The Perry/Aga Khan curriculum: Ace folds, presents as the curriculum material that isn’t the curriculum at all

Pamela Geller and I are catching hell all over for criticizing the Perry/Aga Khan curriculum about Islam in Texas schools, but here’s the thing: the material that David Stein and the Ace of Spades blog are quoting as the Perry/Aga Khan curriculum is not actually part of the curriculum at all.

Ace of Spades is one of those juvenile, leering fratboy blogs that has never appealed to me. The first time this was sent to me, I took a look, saw how inaccurate, fact-free, and contemptuous (to say nothing of contemptible) the presentation was, and hadn’t intended to reply. Ace can’t even spell Pamela Geller’s name right. But as the strange attempt to shut down all skepticism about Rick Perry continues, and people keep sending Ace’s post to me, and pointing out that it is being picked up all over, so here goes. And Pamela Geller smacks down Ace here. “So…. Yeah… The New Smear Is That Rick Perry Is a Dhimmi, Huh?,” from Ace of Spades, August 26 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Pam Gellar [sic], relying on a hot tip from, um, Salon, thinks Rick Perry’s a dhimmi.

Salon did report on Perry’s connection to the Aga Khan. But the Perry bots keep breathlessly repeating that “Geller relied on Salon!” as if Salon’s hard-Left pseudo-journalist Justin Elliott were the only source for the connection between Perry and the Aga Khan. Unfortunately, that is not the case; if it were, the Perry/Aga Khan ties could easily be dismissed as Leftist propaganda. But they can’t, and Ace and the others who try to dismiss or downplay the Perry/Aga Khan ties by saying that Geller got it from Salon know they can’t — there are too many other sources besides Salon. So why do they keep bringing up Salon? To manipulate you into thinking that Leftist propaganda is all there is to this. In playing that kind of shell game, they’re no better than the Center for American Progress.

Ace is mightily enthused about David Stein’s purported refutation of the problems that Pamela Geller and I have raised about Perry, and to which I responded in part here. Ace calls it “the greatest rejoinder in the history of blogdom.” It is, in fact, considerably less than that; if Ace had done anything more than take it at face value and accept its claims uncritically, he would have discovered that quickly.

Ace claims that Stein has shown that “the ‘dhimmi’ curriculum that was actually produced by Texas teachers consulting with Aga Khan is…going to hurt Perry, because this is so biased against Muslims it will reinforce perceptions he is some kind of rootin’-tootin’ six-gun shooting cowboy yahoo.”

One very odd thing about the Aga Khan/Perry curriculum: since this whole brouhaha started, it has been taken offline. It is now available only in cached form here. Why was it taken down? Was the Perry camp embarrassed by the material that Pamela Geller published here, showing it to be a whitewash of Islamic teaching and history? Or was it taken down because it really is, as Ace says, so “biased against Muslims it will reinforce perceptions [Perry] is some kind of rootin’-tootin’ six-gun shooting cowboy yahoo”?

Is either option favorable to Perry? If it was taken down because it’s a dhimmi whitewash, Perry is tacitly admitting that our criticisms of him were right, and those evaluating Perry should be concerned about his naivete in dealing with the Aga Khan. If it was taken down because it was too honest about Islam and will thus hurt Perry with the dhimmi/Norquist faction of the GOP, Perry is again tacitly admitting that our criticisms of him were right: he is not able or willing to stand up to Norquist and his Islamic supremacist allies. So which is it? What are they hiding? And does it matter? Either way, the deep-sixing of the curriculum proves that we were right about Perry all along.

Ace gets his information from David Stein here. And indeed, the material that Stein presents, and Ace republishes, seems to be great. It speaks honestly about Islamic conquests: “From its early days, Islam reacted aggressively toward its civilized neighbors the Byzantines and the West.” It notes that “while Westerners studied Islamic culture, Muslims showed almost no interest in Western culture, remaining ignorant of modernity and its impact.”

It even seems to expose Islamic hatred of Israel: “The conflict continues because the West, and the United States specifically, support Israel (an outpost of Western Civilization surrounded by Islamic Civilization), which Muslims generally dislike or hate. Islamic enmity toward Israel is complicated, but hatred of Jews and Israel can be traced at least to the success of Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda starting in 1933.”

But Ace is wildly overstating his case when he says, in his typical half-witted beer swiller’s lingo, “Are you shitting me? Gellar’s attacking this? This reads like her fucking blog for fuck’s sake. In Texas, they’re fucking reading ‘Atlas Shrugs’ to the kids, and Geller’s complaining. Maybe it’s because she thinks she’s owed royalties.”

Ace clearly doesn’t know the first, foggiest thing about Islam; after all, it’s not the name of a porn mag or a brand of beer. If he did, he would recognize that the claim that “Islamic enmity toward Israel is complicated, but hatred of Jews and Israel can be traced at least to the success of Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda starting in 1933″ is itself a whitewash. Islamic antisemitism didn’t begin in 1933 or come from the Nazis; it’s as old as Islam itself, going back to the Qur’an’s designation of the Jews as the worst enemies of the Muslims (5:82) and Muhammad’s exiles and massacres of the Jews of Arabia. See a full discussion of this question here.

Why does this matter? It’s misleading. If you think that Islamic antisemitism is something they picked up from the Nazis after centuries of Islamic tolerance (more on that later), one will tend to think that it is something that is carried lightly among the opponents of Israel, and can be reasoned or negotiated away. This will lead one to support political solutions for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict like land-for-peace that not only cannot and will not work, but weaken Israel.

Ace doesn’t know anything about Pamela Geller, either, or he would know that she has written about the Qur’anic roots of Islamic antisemitism, and so would recognize that bit about the Nazis making the Muslims antisemitic as a whitewash, also.

This supposedly tough part of the Perry/Aga Khan curriculum, which you can find in full at this cached link here, is actually not at all the Islamorealistic presentation that Ace and Stein claim it to be. It does contain the material that they quote, but note that in all that, and in all the rest of it, there is absolutely nothing about the Qur’an’s or Muhammad’s exhortations to violence.

Again, why does that matter? Because if you don’t identify the root of the problem correctly, you will continually apply the wrong remedies. The idea that Islam is a Religion of Peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists has led the U.S. to all sorts of policy errors, foreign and domestic: pouring billions in Pakistan, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, treating stateside Islamic supremacist groups with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood as neutral civil rights organizations, etc. If the exhortations to violence and subjugation of unbelievers under Sharia that are contained in Islamic texts and teachings were acknowledged in the public sphere, Muslim groups in the U.S. could be challenged to show what they’re doing to teach against such things, and investigated for sedition where appropriate. Instead, law enforcement and government officials constantly trust individuals and groups that are untrustworthy, because they don’t understand the smooth ways in which they’re being deceived.

Still, all in all, the material Stein presents on the curriculum is fairly good. But there is a curious thing: the picture one gets of curriculum from Geller and from Stein are wildly divergent. Stein claims that this is because Geller quotes from “brief summaries of lengthy training seminars,” while he presented the “entire lesson plan.” But that’s not actually the case. Go to the cached link of the main page for the curriculum. It says this:

In April 2004, the Aga Khan Foundation (AKF) and UT-Austin finalized a grant proposal that created the partnership that became known as the Muslim Histories and Cultures Program (MHC). Much has happened since the inception of the partnership. Creation and implementation of a model was of prime importance. MHC recruited and directly trained 80 teachers affecting approximately 15,150 students of World History and World Geography in ten key Texas districts during the two sessions conducted in 2005 and 2006. The purpose is two-fold 1) to fulfill Governor Rick Perry’s desire to better educate Texas teachers on Muslim topics and 2) to train teachers to use a cultural lens approach to understanding other cultures. Governor Perry was instrumental in getting this program off the ground.

It adds — and note this well — that “the curriculum for this project was developed at Harvard University and modified at the University of Texas at Austin.” Now this is apparently referring to the curriculum for the training of the 80 teachers in the two sessions conducted in 2005 and 2006. And this material is very, very bad. It contains all the material Geller quoted, including a whitewash of Muslim Spain (debunked here) and the use of texts by the likes of Carl Ernst, John Esposito, and Michael Sells. Carl Ernst is the academic propagandist who actually traveled to Tehran in 2008 to accept an award from Iran’s genocidally antisemitic President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. John Esposito is a Saudi-funded pseudo-academic who has cooked data about Islamic moderates. Michael Sells produced an edition of the Qur’an that left out all the violent and hateful bits. And they’re by no means the only questionable authorities that this curriculum invokes.

But wait a minute. Remember, “the curriculum for this project was developed at Harvard University and modified at the University of Texas at Austin.” But Stein claims to present “the curriculum that resulted from the Perry/Khan partnership,” and specifically, “the lesson plan that deals with Islam and the West, past and present.” Stein says that “the lesson plan was written by Ronald Wiltse,” who is “a retired history teacher in San Antonio.” But is Wiltse’s lesson plan actually part of the Perry/Aga Khan curriculum at all? Only peripherally — at best. Look back at the main cached page for the curriculum. It says that “MHC recruited and directly trained 80 teachers affecting approximately 15,150 students of World History and World Geography in ten key Texas districts during the two sessions conducted in 2005 and 2006,” and that “the responsibilities of the participants are…to create lessons concerning Islamic topics with a ‘cultural lens’ approach tied to their grade level to share with other teachers.”

