Articles

Monday, August 15, 2011

Rick Perry and Islam

Some questions have been raised about Rick Perry's views on Islam. Islamic infiltration into American politics means that every candidate deserves close scrutiny. My purpose is not to attack Perry, but to conduct a preliminary discussion of the subject. Pamela Geller and Debbie Schlussel have written their own articles, which add more pieces to the puzzle. As with every candidate, the discussion will go on as more materials are brought forward.

Perry at the signing of the Texas Halal Law
First of all it's important to recognize that the Rick Perry question, is also the Chris Christie question, it's the question that comes with every governor from a state with a large and politically active Muslim population. This question will have more serious implications as the size of the Muslim population expands even further.

The multicultural pandering that used to be associated with the Tammany Hall political machine has become second nature in American politics. There is hardly a governor who does not pay lip service to diversity or do roundups of all the religious groups in America. That's an unfortunate reality.

The initial good news is that Rick Perry did not try to influence the judicial system on behalf of a member of a terrorist organization, or appoint a terrorist Imam's political affiliate to a superior court judgeship the way that Christie did.

The worst thing he seems to have done is played footsie with the Aga Khan and appointed one of his people to the State Health Council. He also seems to have met with a group of black clergy, which included a Nation of Islam minister, and made the usual trips to Dubai to talk up trade and academic exchanges.

Then there's the Texas Halal Law, which makes it a criminal offense to sell Halal and non-Halal meat in the same store, without specifically labeling the two, and of misrepresenting non-Halal meat as being Halal. In theory that's not such a big deal. Similar laws are on the books for Kosher meat. But the problem comes with the definition of what Halal is.

"Halal," as applied to food, means food prepared and served in conformity with Islamic religious requirements according to a recognized Islamic authority.

That comes from the bill's definition. And it raises the question of who is recognized as an Islamic authority. HB 470 leaves that question open. But in a dispute over which Islamic definition of Halal to use, the State of Texas would be forced to rule on a question of Islamic law. And to enforce that law. Texas would become an enforcer of Sharia.

The Texas Halal Law was lobbied for by Mohamed Elibiary and his Freedom and Justice Foundation and is quoted in a recent article about their positive relationship with Perry. Elibiary has spoken at an event honoring the Ayatollah Khomeini and recommends the writings of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Last year he wrote an op-ed warning against assassinating Al-Qaeda leaders. And of course he's busy educating Americans about Sharia.

At the signing, Perry made a point of thanking Imam Bakhash for all that he does. Bakhash also appears to be one of the judges on the Texas Islamic Court, whose decisions have been upheld as binding by Texas appellate courts.

Then there's Perry's friendly relationship with Farouk Shami, who has a rather ugly background when it comes to Israel, and who suggested that 9/11 might be a conspiracy. He is the Palestinian in the Perry quote mentioned below.

Believe it or not, all this is the good news. It's a sad commentary on the state of Islamic infiltration that this is business as usual in state politics. The bad news is that this means Perry's as bad on Islam as George W. Bush. Maybe worse.

Like most of the world’s major religions, the Islamic faith preaches peace, love and tolerance. Indeed, terrorism is the antithesis of the basic tenet to which the one billion Islamic followers all over the world adhere.

The Koran teaches that “whoever killed a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life shall be regarded as having served all mankind.”

The heartfelt condolences and overtures of cooperation that have been offered by Islamic communities in Texas portray the true spirit of Islam.

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.

The governor of this swiftly changing state works to take a nuanced approach to a minority group that’s been very much at the center of the news. "We have a huge Muslim community in the state of Texas," he says, and many of these Muslims are "great businessmen and women, very good supporters of mine. ... We are an incredibly diverse state. I sell it as part of our strength."

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.'"

How problematic is this? Again this is Bush territory. It's insipid and dangerously ignorant. It's one thing to hear it from the governor of a state with a sizable Muslim population. But it's inappropriate for a president. And yet it's also inevitable.

