracy
» American Sheepdogs
» American Thinker
» Americans Against Hate
» Americans for Legal Immigration
» Amerisrael
» Amillennialist Contra Mundum
» Annaqed
» A New Dark Age Is Dawning
» Answering Islam
» Answering Muslims
» Anti-CAIR
» Apostates of Islam
» Aramaic Broadcasting Network (ABN)
» Armies of Liberation
» Assyrian International News Agency
» Atlas Shrugs
» Atour — The State of Assyria
» Australian Islamist Monitor
» Biafra Nation
» Blazing Cat Fur
» Bosch Fawstin
» Brad Thor
» Brussels Journal
» CAIR Watch
» Campus Watch
» Caroline Glick
» Christians Under Attack
» Citizen Warrior
» Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
» Conservative Nation News
» Copts.com
» Creeping Sharia
» Daniel Pipes
» David Horowitz Freedom Center
» The David Project
» David Thompson
» David Yerushalmi Law
» D. C. Watson
» Dearborn Underground
» DEBKAfile
» Dhimmitude.org
» Dry Bones
» Ellis Washington Report
» Europe News
» Eye On Islam
» Ezra Levant
» Faith Freedom International
» Father Zakaria
» Federale
» Five Feet of Fury
» Foundation for Democracy in Iran
» Free Congress Foundation
» The Free Copts
» Freedom Defense Initiative
» FrontPage Magazine.com
» Geert Wilders
» Genocide1915.info
» Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
» History of Jihad
» Hizb ut-Tahrir Watch
» Honest Reporting
» Honor Killings
» Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities
» India Defence
» Infidel Blogger’s Alliance
» Infidels Are Cool
» The Intelligence Summit
» International Analyst Network
» International Free Press Society
» Internet Haganah
» The Investigative Project on Terrorism
» IOwnTheWorld.com
» IranPressNews
» Iran va Jahan
» Islam Review
» Islam Speaks
» Islam Versus Europe
» Islam Watch
» Islamic Terrorism in India
» Islamist Watch — Middle East Forum
» Israel Matzav
» JihadOnBuddhists.org
» Kejda Gjermani
» KRSI: Radio Sedaye Iran
» Liberated
» Logan's Warning
» Looking At the Left
» Mahdi Watch
» Mapping Sharia
» Mark Steyn
» Martin Kramer
» MEMRI TV
» Middle East Facts
» Middle East Quarterly
» Middle-East-Info.org
» Middle East Media Research Institute
» Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
» Militant Islam Monitor
» Morning Star
» Muhammad Tube
» The Muslim Issue
» Muslim World Today
» Myths and Facts
» National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
» NewsReal Blog
» No Mosques At Ground Zero
» Nonie Darwish
» Northeast Intelligence Network
» Occidental Jihadist
» One Jerusalem
» Open Speech
» Operation Give
» Operation Gratitude
» Organiser
» Orwellian Culture
» Palestinian Media Watch
» PamelaGeller.com
» Panun Kashmir
» Pedestrian Infidel
» The People's Cube
» The People of the Book
» Persecution Project
» Political Islam
» Politically Incorrect
» Politiskt Inkorrekt
» Q Society of Australia
» Radio Farda
» Radio Jihad
» RAWA: Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
» Raymond Ibrahim
» Red Alerts
» Refugee Resettlement Watch
» Religion of Peace
» Republican Riot
» Reuters Middle East Watch
» The “Reverend” Jim Sutter
» SANE: Society of Americans for National Existence
» The Second Draft
» Shire Network News
» SITE Intelligence Group
» Small Wars Journal
» Smoke-Filled World
» The Snooper Report
» Snow Report Blog
» StandWithUs
» Steve Lackner
» The Stiletto Blog
» STOP! Honour Killings
» Sultan Knish
» Tell the Children the Truth
» Terrorism Awareness Project
» Theodore’s World
» Tom Gross Media
» Translating Jihad
» Una via per Oriana
» Undaunted
» United States Central Command
» Urban Infidel
» Walid Shoebat
» Winds of Jihad
» Women Against Shariah
» World Council for the Cedars Revolution
» Yid With Lid
» Z Street
» Zilla of the Resistance
» Zionist Conspiracy
Crucified Again by Raymond IbrahimDavid LittmanOriana Fallaci Thousands of Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11The incredible Reza Aslan automated insult generator! iGoogle Gadget
Site Meter