That’s where you find Wiltse’s lesson plan: among the lesson plans developed by the 80 teachers who attended these sessions. In other words, the material David Stein and Ace are quoting as the Perry/Aga Khan curriculum is not actually part of the curriculum at all. What they’re quoting is a lesson plan drawn up by one participant in the seminars that Perry and the Aga Khan sponsored in Texas — this would be like quoting some high school kid’s test answers and passing them off as the official curriculum of the school district. The material Geller quoted, on the other hand, with its multiple whitewashes of the Qur’an, Muhammad, and Islamic history, comes from the Harvard/University of Texas curriculum for the training of teachers using the Perry/Aga Khan material.

David Stein and Ace are selling the conservative blogosphere a bill of goods. They’re quoting a supposedly tough, Islamorealistic lesson plan (that isn’t actually all that tough or Islamorealistic in the first place) and passing it off as the official Perry/Aga Khan curriculum, when in fact, it is no more the official curriculum than a 9th grader’s history paper is the official history curriculum for the school district.

Ace then turns to the Grover Norquist business. But here again, neither Ace nor the brains of the outfit, David Stein, deal with the fact that Norquist is clearly much closer to Perry than to other candidates. As I wrote here, “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.” In response, all Stein and Ace have done is point out that other candidates have worked with Norquist, too. Indeed. Which have fundraised for him? Which have vacationed with him? Any of them other than Perry? If so, I will criticize them for it as well.

Ace asks: “Ummm… we’re not allowed to talk with Grover Norquist anymore, Pam? Can’t sign his anti-tax pledges?” Actually, it’s the other way around: is it really necessary to play ball with Norquist in order to come out for cutting taxes? Is there no candidate who will have the courage to endorse his tax policies but distance himself from him because of his Islamic supremacist ties?

But I am not asking these questions of Ace, who is demonstrably dishonest. Take this, for example:

Anyway, Stein at Counter-Contempt makes the point that if even Robert Spencer, gold-star anti-Jihadist, gave Aga Khan a clean bill of health and vouched for him, why should Rick Perry be blamed for similarly thinking he checked out?

Now, Aga Khan might actually still check out. There’s no actual proof he doesn’t. But let’s say he does turn out to be just as Geller now alleges.

Stein asks Spencer, “How can you blame Perry for making the same error you did?” To which Spencer just says something like “He’s the governor, he should have known.”

Actually, I said “something like” this: “I am not entering into partnership with the Aga Khan. If I were, I would certainly vet him thoroughly first, and Perry should have.” Is that “He’s the governor, he should have known”? I guess for a guy like Ace, it’s close enough.

Ace concludes: “This is anti-Jihadism quickly shading into anti-Americanism.” So now it’s “anti-American” to be skeptical about Rick Perry because he is too close to the Aga Khan and Grover Norquist? “Anti-American” to want to vet a candidate and not want the next president to have potentially compromising ties? Have another beer, Ace. Stick to what you’re good at.

Meanwhile, Stein’s bait-and-switch presentation on the Perry/Aga Khan curriculum has not just fooled a lout like Ace, but people who should know better, like Red State and the reliably dhimmi Commentary. Will they retract their contemptuous sneers and acknowledge they were working on false premises? I won’t be holding my breath.

FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    OT

    LAHORE, Pakistan: Youmul Quds was observed in the city on Friday to show solidarity with the suffering of the people of Palestine.

    Also known as Al-Quds Day, the Muslims observed this day to express solidarity with Palestinian people in their struggle against Israeli subjugation.

    (see photo – “religion of peace” in action)
    http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\08\27\story_27-8-2011_pg13_1

  2. says

    Imagine the outcry in the leftist media if Perry had dealt with Opus Dei and/or Bob Jones U. to develop a curriculum about Christianity!

  3. says

    Is the San Antonio Independent School District cached curriculum that of the State of Texas?

    Using a single school district’s curriculum does not even by itself implicate ALL of San Antonio. It is in fact the 3rd largest school district in the county.

    Now when you provide info that this is statewide, then you can make the Geller connection.

  4. says

    Say what you like Roberto, but Geller and you are making an Alex Jonesish FEMA camp type leap. It could prove to be true, but with what you present, NO!

    It does not look good for your credibility to be whining about being blocked from investigating. Show some real evidence rather than suspicion. What people are complaining about are the leaps being made. Pam has certainly made leaps into b.s. before. If this all turns out to be b.s. then it will not be her first rodeo into that realm.

  5. says

    American students deserve to learn the truth about islam. Warts and all. Thanks to Mr Spencer many of us now know the difference between that and the whitewashed, untruthful version. Let’s simply insist on the truth to be taught. No lies. Is that too much to ask?

  6. says

    Citizen K

    You keep repeating that Pamela Geller has lost credibility with this one and hasn’t presented any evidence. She presents evidence, and you repeat that. I present evidence, and you repeat it again. I just presented, in this post, a great deal of evidence, and you ignore it and say there is no evidence.

    I am beginning to suspect you are a plant with an agenda and not an honest interlocutor. If you are the latter, deal with the evidence I present above. Otherwise, I’m not going to allow you to spread your falsehoods here indefinitely.

    Cordially
    Robert Spencer

  7. says

    Ace of Spades is one of those juvenile, leering fratboy blogs that has never appealed to me.

    You can say that again! Now all we need is John Belushi popping his face like a zit, with Louie, Louie playing in the background.

    Instead, law enforcement and government officials constantly trust individuals and groups that are untrustworthy, because they don’t understand the smooth ways in which they’re being deceived.

    Those officials, along with the narcissistic cultural and media elites, are too vain to grasp the utter contempt in which they are held by the flattering and bribing islamists they pander to.

  8. says

    So because Ace wants to see more evidence before believing that the sky is falling in respect to Perry, you call him a dhimmi? I’ve got a lot of respect for your work, Mr. Spencer, but we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

    If you want to continue to be the WND of anti-jihad activism, go ahead but don’t expect me to ride that crazy train with y’all. I’m going to insist that any future Conservative firing squads we convene actually form lines and AIM AT THE PROPER TARGET before opening fire.

  9. says

    Russ

    Who is the firing squad aiming at, exactly? Seems to me that all the firing is coming at Geller and me, who have dared to read the actual Perry/Aga Khan curriculum material, and to point out Perry’s close ties to Norquist. Why can’t Perry be vetted? Why does he have to be crowned king without any examination? We did that with Obama, and look where it got us.

    Fire away, as I am sure you will, but I am going to keep presenting evidence and asking questions no matter what.

    Cordially
    Robert Spencer

  10. says

    So everyone with ties to Grover Norquist is a dhimmi? Shoot, that’s a long list.

    And, for the record, I’m not rabid about Perry, but he does seem like an acceptable choice at this point. If it turns out that he’s part of some conspiracy to pull the wool over America’s eyes concerning Islam, I’ll drop him like a hot potato…..but if your accusations against Perry have as much substance behind them as the previous accusations about Obama’s birth certificate? Well, you can’t blame a guy for being reluctant to fall in line with that, can you?

    Keep asking questions, because that’s how we get answers. Just don’t lash out at those on your own side who question your conclusions. That sort of behavior is below you. Leave it to “that bicycle-riding guy”.

  11. says

    Russ

    No, everyone with ties to Norquist is not a dhimmi, but read the above post and you’ll see that Perry and Norquist are closer than Norquist is to other candidates. Very, very close. Perry has fundraised for Norquist; Norquist has endorsed Perry. That is a matter of concern. I make no apologies for saying so.

    And if my “accusations against Perry have as much substance behind them as the previous accusations about Obama’s birth certificate”? The only way to tell is to check, right? Yet you guys don’t want any checking done, or any questions asked. Sorry. I won’t play along.

    The “bicycle-riding guy” is not remotely on “our side.”

    Cordially
    Robert Spencer

  12. says

    And I’ll tell you something else, Russ: I have criticized presidents and candidates for years for their softness toward stealth jihadists, Islamic supremacists, etc. I criticized Bush. Obama. Hillary Clinton. Romney. Etc. etc. And only when I’ve raised these questions about Perry has there been such a firestorm. Only when I’ve raised questions about Perry do people like you and Citizen K and others who have never commented at Jihad Watch before pop up, declare that you’ve supported me for years, and say that only this Perry thing is making you draw the line.

    It smells. It’s suspicious. It makes me more skeptical than ever of Perry. It makes me more determined than ever to stand.

    Cordially
    Robert Spencer

  13. says

    Well done, Robert.

    It is quite disturbing that the general curriculum information has been removed and that there doesn’t seem to be available a standard official description of the course material at the state level. The closest thing we’ve got is the cached material from the San Antonio curriculum.

    Even if we had no specific information about the curriculum, though, the default assumption should be based on what we can expect, based on current trends, in course material about Islam presented to students in North America. The status quo is a whitewash of Islamic doctrine, history, and present beliefs and policies; and consists of the sort of rose-coloured glasses view presented by our politicians and mainstream media.

    If we assume no knowledge of the content in this case, the fact that the Aga Khan Ismaili Shia Muslim organization has any say at all in the content of the curriculum is itself disturbing. Indeed, this perception of bias–to say nothing of the real bias–would be sufficient to render the entire project so dubious as to be dismissed out of hand, as would likely occur, for example, in most of the sciences. (E.g., imagine a study, conducted by a major tobacco company, on the health benefits of smoking.) At the very least, conflicts of interest, real or perceived, must be addressed and taken into account when dealing with the information produced in such a context.