As some have pointed out, Perry is pro-Israel. So was Bush. It didn't stop him from toadying to Saudi Arabia and Abbas, or from pressuring Israel to make concessions to terrorists during his second term. It's possible to be pro-Israel and pro-Islam. And when the scales are weighed, then Islam comes first. If you doubt that, go look at what happened when Bush was pressured by the Saudis.

But this isn't about Israel. It's about Islam. Specifically it's about addressing the threat of Islamic terrorism.

Perry has pandered on Mexican illegal immigration and on Islamic terrorism, as Bush did before him. Will he keep it up once he gets elected the way that Bush did? Hard to say, but the odds are good that he will.

Some will note that this article is not particularly harsh compared to my original piece on Christie. And with good reason. There's no fundamental breach here, just a slow erosion of ideas and values. But there's a larger reason too.

Christie's position as US Attorney and his role in prosecuting terrorists meant that he knew exactly what he was doing. And he did it anyway. For all his smirking and bellowing, that's the unforgivable thing.

I don't know how much Perry knows or understands. Which is the larger reason why I'm not harshly attacking him for what he did and said at the state level. A slow trickle of criticism may move him to the right, better than a complete rejection. Pandering to Muslims was part of Texas politics. But he's running for nationwide office in a country where Muslims are less of a political force than they are in his state. That may give him more freedom to break with the past.

Perry and Farouk Shami
The very fact that two Texas governors have done it this way suggests that the entire political path to the top is badly contaminated. That it's easier to pander than to take a stand. But while I keep comparing Perry to Bush, and this is a personal view, I don't read the same sincerity in Perry, that I did in Bush. There's too much showmanship and I'm not sure who the man underneath is. He may be more to the right, he may be more to the left, or he may not care at all. As the race continues, it may be easier to get a read on him. Maybe.

The last four years are a reminder that we could do worse than Bush II, but maybe we could do better. With Perry in the race, the two frontrunners, Romney and Perry will be clones of each other. Two aggressively business oriented governors with no real interest in protecting American manufacturing or resisting the Islamization of America. One of whom looks like a Tea Party friendly populist, but more in style than in substance.

Perry may shoot a gun into the air, but his rhetoric is the same old Compassionate Conservatism. He may be more authentically Texan than Bush, but the substance of his ideas is the same. NAFTA, education for illegal aliens, and Islam is a great religion.

Whatever we say and do, he may be the inevitable candidate. The man who merges the strongest points of Huckabee and Romney into one populist friendly package. Who sells a pro-business compassionate conservatism that comes off as a low pain alternative to Obama. But before that it might not be such a bad thing to pore over the details of his record in office.

Perry is certainly an improvement on Obama. But in a race where Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, Palin and Gingrich have spoken out about the dangers of Islam-- everyone is gathering to cheer a man who celebrates it. Is this what the struggle of the last 3 years comes down to? Did we go through all this just to put Bush era policies back into office?

87 comments:

Lemon said...

Along with his big Pharma push for Gardasil, a drug that has killed so many young woman and girls, this guy is a huge loser from start to finish. He would be a horrible president. He's a cafone!

in the vanguard said...

This islam connection sure paints a new, gloomy picture of this guy. And, together with Lemon's point, this guy is pure bad news. Thanks for the revelation!

Elizabeth said...

Thank you for a 'calm' piece on Perry's past in regards to his dealings with Islamic issues. I cannot ignore these facts and in this early stage of the campaign these things need to be known. Must clear head (say like Homer S.).

Paul said...

Thanks for this bit of news. Knowing that he panders to illegals is enough for me to write him off. But there is no such thing as too much information on presidential candidates.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Yes a clear head and an even keel is best.

mindRider said...

For any candidate: Follow the percentages and the money, by which I mean pure pragmatism prevails in most politicians. Almost by nature politicians are devoid of strong moral stands, to be elected they need votes and cash so they will cater to whomever provides such.

Anonymous said...