    I’ve also taken a stab at some of the content at the link below, in the previous thread about Perry’s deal with the Aga Khan:
    “A top priority is to educate fellow non-Muslims about Islam, Islamization, jihad, and sharia […]”
    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/08/more-on-rick-perry-refuting-the-refutation.html#comment-815461

    …and the indications thus far are that what Perry has done is counter to achieving that top priority.

  14. says

    I’m anti Jihad and have posted here for several years. One problem for me is that I find Geller shrill and unlikeable which makes me want to tune her out.In contrast like a lot of people I find Perry likeable so I would rather believe him then Geller. Perry is not perfect but he is liked by a lot of conservatives who want Obama out of office next year.That’s probably why you and Geller are taking heat from conservative blogs for raising questions about Perry’s connections to Islam.One good thing is that if the Texas curriculum does indeed whitewash Islam the heat will be on to present a “fair and balanced” curriculum about Islam and the so-called prophet.

  15. says

    Perry like most Americans are guilty of
    A- Being Gullible.
    B- Not taking the Islamic agenda seriously enough

    Geller was right to bring the nexus between Perry, Khan and Norquist to light. If she had not, Perry would have continued to be Gullible and would have continued his toxic relationship with Norquist and Khan.

    Pam Geller did us all a great service, including Perry. Depending on how Perry handles this and the overall Islamic issue, may make the differance in his G.O.P nomination. She may very well have saved his candidacy.

    I wish we had her in our intellegence battalion in Viet Nam. I know she would have picked up on what was ultimately admmitted by the NVA’s General Giap. Hanoi was ready to surrender within days. So it goes!

  16. says

    It is very depressing to see that the Republicans are following in the footsteps of the dhimmi “religion of peace” Bush and the Muslim apologist Obama. There must be some way to get Grover Norquist and his Muslim Brotherhood friends out of influence in the Republican party. The Democrats are too far gone to save. I am beginning to think that American is too far gone to save.

  17. says

    It does contain the material that they quote, but note that in all that, and in all the rest of it, there is absolutely nothing about the Qur’an’s or Muhammad’s exhortations to violence.

    Again, why does that matter? Because if you don’t identify the root of the problem correctly, you will continually apply the wrong remedies. The idea that Islam is a Religion of Peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists has led the U.S. to all sorts of policy errors, foreign and domestic: …

    If the exhortations to violence and subjugation of unbelievers under Sharia that are contained in Islamic texts and teachings were acknowledged in the public sphere, Muslim groups in the U.S. could be challenged to show what they’re doing to teach against such things, and investigated for sedition where appropriate. Instead, law enforcement and government officials constantly trust individuals and groups that are untrustworthy, because they don’t understand the smooth ways in which they’re being deceived.

    The money quote.

    Not only that, but there is also a complete disconnect on the issue of the Muslim world’s sense of time and space. Yes, the Texas curriculum states they are different, but in what way and what does their rejection of “modernity” actually mean?

    I think it means that the Muslim world does not have the win/lose mentality we have in the West, where if a goal is not quickly achievable it is discarded and a better goal is sought. The Muslim supremacist goal is timeless and is not going to be discarded because of failures or setbacks.

    In the West when we look at Islamic claims of world domination we see that as unachievable, unlikely and therefore an irrelevant threat. Therefore to claim that Perry is a pawn of a larger agenda by the Muslim world through the agency of Aga Khan seems far fetched — and impossible to prove. But as Imam Rauf stated, the Islamic strategy is more like a football game where the aim is to make plays and move the ball down the field towards the goal. All they have to do is keep chipping away at the resistance little by little; and the Aga Khan is doing his part as well, through educational programs, banking programs, the architectural restoration of Islamic monuments project, etc. A nice Muslim.

    Perry is a superficial guy, what else matters besides money and power? With his connections to very wealthy Conservatives who want to pursue their theocratic agenda in the White House, Obama suddenly looks clean.

  18. says

    This entire episode has been confusing from the start, and continues to be so. I appreciate Robert and Pamela’s work on it. I hate that they’re getting so much flak, and from people supposedly on the same side.

    Remember that the pro-jihad side as well as the pro-Obama crowd would love to see us all tear each other apart. Don’t let it happen.

    As always, we must follow the evidence where it leads. There’s plenty of it here.

    I will be passing this information along so that people will be accurately informed. 2012 is going to a long and ugly election year. This is only the beginning.

    Stay strong, Robert and Pamela.

  19. says

    Robert didn’t make any leap. He pointed out some troubling facts that lead to some troubling suspicions.Perry supporters could present actual evidence that clears their man, but instead they attack Robert. If Perry’s so clean, prove it. And with actual evidence, not the laughable tripe that Robert has so easily picked apart thrice already.

  20. says

    OT

    Al-Qaeda’s number two killed in Pakistan: US official

    WASHINGTON: Al-Qaeda’s second-in-command, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, has been killed in Pakistan, delivering another big blow to a terrorist group that the US believes to be on the verge of defeat, a senior Obama administration official said Saturday.

    The Libyan national who was the network’s former operational leader rose to al-Qaeda’s No. 2 spot after the US killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden during a raid on his Pakistan compound in May.
    http://www.dawn.com/2011/08/27/al-qaeda%e2%80%99s-no-2-killed-in-pakistan-us-official.html

  21. says

    Robert wrote: “In response, all Stein and Ace have done is point out that other candidates have worked with Norquist, too. Indeed. Which have fundraised for him? Which have vacationed with him? Any of them other than Perry? If so, I will criticize them for it as well….”

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

    Point well taken. Perry is the more culpable. Nonetheless, I would urge conservative activists, elected officials, Republicans and Republican candidates to maintain a healthy distance from Grover Norquist. I would not get near this dangerous man even on tax-related matters. He is bad news. Norquist is not the only anti or low-tax conservative activist out there. This is one of the ways Norquist (stealthily) gains access to Republican leaders and candidates; through his anti-tax political activism. Like Suhail Khan http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/2011 Norquist should be shunned. He is very dangerous.

    Stein wrote on his blog: “In the Washington Post article I linked to in my previous post, Norquist clearly stated that Michelle Bachmann was going to be attending one of his exclusive, private “Wednesday meetings” the week of July 12th. That’s six months after Horowitz laid out the case against Norquist at CPAC (where Bachmann was in attendance)…. http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/2011

    I have been a fairly outspoken supporter of Michele Bachmann, as she appears more consistent in her conservatism than the other candidates in the top tier; far more consistent than Mitt Romney. Like all the candidates, Bachmann has made some missteps. To me this (“private meeting,” if it occurred) is an egregious misstep. If she does not get her act together, I will reconsider voting for her in our Florida primary. Get with it Michele. You should know better than to rub elbows with this facilitator of the stealth jihad in America.

  22. says

    Let’s cut to the quick here. Can anyone who has criticized Spencer or Geller on this matter offer solid proof that Rick Perry really understands Islam? Hell, even half understands this spiritual totalitarian system? Most everything points to the fact that Perry is as clueless about Islam as your standard American elite (including Republicans like George Bush and Chris Christie).

    Any takers? Go ahead, give it a shot or quit the bitching. It’s put up time or shut up time. What indeed does Perry know about the Islamic faith? I say didly shit. Anyone care to prove me wrong—with specifics?

  23. says

    Okay, I have defended JihadWatch ever since I became aware of the threat of Jihad. I have written in defense of Robert Spencer over and over.

    Now I have to dissent. The _mode_ of arguing is rubbish. Take this:

    “Ace of Spades is one of those juvenile, leering fratboy blogs that has never appealed to me. The first time this was sent to me, I took a look, saw how inaccurate, fact-free, and contemptuous (to say nothing of contemptible) the presentation was, and hadn’t intended to reply. Ace can’t even spell Pamela Geller’s name right.”

    and this:

    “Ace clearly doesn’t know the first, foggiest thing about Islam; after all, it’s not the name of a porn mag or a brand of beer. ”

    This is not just crap, this is Maryam Namazie level crap. It really is the crummiest and most paranoid kind of reasoning. It is assuming that the worst possible motivation of a person is always the right one.

    “Doesn’t know the first thing about Islam”? Try the following search:

    http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=Islam+site%3Aace.mu.nu&pbx=1&oq=Islam+site:ace.mu.nu&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=4096l7627l0l7863l22l18l0l0l0l2l971l7181l2.6.1.5-3.5l17l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=4bd1951a223e467a&biw=1440&bih=809

    And so on.

    I hate to say it, but I do think that association with Pamela Geller is having a deplorable effect on a decent scholar and thinker. Geller, remember, was behind this ludicrous “birther” nonsense.

  24. says

    I’m glad Robert is holding the candidates feet to the fire with regard to Sharia and Jihad. From the little I’ve seen, Perry is an exciting conservative candidate. But conservative is less than zero if it hides softness toward Islamization.

    Bernard Lewis: Jihad an unlimited, offensive to bring the whole world under Islamic law; Christian crusades a defensive, limited response to, and imitation of, jihad. From pp.233-234 of The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2000 Years

    Even the Christian crusade, often compared with the Muslim jihad, was itself a delayed and limited response to the jihad and in part also an imitation. But unlike the jihad it was concerned primarily with the defense or reconquest of threatened or lost Christian territory…The Muslim jihad, in contrast, was perceived as unlimited, as a religious obligation that would continue until all the world had either adopted the Muslim faith or submitted to Muslim rule.… The object of jihad is to bring the whole world under Islamic law.