I don't think we're going to find a "politician" who hasn't been building bridges in the multicultural realm during his or her career.. They all want to be seen as open-minded when it comes to different religions because they want the votes and makes for a great photo-op. Bottom line. Who isn't like that? Colonel Allen West? But he's not running.

Yael said...

Well, this is really unfortunate. And terribly discouraging. I can understand hysterics like Pamela and Debbie Schlussel (who once called me a "kapo") starting up this band, but I really didn't expect that you would jump on their wagon.

Again, there is no mention of his longstanding record of support for Israel, his "Defender of Jerusalem" award, the facts that TX invests heavily in State of Israel bonds and is one of Israel's most active trading partners, etc.

If you - of all people - are going to raise the specter of Texas becoming "an enforcer of sharia," when in fact Texas would be the last place on earth to do so, we might as well hand the election to Obama.

Edward Cline said...

Daniel: I usually read Jihad Watch hours before you post your column. I just posted this comment on an Andrew Klaven Pajamas Media piece:

I left this comment on a Pajamas Media article about the enthusiasm for Rick Perry:
http://pajamasmedia.com/andrewklavan/2011/08/15/my-heart-stirred-a-review-of-rick-perrys-speech/#comment-9564

Sorry, Andrew, you're a fine entertainer, but Rick Perry's an Islamic dhimmi. Go here for the awful truth, on Jihad Watch.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/08/geller-rick-perry-the-stealth-jihad-candidate.html#comments
He's approved, for example, the brainwashing of Texas schoolchildren by Islamic “outreach” Muslims. Where are your brains? Is the right going to be as evasive about a candidate’s qualifications and background as the left was about Obama’s?

Besides, I no more want an evangelical Christian for a president than I'd want a Muslim.

Zilla/MJ said...

There is only ONE candidate in the current GOP field who is extremely knowledgable about the threat of islam with its jihad and sharia, who has consistently and unwaveringly spoken and written honestly about it - as he has been doing for years - and that candidate is former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. I know because I did my homework. You can see why I feel this way here:
http://zillablog.marezilla.com/2011/05/how-about-rick-santorum-for-president.html
Unfortunately, the stealth jihadis and blind dhimmis have thoroughly infiltrated THE RIGHT as it has the left, which you can read about in my piece about "Conservative" Dhimmitude, here:
http://zillablog.marezilla.com/2011/02/conservative-dhimmitude.html
Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful post about Rick Perry's islamopandering. I'll be referring to it in an upcoming post at my place. America simply cannot survive yet another president who fails to understand that islam wants to destroy our country.

Anonymous said...

Never believe anything that Debbie Schlussel or Pam Geller writes. Perry is a guy who creates jobs and who says America need not apologize to the world. Nominate a Santorum, Gingrich, Bachmann et al and watch Obama win a 45 state victory. All politicians pander, it is what they do. What do you think Gingrich was doing sitting on a couch with Pelosi?

but pygmies said...

Bolton...

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Yael,

I'm not jumping on any wagon, I'm looking at the situation as it is. If you have any more material, I'm happy to introduce it. But the Defender award comes from a private foundation run by a rather eccentric oilman. It's not of any real significance.

Perry's Texas has had long standing economic ties with Israel. That's true. And he's said some very nice things, but none of that really differs from Bush.

Can you seriously say that Perry is better on Islam than most of the candidates running?

I honestly would like to hear an answer.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Zilla, I agree that we need a leader who understands Islam, rather than pandering to it.

Anon, you can read Perry's own words above. Are you really comfortable with them?

Yes Perry is a guy who creates jobs. Romney is running on the same platform. But we might want to talk about the Jihad for a moment.

Yael said...

Daniel, with all due respect and even affection, you're driving me nuts. Can you not hear yourself? Perry "on Islam"? Not Perry on jihad or sharia, but all of Islam (and, I assume, its adherents worldwide)?? Any presidential candidate has to take a definitive positive on an entire religion?