    Bernard Lewis says the overwhelming majority of uses of the word “jihad” in Islam’s core texts are military in meaning

    He writes on page 72 of his book The Political Language of Islam, that

    …the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists [Muslim specialists in the Qur’an, hadiths, life of Muhammad, and Islamic law] … understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense.

    Lewis also writes, on page 31 of his book The Crisis of Islam, that

    For most of the fourteen centuries of recorded Muslim history, jihad was most commonly interpreted to mean armed struggle for the defense or advancement of Muslim power.

    From the essay “Communism and Islam” in International Affairs, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Jan., 1954), pp. 1-12, here is Bernard Lewis on Islam’s inherent totalitarianism:

    I turn now from the accidental to the essential factors, to those deriving from the very nature of Islamic society, tradition, and thought. The first of these is the authoritarianism, perhaps we may even say the totalitarianism, of the Islamic political tradition…Many attempts have been made to show that Islam and democracy are identical — attempts usually based on a misunderstanding of Islam or democracy or both…In point of fact, except for the early caliphate, when the anarchic individualism of tribal Arabia was still effective, the political history of Islam is one of almost unrelieved autocracy…[I]t was authoritarian, often arbitrary, sometimes tyrannical. There are no parliaments or representative assemblies of any kind, no councils or communes, no chambers of nobility or estates, no municipalities in the history of Islam; nothing but the sovereign power, to which the subject owed complete and unwavering obedience as a religious duty imposed by the Holy Law. In the great days of classical Islam this duty was only owed to the lawfully appointed caliph, as God’s vicegerent on earth and head of the theocratic community, and then only for as long as he upheld the law; but with the decline of the caliphate and the growth of military dictatorship, Muslim jurists and theologians accommodated their teachings to the changed situation and extended the religious duty of obedience to any effective authority, however impious, however barbarous. For the last thousand years, the political thinking of Islam has been dominated by such maxims as “tyranny is better than anarchy” and “whose power is established, obedience to him is incumbent.”
    …Quite obviously, the Ulama of Islam are very different from the Communist Party. Nevertheless, on closer examination, we find certain uncomfortable resemblances. Both groups profess a totalitarian doctrine, with complete and final answers to all questions on heaven and earth; the answers are different in every respect, alike only in their finality and completeness, and in the contrast they offer with the eternal questioning of Western man. Both groups offer to their members and followers the agreeable sensation of belonging to a community of believers, who are always right, as against an outer world of unbelievers, who are always wrong. Both offer an exhilarating feeling of mission, of purpose, of being engaged in a collective adventure to accelerate the historically inevitable victory of the true faith over the infidel evil-doers. The traditional Islamic division of the world into the House of Islam and the House of War, two necessarily opposed groups, of which- the first has the collective obligation of perpetual struggle against the second, also has obvious parallels in the Communist view of world affairs. There again, the content of belief is utterly different, but the aggressive fanaticism of the believer is the same. The humorist who summed up the Communist creed as “There is no God and Karl Marx is his Prophet!” was laying his finger on a real affinity. The call to a Communist Jihad, a Holy War for the faith — a new faith, but against the self-same Western Christian enemy — might well strike a responsive note.

  25. says

    Who will dare not to pledge allegiance to King Abdullah? (link is to pics of bush and abdullah)

    I think we need a cartoon of King Abdullah that is as viral as the one of Mo with his head as a bomb. A minor demonstration of loyalty to freedom, as against the OIC initiative to silence criticism of Islam, would be open hostile mockery of King Abdullah. This just might flush out his allies.

    If Perry were to become president and I were to then do an image search would I find Perry all cozy with one or more members of the Saudi Royal family?

    Let Perry express open hostility to OPEC, as an illegal cartel that goes against all notions of free and fair trade.

  26. says

    wildjew – the difference is the following. Ace quoted, directly, material and then characterized it. He provided evidence about a specific, factual claim.

    Robert Spencer is expecting me to accept that AceOfSpades is XYZ on his say so, without anywhere near that amount of evidence to judge a person. Far more than a single thing, mind you.

    This is crummy, Maryam Namazie level reasoning. I think that Ace of Spades is entirely right to say “include me out!” if that’s the sort of thing being peddled.

  27. says

    I was reading through a multitude of posts on Greenfield’s piece, “Perry and Islam.” I came across this one from Brussels:

    @Sultan,

    Back from the States, I have the gut feeling Perry will be the next President.

    He should put the economy on better tracks but the relation with Israel will remain difficult since your significant dependence on Saudi oil will heavily influence his decisions.

    We should therefore see a condoleezza rice 2.0 back to the state department …..

    Some new buildings for Jews in Judea will always be more criticized than killing a few thousand Syrian citizens ….

    Trumpeldor, Brussels, eurabia

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

    I suspect this is an accurate reflection. Under a President Perry, the economy will likely improve; a good thing for Americans who are languishing under this current president. Perry will be forced to choose between the Arabs (the Saudis) and Israel and will, like Bush, choose the Arabs / Saudis. Perry (because he will be seen as another “best friend ever” to Israel) might be more successful prodding the Jews to relinquish land to their / our enemies. The stealth jihad in America will proceed apace.

    Make no mistake about it. This anger and fury directed at Spencer and Geller (in particular) is because of the fear and the loathing this current U.S. president generates from the political right; properly so. Conservatives are aghast at the possibility he might earn another four years to continue his assault on America.

  28. says

    It does not take much to fool the fools.
    At COMMENTARY, the following is used to insinuate that the curriculum is not only not pro-sharia but a bit anti-Muslim. Allan Goodman claims it could have been lifted from a ZOA pamphlet:

    “the territory of Israel expanded somewhat, and many Arab citizens of Israel fled to a small corner of Israel called the Gaza Strip. The Arab states refused to admit these refugees, preferring them to stay there as a testimony to the evil of the Jewish state. ”

    How can a sober person read this statement and not see the obvious jihadist propaganda? Repete after me boys and girls.. the evil of the Jewish state.., very good.
    I guess a little madras trading for our kids in Texas will engender the right thoughts and thinking we want them to have, insane

  29. says

    Islam closes minds

    From p.82 of the United Nations Arab Human Development Report, 2003:

    …the number of books translated in the Arab world is one fifth of the number translated in Greece.

    Yet the Arab population is about 30 times larger than that of Greece. That means as of 2003 Greece was translating 30 x 5 = 150 times as many books per person as the Arab world was translating. But to continue from p.82 of the Report:

    The aggregate total of translated books from the Al-Ma’moon era [over 1000 years ago] to the present day amounts to 10,000 books – equivalent to what Spain translates in a single year. This disparity was revealed in the first half of the 1980s when the average number of books translated per 1 million people in the Arab world during the 5-year period [1981-1985] was 4.4 (less than one book [per year] for every million Arabs), while in Hungary [during the same five year period] it was 519 [about 104 books per year per million people], and in Spain 920 [about 184 books per year per million people].

  30. says

    If anyone wants to see an almost complete file collection of the original San Antonio Independent School District’s Muslim Histories and Culture Project, let me know and I’ll post it online for all to download and read to your heart’s content.
    People seem to forget that once something has been published online it is very difficult to get rid of.

    One of the pages has this telling description:

    Lesson Plan Muslim studies

    Tafolla middle school

    Ernest Herrera Social Studies 6th grade teacher

    Here’s a description of the project, and how it came to be:

    What is the Muslim Histories and Culture Project (MHCP)?

    The Muslim Histories and Cultures Project was born out of discussions between His Highness The Aga Khan and Texas Governor Rick Perry during the Summer 2002, when The Aga Khan was in Houston for the dedication of a new Ismaili Center. Both His Highness and Governor Perry agreed on the need for Texans to have a greater understanding of Islamic culture, and subsequently brought UT-Austin President Larry Faulkner into the discussions. Located in the state capital, Faulkner’s campus is well positioned to accomplish these goals. A series of meetings followed, with the project ultimately finding a home in UT-Austin’s College of Liberal Arts, under the guidance of Dean Richard W. Lariviere, in association with UT Liberal Arts (UT-LA), the college’s teacher preparation program.

    In April 2004, the Aga Khan Foundation (AKF) and UT-Austin finalized a grant proposal that created the partnership that became known as the Muslim Histories and Cultures Program (MHC). Much has happened since the inception of the partnership. Creation and implementation of a model was of prime importance. MHC recruited and directly trained 80 teachers affecting approximately 15,150 students of World History and World Geography in ten key Texas districts during the two sessions conducted in 2005 and 2006. The purpose is two-fold 1) to fulfill Governor Rick Perry’s desire to better educate Texas teachers on Muslim topics and 2) to train teachers to use a cultural lens approach to understanding other cultures. Governor Perry was instrumental in getting this program off the ground.

    The curriculum for this project was developed at Harvard University and modified at the University of Texas at Austin.

    The responsibilities of the participants are:

    * to attend the 10 seminars and complete the assigned readings.
    * to attend the January, April, and June meetings in Austin.
    * to create lessons concerning Islamic topics with a “cultural lens” approach tied to their grade level to share with other teachers.