How would you feel if Walt & Mearsheimer were to refer to a politican's "position on Judaism"? I must say, W&M could make a better case for Perry being "a man who celebrates" Zionism - or who's "toadying up" to Zionists- than you have made for his celebrating Islam and "toadying up" to Muslims.

Your case amounts to a bunch of "maybe-it's-likely-that-he-would..." What strikes me as so terribly unfair about it is the flimsiness of the inferences with which you discredit the man. Guilt-by-appearance-together-in-public? and omigosh, he actually thanked a Muslim?! I just don't see any "there" there.

To my mind, you've slid down a very slippery slope here and have some 'splainin' to do. Rather than my needing to defend Perry "on Islam," as you put it, maybe you need to explain the specifics of how this litmus test of yours (and others) is going to work. Must a candidate publicly repudiate Islam in order to pass your muster? Or must they never have come into contact with any Muslims in their decades-long public life? And too, I'd appreciate hearing how your casting these aspersions on Perry is not the equivalent of antisemitism turned inside out, because that's exactly how it reads to me.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

I'm not expecting Perry to do anything that other Republicans in and out of the race haven't done.

I'm not even criticizing him for what he hasn't said. I am criticizing him for repeating Bush era nonsense about how wonderful Islam is.

I am criticizing him for pandering to Muslims after 9/11 and ever since.

I would ask you plainly and simply how someone who writes this after 9/11 is qualified to run the War on Terror.

Like most of the world’s major religions, the Islamic faith preaches peace, love and tolerance. Indeed, terrorism is the antithesis of the basic tenet to which the one billion Islamic followers all over the world adhere.

Do you think someone who thinks this way is our best choice for running the War on Terror?

Are these the words of someone who gets it... or doesn't?

Anonymous said...

Yael, very good post #15

Mr. Knish - this thread is not up to your usually high standards. Pam Geller is a self promoting hysteric and Debbie Schlussel is an embittered woman who specializes in trashing other conservatives. You can and have done better. No POTUS will ever come out and tell the truth about Islam. One of three people will be elected next year - Obama, Romney or Perry. For America and Israel the best of the three is Rick Perry.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Anon, maybe it will come to that, but I'm not prepared to throw in the towel and accept this as the best we can do.

It feels a little futile to go back to Bush era policies on Islam and immigration.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

And I'd like to add one thing.

When I've come out in support of candidates, I did it with listing their major flaws. I didn't deny them or pretend that they don't exist.

No support for a candidate can really be trusted unless those flaws are addressed.

When I supported McCain, I spelled out what was wrong with him. Ditto for Giuliani.

If I end up supporting Perry, I will do the same.

I don't believe in blindly embracing saviors. I believe only in a critical support.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Knish - I do not believe in saviors either, that is why the Palnistas in my opinion are so laughable and even funnier are the demented Bachmann Bunch and Paulians. Politicians are flawed individuals as are every last one of them. By the way the Bush Family tried to defeat Perry back in 2010.
I do not recall Ronald Reagan exactly being a pillar of anti Islamism either.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

btw: a great illustration from Bosch that also illustrates the problem

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/2011/08/praying-that-islam-means-peace-5-xs-day.html

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Indeed politicians are flawed. That's what this is about.

Reagan wasn't perfect either, but had he presided over 9/11, his attitude would have likely changed.

Anonymous said...

Isn't Islamofascism as much a problem as Islamic terrorism? After all, if we become good dhimmis (at least the people of the book that is, the idolators and atheists would have to convert or die, at least if the Quran is any guide) and live as second-class citizens paying the jizya tax to our Islamonazi masters supposedly there will be no need for Islamic terrorism.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Sure. Islamic terrorism is a preliminary stage, followed by guerrilla warfare, the carving out of separate spheres of influence and an Islamic state.

That's one path.

The majority "moderate" path being followed is to build political influence, infiltrate, overpopulate and disarm. Then take over.

Anonymous said...

@Edward

If you think an "evangelical Christian" is as much of a problem as a Muslim president I invite you to move to any of the 50+ states of the OIC, where there won't be any "evangelical Christians" of any sort involved in running the country in any capacity whatsoever.

cornholio said...

I just wanted to say thanks for your excellent essays Daniel. I only wish you were running for political office so I could vote for you.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Running for office is the surest way to be corrupted by the system.

Juniper in the Desert said...

Yael:"How would you feel if Walt & Mearsheimer were to refer to a politican's "position on Judaism"?" what you don't seem to understand is that Judaism and Israel are separate. The faith and the country are not one and the same thing, islam IS a faith, a political system and there is no separation between church and state. Therefore "islam" is the correct word.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Daniel, thanks for the mention/link. Here's what I wrote in response to a piece going around, purporting to debunk that Perry is pro-Sharia:

Regardless what you think you’ve debunked here, Rick Perry is yet another Islamophile president wanna-be in a post 9/11 world. He has written that:

“..the Islamic faith preaches peace, love and tolerance.”

After Bush and Obama, the last thing we need in the white house is yet another fan of Islam who will not say and do what is necessary about the threat we face.

Being pro-islam, with not One word of criticism, inevitably leads to being pro-Sharia. We can do better, we had Better do better. No More Islamophilic candidates. Look what the last two have wrought.

Dr.D said...

Perry is very much an open borders RINO who only a few years ago was a registered DEM. He changes his spots when it is convenient. He is not to be trusted with the fate of the nation.

Do not credit him with the strong economy of Texas. That is due to the Texas constitution and the people. The position of governor of Texas is almost a powerless figurehead with few duties or powers. He can do very little.

Yael said...

Daniel, your quote from Perry "after 9/11" comes from exactly NINE DAYS "after 9/11." Were we all not in shock at that time? And wasn't it the responsibility of the governor of TX to respond to the "distressing reports of mosques that have been firebombed and shot at, a young woman of Middle Eastern descent... pelted with stones, a blaze at a Houston automotive repair shop owned by a Pakistani Muslim -- even a Pakistani grocer in Dallas who was murdered" ?? What would you have had him say at that time, in that situation? It's completely unfair of you to expect anyone, but Perry in particular in this instance - to have responded on 9/20/2001 with a 2011 perspective (that has taken the rest of humankind ten years to develop).

I haven't checked but I would bet my house that governors and other public officials all over the country were saying basically the same thing, as was Bush. It was obviously motivated by the need to keep calm and peace in the streets and stave off violent anti-Muslim reactions -- like the very ones he listed in that same editorial, that happened in his state.

It's one thing to cherry-pick what he wrote, but you can't take it out of the temporal context in which it was written. Well, you can, you already did. But it's not fair.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Plenty of people were in shock on 9/11. The usual response was not to deliver a canned message about how wonderful Islam is. The more natural response went in the other direction.

My first quote is from 2001. The next one is from 2010. There's no difference.

If you can show me that Perry's views on Islam have evolved, I would be happy to see it.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Reposting: Yael, has Perry changed his tune about Islam? I don't think so, but if you know something, I think we'd all like to know. Bush tried selling "Islam means peace" for nearly his entire presidency and never changed his tune.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Post 9/11, the honest told the truth about Islam, or if they didn't know about it, they did their homework before saying one word about it. Unlike Bush. Can you imagine FDR running to the podium to utter "Shinto means peace" right after Pearl Harbor? Perry has shown No interest in dealing with the truth about Islam, which will make him as effective as Bush & Obama have been against the enemy.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Yes, at the time even liberals were angry. It was certainly possible to state that no one had the right to lash out at people or take the law into their own hands... without at the same time singing the praises of Islam.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

And while most officials from Bush on down did say something similar, there were important variations.

There's a major difference between saying we respect them and we urge everyone not to attack them... and a straight up praise of Islam as a religion of peace that has nothing to do with terrorism.

Perry did the latter. So did Bush. So did many others.

There were public officials who did the usual ecumenical thing post 9/11 who also said things in less public functions that showed they got it. And showed that their views were evolving.