    Since when is religions a subject of public school education’s curriculum? Much less at a sixth grade level.

  31. says

    I think most Republicans see the charismatic Perry as the only candidate that can beat the anointed one and lord knows he needs to be beaten:) That’s why so many are reacting badly to any questioning of their candidate, they are panicked about Barry winning another term (and rightly so) and taking it out on anyone who doesn’t tow the party line..

    That said, all questions about Perry must be adequately answered and he MUST be vetted. There is no room , considering the fragile state into which Barry has managed to maneuver America, for another unvetted presidential candidate. Has Obama not taught you this hard lesson yet?

    Raise as many questions as possible, do the research and make sure you know what you’re doing this time. If they’re your real friends, you won’t lose them in the end.

  32. says

    Roxane says:

    “I find Geller shrill and unlikeable which makes me want to tune her out.In contrast like a lot of people I find Perry likeable so I would rather believe him then Geller.”

    Isn’t this the ad-hominem fallacy.

    Roxane is saying that if a likeable person tells a lie, she would rather believe the lie than the truth coming from an unlikeable person… we may be in deep trouble if we start getting away from the truth and following lies because they come from a “likeable” person,

  33. says

    @Citizen K….I guess you missed this part ” Raise as many questions as possible, do the research and make sure you know what you’re doing this time. ”

    I’m with Robert, put the info out there, “sparse” or not and question it until you feel satisfied. All questions, whether we all agree with them or not are valid. Now is the time for people to voice any and all concerns.

  34. says

    It’s not just about Rick Perry. Spencer is trying (successfully, I trust) to raise the standard all the candidates must meet.

  35. says

    A cartel such as OPEC is an agreement to cooperate to restrict supply. Voiding the treatment of OPEC as a legal exception to GATT would, in theory, increase supply and reduce price. Saudi Arabia would have to pump more to get the same revenue. It was not all that long ago when oil was 20 dollars a barrel. The rise in price has resulted in a huge windfall, far in excess of just the good fortune of an accident of geography.

    I think that Perry will NEVER challenge multinational oil’s grip, the grip on extracting economic rent. This is just a guess, deduced from Perry’s association with Islamists.

    Break OPEC, with the stroke of a pen, and let the oil flow.

  36. says

    His Highness, the Aga Khan, the 49th Hereditary Imam of the Shia Imami Ismaili Muslims.”

    (All them labels make me think of the Star Trek character Lwaxana Troi, as potentially harmless nonsense.)

    Does the label of Imam (or even lowly “Muslim”) signify a noble designation?

    Article I, Section 9, Clause 8.

    No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

    This case might be a good read, on treason: Cramer v. United States, 325 US 1 (1945)

    The Perry speech is devastating: (very nice find, Courreges W)
    http://governor.state.tx.us/news/speech/5156/

    Every sequential reference to “His Highness” makes me feel sicker and sicker, with disgust.

    Perry has apparently been vetted . . . by the Islamists.

  37. says

    @ Roxane

    Look, I’ll explain it so that a five-year-old with cerebral palsy could understand.

    Believing Perry because he’s ‘likeable’ is like these people who say that they have Muslim neighbors who are ‘nice people’ so Islam must be a peaceful religion.

    You’re confusing a fuzzy, emotional feeling with hard-edged, uncomfortable facts.

    And anyone who does that *is* a clown!

  38. says

    You’ve attacked the “barely conservative” golden boy; the man who, on the surface, appeals to everything they sync with. How could you not expect to be attacked by them? they don’t have the courage to address their own cognitive dissonance with regards to Perry. It depresses them and reverts their hopes from concrete and tangible to abstractions once again after dealing with Obama for so long.

    It’s crushing to believe that there is someone out there, then to believe you’ve found them and then to have him attacked!?. It’s like an attack on ones self. It’s desperate defense for fear of being lobbed back into the void of “waiting for the right guy”.. Hell, they won’t even give Ron Paul any light at all. They ignore him like the other MSM outlets. AoS is seeming more like a honey pot for easily manipulated conservatives every day.

  39. says

    Conservatives never learn, first they were all warm and fuzzy for Bush Jr and now they get all warm and fuzzy for another dhimmi Perry. At the same time they have the gall to moan about the dhimmi messiah Obama.

    To think that conservatives are somehow clued up on Islam and anti-dhimmi is in the main simply not true. They may arguably not be as dhimmified as liberals, but that’s no cause for comfort.

    The vast majority of people on the Left and Right don’t have a clue about Islam, don’t care to know and the politicians are all corrupted to the gills. Even if not corrupt themselves, there is nothing any Republican or Democrat candidate can do to change the entrenched circus that is the Washington political culture, no matter what.

    In fact the whole Republican vs Democrat circus is just that, ain’t much to separate them. Expecting one candidate to turn things around (impossible and nuts to believe yet people believe it, rooted as it is in the popular delusion of the big man theory of history, that goes hand in hand with the denial of personal responsibility) is part of the consistent appeal of the farce that is the busted political ‘democratic’ system.

    Kind of like in the Muslim world, they keep thinking Islam is the solution to the problems in their society created by Islam. In the West we are just as deluded, keep thinking there are political solutions to problems exacerbated by idiot politicians, supported by the idiot public.

  40. says

    I happen to agree with Roxanne about Ms. Geller. She has become unhinged. Vide the collumns for that nutbag site, WorldNetDaily. Vide her nonsense about Global Warming. Vide her guff about the birth certificate.

    I depresses me intensely to see someone as clever as Robert Spencer go down this route, and it forces me to reconsider the charges made against blogs like Harry’s Place.

  41. says

    Because Spencer evidently admires Geller, I try to ignore the things about her that to me look sort of unhelpful to the Islam-critical movement. Though perhaps not in any way actually analogous to John Lennon’s alliance with Yoko, I feel somewhat the same way about Robert Spencer’s alliance with Pam Geller. Spencer is a superstar whose creations I love. Why is he bringing an amateur into the band I love, just because she’s a friend of his? Of course, I don’t have any real evidence to show that he allies with her mainly because she is a friend rather than because she is worthy of working on his level. As I say, the analogy may be entirely false. For one thing, her blog is apparently one of the biggest blogs out there as far as traffic. Still, all things considered, I just can’t see her at all in the same league as Spencer, any more than Yoko was in the same league as the writing team of Lennon & McCartney. In my perfect world, he wouldn’t associate his reputation so closely with hers. But if it works for him, if he thinks it’s for the best, I imagine he knows what he’s doing. Maybe I underestimate her.

  42. says

    Late getting here because of hurricane preparedness. I had to do all by myself because of my husband’s disability.

    Anyway, this “division” over Rick Perry is disturbing on many levels. But let me put aside that matter in this comment.


    Was the Perry camp embarrassed by the material that Pamela Geller published here, showing it to be a whitewash of Islamic teaching and history? Or was it taken down because it really is, as Ace says, so “biased against Muslims it will reinforce perceptions [Perry] is some kind of rootin’-tootin’ six-gun shooting cowboy yahoo”?

    I wish that I knew the definitive answers to those questions. Will we even get those definitive answers?

    In my view, there is no electable GOP candidate running for 2012 who also has a real grip on the threat of Islam: the Dems suck up to Islam, and the Republicans are infiltrated (by Grover Norquist and by others, I think). Once again, this time in 2012, we’re going to be stuck with voting against Obama instead of FOR the GOP candidate, whoever that might be.

    In my view, we cannot do worse than a second term with Obama in office for a second term. Isn’t that a sorry and depressing thing to have to say?

  43. says

    Just read that link to Perry’s 2008 speech welcoming the Aga Khan. It seems to me that Perry is implying that Muslims, Christians, and Jews worship the same God.

    Now I need an antacid.

  44. says

    I’ve folowed this discussion with interest and I appreciate
    Courreges W link:

    http://governor.state.tx.us/news/speech/5156/

    In the Gov’s first sentence the difficulty is defined. He says the Aga is a leader of 16 million muslims. That isn’t squat. Whatever the Khan thinks or says about islam is irrelevant. If Perry is taking his information from someone who only represents %0.01 of the world’s muslims then such information is invalid. Perry is apparently day dreaming on the subject.

  45. says

    @CGW – is that what it comes down to? You require absolute, uncritical agreement with every single point, or “beat it”? That sounds more like something to help you beat off.

    This is exactly the Namazie line that I find so repellent. Take a look around you, sunshine. How many people in this list? Ten? Twenty? Do you really, really think you can afford to just throw people under the bus – Charles Johnson style – that easily?

    Victory will not come, _cannot_ come from this attitude.

  46. says

    Interesting discussion. I am more interested in the principal question: How should a secular society teach about religion in public schools? Can it be done in an objective and balanced way or is such teachings necessarily religiously or politically biased?

    The only neutral and objective point of view on religions is the scientific one, and that implies a purely descriptive and atheistic point of view absent of any value judgments. Statements such as ‘the ethics of Christianity is better than the ethics of Islam’ is simply meaningless in a scientific context. The same argument can be made when it comes to politics. The statement ‘socialism is better than liberalism’ is just as meaningless.

    However, different religious religious or political beliefs have different consequences, but how do we decide which consequences to prefer and which to reject? That’s the ethical question. Can ethical truths be argued for rationally and consistently, or are they at the end always based upon an irrational choose? That is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

    If the answer is that our values or ethics cannot be determined by rationality, then there is in principle no difference between religion and politics, because both depends on an irrational choice equal to a belief. So why separate religion and politics?

    The separation clause in the First Amendment seems to be based upon the assumption that politics can be based upon rationality, but religion is by definition based upon belief, meaning holding something for true on grounds with does not imply the claimed truth. The fundamental political claim is that democratic rule is better than any other form of government. The objective of political philosophy is to prove rationally that democratic rule follows from a universal ethical principle that applies to all persons qua persons. In my view the political philosophers have done a rather poor job in this respect. The Founding Fathers refers to the ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God’ as justification for democracy.

    The first part imply that ethical judgments – democracy is best – can be derived from natural philosophy, which is manifestly wrong, because you then commit the naturalistic fallacy – trying to deduct from what is the case – the laws of nature – to what should be the case, the ethical principles or values.

    The second part is based upon a religious belief found in the monotheistic religions, that a God created the laws of nature. But no religion claim that the society should be democratically ruled, and even if they did, you will have a democracy based upon religious belief and not rationality.

    The intention of the separation clause is to prevent that laws are based upon religious belief or given a religious justification. Otherwise you could use the political system to force other people under your religion. That is the ‘price’ people must pay to have religious freedom and equality. But are people rational enough in their heads to separate what their religious beliefs oblige them to do and what is needed politically in order for the democratic society to upheld itself?

    In my view people does not generally posses the required level of rationality. So how is it possible to bring the needed ability to separate politics and religion into their heads? The most easy way is if the religion itself demands such a separation. If it refrains from being politics and therefore has no political laws – no political messages – in its preaching.

    Christianity, especially in its Lutheran evangelical versions, comes very close the this ideal and offers a helping hand in establishing secular democratic societies. Christianity is compatible with secular democracy and that is the main reason that a true secular democracy grew up from within in America, a society mainly consisting of various evangelical denominations. Many of them persecuted in Europe they were inclined to accept religious tolerance and accept a secular state that guaranteed religious freedom and religious equality.

    The problem is that Muslims does not get a helping hand from their religion when it comes to separate religion and politics. On the contrary, it is a basic tenet of Islam that religion and politics are one and the same, and Muslims are obliged to implement a large number of detailed and religiously sanctioned and unchangeable laws in any society they live in. From those elementary facts stems all the difficulties Islamic societies have with embracing secular democratic rule.

    You cannot force Muslims to ‘pay the price’ not using the political system to force others under their religion, because that would go against the basic democratic principle of political equality. Nothing can prevent a Muslim political party from trying to replace the U.S. Constitution with Sharia laws. It is perfectly legal and constitutional.

    I don’t care if Muslims and their apologists try to portray Islam as a religion of Peace and Tolerance (Socialists used to love Stalin and so what?), the main thing is that the curriculum in public schools teaching about religions should explicitly point out that the core teachings of Islam are incompatible with sustaining a secular democratic society, because religion and politics are one and the same, and demand that Muslims use their religion in the political system to force others under Islamic law.

    This is the main point in the political discussion about how religion should be taught in public schools. If Americans understand this point, they will also understand that Islam is not just another monotheistic religion but one that pose a challenge or a threat to secular democracy if the majority of Muslims follow the tenets of Islam in this respect and vote accordingly at the elections.

    I don’t know how many secular and fundamentalist Muslims there are in America but the growing political influence of Islam in the American society and its institutions is evident and something to take very seriously and act upon politically within the framework of the Constitution.

    Jihad Watch and especially Robert Spencer is doing an outstanding job in pointing out an analyzing what the tenets of Islam implies ethically. In this comment I have tried to focus on some crucial points that normally are in the periphery of the discussion.

  47. says

    FYI

    The cached copy of the curriculum referred to above has been removed by google.

    It is now available only in cached form here.

    The pages linked by the Atlas item also seem to have disappeared.

  48. says

    Ace is an apologist for his own doublespeak and incoherence.

    When I read his snarky stuff on this topic, it seems like nearly every other sentence or paragraph states the opposite idea of the previous sentence or paragraph. He appears to think that this “technique”, and being rude and snide, is a successful way to debate or convince his reader. There are a couple of paragraphs or points in his latest post that appeal to an honest reader, but then… poof, there he goes again…
    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/320661.php

  49. says

    Thank you Mr. Spencer. Well done. We need a strong GOP candidate to win in the elections of 2012, over obama. We need a list of wise politicians who, like Allen West are not afraid to speak up about the threat of islam. Will you be putting together a list of candidates who will not support the lies of islam and who recognize the threat of stealth jihad? We need candidates who will ban shariah laws in all states, control illegal immigration of muslims and so on. Will you be putting together a list of candidates, like, christie who support muslims of islam? We need to know the truth and we need advice on who to vote for. We were taken in by obama’s taqiyyah stance on islam and his deceptions about his own faith. We can not afford to have this happen again. We depend on people like you, Geller, Wilders and so on to keep telling us the truth. God bless America.

  50. says

    This is what should happen, information about people and what they stand for, and who the stand with. Robert has presented his points, and counter points have been made.

    It is interesting that Perry is leading, even though he has attended no debates. That he is leading the polls is not his doing, it is the people who give him a lead, many who no nothing, or next to nothing about his positions.

    Facts. That is all that matters, as long as what we can find out is used to judge our future leadership, not just a public photo opp.

    Robert is correct to raise the issue, and we should all desire to find the truth out, and follow what is found to support the badly needed new leadership for the country, no matter if it is Perry, or another path.

    I want to know more, as much as can be found and reported.

  51. says

    Re: commenter who posted about how people would react if a Christian university were to write a curriculum on Christianity. Let’s add– how ’bout if the klan members wrote the part about the klan and obots wrote the part about obama? (Well,,,)

    Yeah. First thing I thought, as a teacher, was — after majoring in social studies and studying it for years, I now need specialized training in one, only one, section of my curriculum that just happens to come from a group KNOWN to lie freely to anyone not in their group?

    Don’t think so. I’ve been an Ace fan, tho’ now that I read RS’s remarks, I wonder why — the frat-boy stuff does NOT come off out-of-context. And he’s allll wrong on this one.

    As I posted on his blog: I could only go with this “sect” that wrote the curriculum if they said they no longer saw mo as the perfect man and no longer believed the koran and its edicts against the Jews (and all unbelievers). And then it wouldn’t be islam, would it?

    You win, RS — Pamela, too. As usual. Bravo!

  52. says

    Can we knock off the word “shrill” used to describe anything a woman says? Yes, women have higher, often more emotional voices, but the word
    “shrill” is a meaningless slur, better left to the leftists who love to discuss a prominent woman’s voice, tone, or style — anything but her ideas.

    Whether or not one finds Geller OR Spencer “shrill” has nothing to do with the truth of their statements.

    I am disapointed, as although I don’t like Perry’s unwillingness to join in with Arizona, Georgia, et al with their anti-immigration laws, I was willing to give him a chance. Now that I see folks coming out of the woodwork when he is obviously wrong to have an islamist group write an islamist curriculum, he will go in the trash bin with Christie, as far as I am concerned.

  53. says

    citizen k, I’m not eloqent in my speech and most definately not in writing as you, but when you have coffee next morning with Ace, know that you are both quite goofy. Did you even read the article, dude?

  54. says

    In contrast, like a lot of people, I find Perry likeable so I would rather believe him then Geller.

    Let me get this straight. If someone says something inaccurate, questionable, suspicious, unclear or downright wrong, you’d rather believe them than someone asking questions about that possible candidate for the presidency of America simply because you find them ‘likeable’.

    What kinda logic is that?

    You’re a clown!

  55. says

    Robert,
    Geller gives as her evidence ONE single Independent School District. Do we know that this was one of the “10 key districts?” I have not seen this yet.

    Sorry but you evidence is FAR from convincing.

    As for Geller, she jumped in head first to all the dumb “watchmen” investigative “journalists” during the BP Macondo Spill. Not much different than many other websites trying to “get the scoop” and were fed erroneous info from nitwits.

    This certainly has all the earmarks of her jumping in head first again, unless she can come up with a good bit more “evidence.”

    I do not see anyone blocking anyone from investigating. However, I do see an outcry against those jumping to conclusions on, at best, sketchy, information.

    Pretend that I am from Missouri.

  56. says

    Russ, please read the red hightlighted text that Robert provided in a link located within the article (which is only one of many provided for the readers of the article given for the sole purpose of uncovering the truth). Even some of the text from it that Robert put in the article is enough to make one sick, but read away at what’s not provided in his article.
    After reading this you may want to ask yourself, “Is my best bet, which you stated as Perry on the upcoming presidential elections really worth it”? I would hope you delve into the links as well as the article because of the high stakes that the US and the world are facing.

    Please study and reconsider your choice. He does seem all that, but then again he is a politician. If he would break off all ties with these individuals and restructer that horrible misrepresentation of history (better to junk the whole bit due to its’ stealth purpose), I might reconsider him to be a good runner for the presidency.
    Regards…Garry

  57. says

    Are we really reduced to name calling at Jihadwatch?Likeability has little to do with “logic”.The reason Perry has jumped ahead of Romney in less then two weeks for the Republican nomination is because Perry is likeable.In 2008 then Senator Obama was an empty suit who should never have been elected President yet people liked him and wanted a “change” from Bush and so he was elected POTUS.People liked Obama more then Sen Clinton or Sen McCain who were both better qualified to be POTUS.Though I’m anti-Jihad and have been posting at this website for MANY years I like Perry while I find Geller shrill and unlikeable. The reason Geller is taking heat from conservatives for her attacks on Perry is because many conservatives like Perry.You can ignore that reality if you want to.