I don't see that with Perry. It's not one thing he said after 9/11. There's little there. He will condemn terrorism, but so will just about everyone. He will make pro-israel statements, but again so will most everyone.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

And again down to the campaign now, Perry will have to demonstrate that he can step up to the standards of Bachmann, Palin, Gingrich, etc and that his view of Islam has evolved from platitudes like these.

He didn't demonstrate that in 2010 or since.

Van Grungy said...

Rick Perry speaks of islam like new world order baha'i do..

Madeline Brooks said...

I read Perry as a slick politician, probably more electable than the other Republican candidates. I wonder how deep his ignorance about Islam or pandering to it goes. Here is something about the Aga Khan Foundation, with which he has ties, that is very alarming.

While the Aga Khan Foundation looks good on the surface, they also have formed associations with mobsters and serious Islamists, including al Qaida and one of the suspected perpetrators of Daniel Pearl's murder. Scroll down to see the paragraphs about them.

http://www.deepcapture.com/the-miscreants-global-bust-out-chapter-14-how-the-russian-mafia-captured-the-dtcc-and-the-american-financial-system/

<<The Aga Khan Foundation is a respected Islamic charity that performs good deeds in the name of His Highness the Aga Khan, the 49th hereditary Imam of the Shia Imami Ismaili Muslims; son of Prince Aly Khan and Princess Tajuddawlah Aly Khan; successor to his grandfather, the 48th hereditary Imam, the Aga Khan Sir Sultan Mahomed Shah; and direct ancestor of the great prophet himself, Mohammed, he who delivered the final proclamations of Allah.

While His Highness, the prophet, and the spirit of holy giving no doubt guide the Aga Khan Foundation, it is not just a charity – it is also a massive business enterprise that owns, among other things, the Cala Di Volpe hotel, and the Pakistan-based Habib Bank.

Habib Bank has been accused of laundering money for Al Qaeda and for Omar Sayed Sheikh, the Jaish-e-Mohammed operative and suspected agent of the Pakistani spy services who handed Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl to 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who then (according to Khalid Shiekh Mohammed) sliced off Pearl’s head with a Yemeni knife.

High-level business executive and some government officials in the United States and Europe regularly roll out the red carpets for the Aga Khan Foundation. Apparently, the Western governments are not concerned that in addition to the interesting business partners of its market manipulating CEO, Ali Nazerali, the Aga Khan Foundation maintains close associations with agents of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, which is tasked with “exporting” Iran’s Islamic revolution by directing the operations of Hezbollah and other jihadi concerns.

The Aga Khan Foundation’s membership and supporters also include top military officers in Syria, such as General Moustapha Sharba, who had a hand in the early stages of the covert nuclear weapons program that Syria was developing with help from North Korea (and probably Iran).

Another Aga Khan Foundation member is Aziz Mohammed Bhai, a Bangladeshi Mafia kingpin who became a billionaire smuggling high-powered weaponry and narcotics into Myanmar and India.

Aziz Mohammed Bhai is one of the Aga Khan Foundation’s more prominent members. He is also alleged by Bangledeshi authorities to have conspired with an Al Qaeda tied terrorist named Sanjidul Islam Imon to assassinate a number of people considered to be enemies of the jihad.

In 2009, Bhai was arrested and charged with the murder of Sohel Chowdhury, who was, according to Bhai, an apostate. Until her untimely death, Ms. Chowdhury had been Bangladesh’s most famous film star.

And how can one not be fascinated by Aziz Mohammed Bhai’s principal henchman, Dawood Ibrahim. He’s the guy we met before, the crony of Dubai’s Sheikh Mo who is also an unofficial member of Al Qaeda, an agent of the Pakistani ISI, and the only person in the world labeled by the U.S. government as both a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist” and a “Foreign Narcotics Kingpin.”

In addition to all that, Ibrahim has been implicated in the trafficking of nuclear weapons. And Ibrahim’s henchman, Naresh Patel, recall, was manipulating the markets in 2008 with wash trades he conducted through Tuco Trading partner Man Financial (which was also a partner of BKS, the Moscow brokerage that employs one of the Orange Diviner principals).