  58. says

    Robert, you and Pamela are exposing issues that need airing. Far too much is made of image, and personality, and sonorous speech, and winning debates. Life is not composed of only such matters, and often the best and the brightest and the most succesful stray far from those Hollywood contemporary standards, that far too many common everyday voters only consider.

    Few of the public have any concept, apparently, on how to question, what is important, how to get to it, and to insist on the details. Too many weak sisters, among us.

    Dan Greenfield has a fine piece on the problems of the cult of personality, here:

    http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/08/political-messiahs-in-tailored-suits.html

    Example appropriate of what he says is……..”The more excuses there are, the more wrong there is underneath. The excuses are the rational part of the mind being suppressed by the devoted grey matter that throws out explanations for everything. As excuses begin to contradict principles, a defensive show of angry outbursts follows. And the thinner the excuses are, the greater the anger.”……

    …..”The age of kings is done, but the immediacy of media has made image king. Our leaders are to be tall and handsome. James Madison and John Adams would have never stood a chance of being elected today. They are to be polished speakers. Lincoln with his notoriously shrill speaking voice would have been laughed out of a modern debate. And Washington with his difficulties socializing, brief speeches and dislike of ceremony would have found the modern campaign trail unbearable.

    There is no help for any of this. Or for a system that excludes the best from even seeking the office because they are not telegenic enough. But the media made image king is also a dangerous thing as it makes it all too easy to confuse the surface with the substance and confuse the physical qualities of leadership with the character of a leader. To fall in love with who a leader seems to be, rather than with who he really is.”….

    My comment is this: To vote is considered popularly as valuable as condeming Judaism, or Christianity, but voting, with intelligent examination of the choices, deep and challenging examination of the choices, with wisdom, is the single most important act in America that any American, who votes legitimately, will ever have the privilige to do in their lifetime! More valuable than marriage, buying a home or a car. That voter, must exercise wisdom, not prejudice, nor relity show popularity thinking!

    Because those voters are each choosing whether to live free, or to live in the prison of submission, be it to government, or religion, or worse, your totalitarian dictator! And each choice will produce downline consequences, that are meaningful, or mournful!

  59. says

    Sorry to disagree. Robert did not pick anyone apart.

    There are over 1000 Independent School Districts in the state of Texas.

    Geller pulls something from one of them, and likely one of the most radical ones. Heck it does not even include all the school districts from the city of San Antonio. It is the 3rd largest there.

    I have never been opposed to research and questioning. If one out of a thousand people has an IQ of 50 does that make the majority of the 1000 morons? It is a matter of simple common sense.

  60. says

    “Remember that the pro-jihad side as well as the pro-Obama crowd would love to see us all tear each other apart. Don’t let it happen.”

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

    In the scheme of things, as national campaigns go, this is hardly creating a ripple. But even if it did or ultimately does, it is the right thing to do and I would argue it is healthy to the process. It was something sorely missing when former President George W. Bush (I voted for Bush) ran for office in 2000. To be fair, that was pre-9/11/2001. Even after the 9/11 attacks, conservatives, Republicans, Republican leaders and conservative activists were shamefully silent. Even as President Bush told one untruth after another untruth about Islam to the American people, we were culpably silent. It is not befitting a great political movement or a great political party to ‘circle the wagons’ by maintaining our silence in the face of a great evil. That is how nations get dangerous men like Barack Hussein Obama; by silence in the face of evil. Read German history during the years of the Weimar Republic. You will see the same thing; silence and complicity with extremists on the part of German leaders, industrialists, military establishment; silence in the face of evil, street violence, pogroms, etc. Make no mistake about it, conservatives and Republicans stand condemned by history for our collective silence during the Bush years. I include myself in this indictment. For too long I maintained a discreet silence out of fear that the opposition would “love to see us all tear each other apart.” Let it not happen again.

  61. says

    “Remember that the pro-jihad side as well as the pro-Obama crowd would love to see us all tear each other apart. Don’t let it happen.”

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

    One more thing before I let this rest. Those who need to not “let it happen” are the David Steins, the Alana Goodmans, the Erick Ericksons, etc. All the whiners and complainers. These are the folks who are harming Perry.

  62. says

    Wellington, we both know (maybe other readers as well), you and I have gone round and round on this subject. Did Bush “lie” or mislead the public (even if inadvertently) about Islam? Did Bush mislead the public because he was ill-informed or ignorant? Was Bush well-meaning? A Perry supporter in Texas (a Republican party activist) told me, she thinks Perry’s editorial on September 20, 2001 – the same day Bush gave his address to a joint session of Congress and the American people – might have been given to him by Bush or administration officials. This seems plausible enough as it looks, point by point, almost identical to what Bush said that evening.

    Daniel Greenfield wrote: “That’s from a post 9/11 editorial. And it’s echoed elsewhere. Perry’s views haven’t changed since. Witness this NPR piece from last year:

    …Perry was asked if he was comfortable with the way that some people talk about the problem with terrorism ” their concern to say that the real problem is “Muslims” or “Muslim countries.”

    “The radicalization of Islam is a great concern,” Perry said. “Islam of and by itself is one of the great religions, along with Christianity and Judaism.” He recalled meeting one of the Democratic candidates for Texas governor in the recent election. “He’s a Palestinian. And he and I were having a conversation about Ground Zero. How do you deal with this? He said, well, it’s pretty easy. He said, ‘Build a synagogue, a temple, and a church there. And bring these people together.'”

    The point is – this is where you and I disagree – it is indefensible that a U.S. president or a governor of a state can be this ill-informed on an issue of such critical national importance.

  63. says

    Fanusi, quoting above from Ace of Spades : “Are you shitting me? Gellar’s (sic) attacking this? This reads like her fucking blog for fuck’s sake. In Texas, they’re fucking reading ‘Atlas Shrugs’ to the kids, and Geller’s complaining. Maybe it’s because she thinks she’s owed royalties.”

    What is that all about? Ace of Spades is a reputable site?

  64. says

    I’m exceedingly tired of people like you giving links to a “following search.” Argue in your own words, not someone else’s. Put up or shut up IN YOUR OWN WORDS. No more damn links. Also, exactly when have you argued in Robert Spencer’s defense “over and over” as you have claimed? Prove it with specific examples. If you don’t, all those here at JW who know the true worth of Islam will consider you a fraud. Count on it.

  65. says

    Sorry, but I don’t understand what you mean by your comments to me here.

    I just finished saying that I would pass Robert’s information to others. I don’t know how you can take that for being silent on this issue, when my comment states exactly the opposite.

    Of course we should disagree and speak up when the situation warrants it. The important thing is to be sure the information you are going by is accurate. As far as I can see at this point in this complicated issue, Robert and Pamela’s information seems to be accurately documented. If I later find otherwise, I will say so.

  66. says

    No. I can see where you are coming from. I understand you are sympathetic to Spencer’s point of view. I was not referring to you (specifically) when I speak of silence from the right. It is a general observation I made during the second term of the Bush administration. I include myself in the condemnation.

  67. says

    Actually, wildjew, I don’t think we disagree (or very much). By now (really years ago) all sensible people should realize that Islam is not just another religion. It is, to be frank, spiritual fascism.

    While I certainly don’t think that George Bush and Rick Perry are malevolent men, I do think they are ignorant men to the extent that they still assert that Islam is a noble, wonderful, great, peaceful, blah, blah, blah religion.

    And more pointedly, respecting your last sentence, I see no disagreement between you and me. To wit, by this time, the year 2011, it is no longer in any way defensible for ANY Western leader, least of all a President of the United States, to continue to assert that Islam is a good thing, a positive thing. Such ignorance, even if coming from the best of intentions, is no longer an option which is defensible ethically, legally, politically or philosophically. As I have argued many times here at JW, the free world needs a POTUS who will give a new Evil Empire Speech.

  68. says

    “”The radicalization of Islam is a great concern,” Perry said. “Islam of and by itself is one of the great religions, along with Christianity and Judaism.” He recalled meeting one of the Democratic candidates for Texas governor in the recent election. “He’s a Palestinian. And he and I were having a conversation about Ground Zero. How do you deal with this? He said, well, it’s pretty easy. He said, ‘Build a synagogue, a temple, and a church there. And bring these people together.'”

    At the Ground Zero location only a mosque was allowed a building permit…the St Nicolas Orthodox Greek Church which was destroyed when the Twin Towers fell was denied a permit to rebuild…It is an eerie relation to the Islamic law in certain Muslim dominated lands that Christian churches cannot be built or repaired. Why did the Palestinian candidate omit mentioning a mosque?.

  69. says

    Here are the facts of where our sources of imported oil is from…
    http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0_mbbl_m.htm

    That being said, only simple integrated refineries are likely to use Saudi crude oil. For those who think that the Keystone XL pipeline carrying Canadian syncrude to be distributed to refineries in TX and LA will replace Saudi imports, you are sadly mistaken. Different types of crude are for different types of refineries. The most complex refineries in the world are those in TX and LA. They are also the only ones which can economically refine heavy crude such as those from Venezuela and PEMEX’s Mayan grade of crude as their major source of feedstock. Canadian syncrude CANNOT be economically refined in the same type of refinery which utilizes such light sweet crude oil as comes from Saudi Arabia. However, crude oil from fields in the Gulf of Mexico does replace Saudi crude as a light sweet crude.

    The shale oil plays in ND, TX and soon in LA also can replace Saudi crude. Another source yet allowed is the kerogen in the Green River formation is also of a similar light sweet grade. However, at present a per bbl price of $80 is required for it to be economically viable at all. Likely this can be reduced to $60 per bbl if production is cranked up in full.

    You are all forgetting a shale play similar to that of the Green River formation which has been recently found in Israel and at a lower extraction cost due lack of need to isolate aquifers to produce it. The mayor of Midland, TX (GOP) is president of the company which has been given this concession by Israel. http://www.judithlevy.com/?p=646

    Of course, it is not so simple as cutting off Saudi crude oil imports, since other countries are heavily dependent upon that source (btw Hawaiian refineries cannot refine the sour Alaskan crude). In addition, Saudi Arabia has invested heavily into building basic petrochemicals production while here in the U.S. we seem to want to be rid of such facilities thanks in large to the Clinton Energy Policy which artificially jacked up the price of natural gas.

  70. says

    I understand your point. I am a big proponent of domestic drilling and exploration and for seeking alternate sources of energy. Natural gas can be used in conjunction with oil in automobiles that are properly fitted. They do it in Argentina. Why aren’t we looking at that technology? As I have come to understand it, Saudi Arabia has the largest oil reserves on the planet. Saudi Arabia can set the price on the world market, depending on how much oil they produce. That is why Saudi Arabia holds so much sway and influence over the oil-dependent west.

  71. says

    Spencer has argued for a kind of “Manhattan Project” to wean ourselves from or eliminate our dependence on Muslim and Muslim-Arab oil. I agree.

  72. says

    While I am certainly in full agreement, it is not as simple as that. Heck, it would put money into my pocket! Different crude oil is for different types of products. Certainly it is not just the crude oil itself but also other products of it produced in the Middle East in world scale brand new facilities.

    Then there is the aspect of the rest of the world and which companies are dependent upon it.

    To just state “Manhattan Project” still is naive and lacking in knowledge.

    Also, note that Saudi Arabia has to import sand for concrete (theirs is not course enough), as well as grain and other food stuffs. They also have to import the engineering and technicians.

    FYI, there is a lot of importation of high end whiskey for the elite of the Saudi hierarchy.

  73. says

    Vetting and jumping to conclusions on sparse info are two different things.

    As for the charisma, he would have little if there was not such of an economic success in Texas over the last several years, in particular. That alone puts him as a front runner.

  74. says

    HOW TO BREAK OPEC’s POWER OVER THE U.S. TRANSPORT SECTOR

    By asking your representative in the U.S. House of Representatives to help pass the bill H.R. 1687 — the Open Fuel Standard Act of 2011 — you do something very practical to resist sharia and jihad.

    The bill currently has 16 Republican and Democratic co-sponsors in the House of Representatives. Get your rep to co-sponsor it too!

    The Open Fuel Standard Act of 2011 (HR 1687) would require a rapidly increasing percentage of new cars sold in the U.S. to include a small change that would cost $100 a car. The fix would allow cars to run on any fuel and any mix of fuels (including methanol, ethanol, bio-diesel, or gasoline). The fix would break OPEC’s power over the price of transport fuel. It would create price competition among fuels and increasingly allow drivers to choose at the pump which fuel they want to buy. The Open Fuel Standard Act of 2011 (HR 1687) is supported by a coalition of strange bedfellows who normally might not agree with each other: former national security officials, environmentalists, military bigwigs, evangelicals.

    To see why to support the Open Fuel Standard Act of 2011 (HR 1687), check out this video featuring Frank Gaffney, Robert McFarlane, James Woolsey, Anne Korin, and others:

    America’s Fuel Choice: Breaking Oil’s Monopoly on the Transport Sector

    And check out this website: http://www.setamericafree.org

    Set America Free is a coalition including Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum; Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy; former CIA head James Woolsey; former National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane; former secretary of Energy Admiral James Watkins; former commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet Admiral James Lyons; Orson Swindle, Former Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission and Vietnam POW; and others.

    See also this website: http://www.openfuelstandard.org

    You can contact your representative to support the Open Fuel Standard Act of 2011 (H.R. 1687) by email if you go here:

    http://www.actforamerica.org/index.php/contact-congress

    But a thousand times more effective than email is to telephone your representative.

    1) Click here to get your representative’s phone number:
    http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt

    2) When you get to that website, just put your zipcode in the box, hit enter, then images of your representative (and your two senators) will appear.

    3) Then click on your representative’s picture, and several tabs will appear, including a “contact” tab.

    4) Click on the contact tab and you’ll see phone numbers for your representative.

    If you telephone, politely ask the name of the staffer who handles flex fuel issues or energy issues, then ask to speak to that staffer. Politely tell the staffer you support passage of the Open Fuel Standard Act of 2011, HR 1687.

    And have a look at this page: How to Influence Your Representative

  75. says

    Qouting Rick Perry:

    http://governor.state.tx.us/news/speech/5156/
    The Quran says: “Truly those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabeans – whoever believes in (Allah) and the Last Day and is virtuous – surely their reward is with their Lord, and no fear shall come upon them, neither shall they grieve.”

    This verse is directed to those who believe in (worship) Allah and the last day. Does Perry worship Allah?

  76. says

    I rarely read Aces website as I usually find his posts too snarky for my taste. However he has written a long well thought out post in response to this post by Robert. So far that post has generated over 400 responses I’ve only read the first 100 replies and many are negative about Geller.One poster described her as “a shrieking harpy of anti-dhimmi correctness”.I think Geller has marginalized herself with her “over the top” comments so that some anti-Jihadists either ignore or dismiss her.IMO the worst thing about this latest episode involving Geller is that the attacks on Perry have managed to get anti-Jihadists fighting against each other when we should be directing our energy at Jihad supporters.

  77. says

    Beat it, then. We don’t need dissenters in our ranks.

    We will be the VICTORS. Side with the wimpy losers if you will.

  78. says

    “Robert,
    Geller gives as her evidence ONE single Independent School District. Do we know that this was one of the “10 key districts?” I have not seen this yet.

    Cancer and many other life-threatening ailments begin with a single cell and if caught early enough is easily cureable, however if left unattended could ultimately become uncontrollable and fatal.

    Knowledge about Islam is something the Islamic supremacists don’t want the easily gullible American public to have as it makes them uncontrollable and potentially fatal. It might just interfere with their plans.

  79. says

    Perry is so frickin’ ignorant about Islam. Some minion got him that verse probably from a Mohammedan and he goes with it, just as W went with the “religion of peace” BS.

  80. says

    On 10/12/2006, Speigel interviewed Aga Khan: “Islam Is a Faith of Reason”

    I am not sure what Khan considers “cosmopolitan ethics.”

    Khan: You either accept the results of democracy or you don’t (i.e., you accept the results — of Germany’s elections in early nineteen thirties, Palestinian elections, January 2006 (Hamas won the election, with 74 seats…) — or you don’t.

    excerpts:

    SPIEGEL: President Karzai is a personal friend of yours. Many people see him as a weak leader, and some call him “Mayor of Kabul” because he is unable to control large parts of the country.

    Aga Khan: We should do everything to help him. He has an enomously complex agenda to deal with. He is our best hope. And besides, he is the elected leader and we have to work with the parliament.

    SPIEGEL: Even if warlords and a former members of the Taliban are represented in Afghanistan’s parliament?

    Aga Khan: You either accept the results of democracy or you don’t. Otherwise you talk about qualifying democracy.

    SPIEGEL: That means the West should deal with the radical Islamist Hamas as well?

    Aga Khan: You have to work with whoever the population has elected as long as they are willing to respect what I call cosmopolitan ethics. Now, it’s true that Hamas has a record of conflict …

    SPIEGEL: … of outright terror …

    Aga Khan: … but it would not be the only time that movements that have such a record make it into parliament, and even end up in charge of government later on….

  81. says

    “The only neutral and objective point of view on religions is the scientific one, and that implies a purely descriptive and atheistic point of view absent of any value judgments.”

    Wow, you don’t even hear the contradiction here, do you?

    An atheist’s view of religion is hardly value-judgement free!

  82. says

    Like all the candidates, Bachmann has made some missteps.

    erhm, Bachmann lost me at her first misstep then: choosing Ed Rollins.

  83. says

    joeblough says:

    “The cached copy of the curriculum referred to above has been removed by google.
    It is now available only in cached form here.
    The pages linked by the Atlas item also seem to have disappeared.”

    Who would have thought that the “memory hole” described by George Orwell in the novel “1984” would become such a reality?

  84. says

    CFT says:

    “Thank you Mr. Spencer. Well done. We need a strong GOP candidate to win in the elections of 2012, over obama. We need a list of wise politicians who, like Allen West are not afraid to speak up about the threat of islam. ”

    This is a great idea for Robert Spencer to implement. Even if there is a Democrat candidate out there that understands the dangers of the jihads: stealth and open RS should acknowledge him/her.

    On the presidential candidate list, it seems like the list of jihad-aware candidates is very low.