[snip]

Anonymous said...

I have one question: if Rick Perry is so pro-Islam, why did Shurat HaDin ask him, not Bachmann, a sitting Congresswoman, not Romney, former governor, not Newt Gingrich, with his immense D.C. connections, but Perry to help them fight the Gaza flotillas, which he did?

And why did the Center for Security Policy come out against the Salon article that started this entire broohaha in defense of Perry? Is someone going to tell me that a group that fights for the legal rights of Jews and Israel and another group that wrote the book on the threat Sha'ria poses to the U.S. are pro-Islam?

Yes, Texas, through it's GoTexan department labels halal foods. It also labels kosher foods. Those groups that produce halal/kosher foods have to join the GoTexan program that is open to all food producers in Texas.

If you want to know Perry's stance on radical Islam, ask Marcus Luttrell or any of the other Navy SEALs he and his wife, Anita, have taken in when they are released from Walter Reed.

Bush and Perry can be equated only if you think you can equate Helen Thomas with Ann Coulter. They really have not much in common. And the people who equate them because they both come from Texas are just poor uninformed twits.

One other thing; this whole dustup was started by CAIR and a press release. I am sure all of you will agree that CAIR would NEVER do anything to discredit a GOP candidate, right?

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

1. I have no idea why they asked Perry, I imagine there was some personal relationship there. I don't see that Perry's letter changed anything, but it's nice that he took the time to do it.

2. The Salon piece has nothing to do with anything. It's spin that tries to position this as Salon vs Perry. This way it looks like Perry's being attacked by the left.

3. And it also makes the State of Texas the determiner of what Islamic authorities say is Halal.

4. I have no idea what the SEALS have to do with anything. Bush spent a lot of time with soldiers. It doesn't change the fact that he remained unwilling to address the realities of Islam.

5. They both push fairly similar rhetoric on illegal immigration and Islam.

6. If CAIR were going to put out press releases to damage a candidate, why go after a man who's had a positive working relationship with Muslims?

Anonymous said...

#2 - It was intended to be a hit piece on Perry. But then, wasn't that the intent of the Islamist apologist who wrote the article?

#3 - No, you don't understand how the GoTexan program works. It doesn't make Texas supporting Shr'ria any more than it makes Texas supporting Jewish law, which is different than our secular laws. Your claim is falacious.


#4 - If you don't know the connection between Rick Perry and certain Navy SEALs you are sure talking a lot of trash about a man you seem to know little about. But then, that was the first impression I had on your article.

#5 - Actually, no. Again, you are operating from simply material you have gleened from other sources (like HuffingtonPost, Salon, et al) and you are playing right into the hands of the left.

#6 - Since the events you cite, Perry has become even stronger in his support for Israel. Do you even know what taqiyya is?

Qur'an (3:54) "And they (the disbelievers which Perry is) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them) and Allah is the best of the schemmers."

Reliance of the Traveler: "Speaking is a means to acheive objectives. If a praisworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. Which is its possible to achieve such an aim by lying, but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible."

The Salon article was built around a CAIR press release. Now, perhaps you have faith in CAIR being honest, but I don't. And I know that CAIR supports terrorism, and has lied to achieve a goal to advance Sha'ria before.

I am constantly amazed how otherwise rational people are jumping on this bandwagon against Perry. Choose to believe in Salon and CAIR, but I will choose to believe the Shurat HaDin and the Center for Security Policy and their response to Commentary, a pro-Jewish, pro-Israel publication that states that goal in their "about us" section.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

2. And the Salon piece still has nothing to do with anything. There are any number of less provocative pieces covering the same topic.

3. Then who decides what Islamic religious authorized Halal is?

4. The SEALS have nothing to do with the issue. It's nice that Perry supports the troops. So did Bush. No one said otherwise.

5. Actually I cited and linked to Perry's own speeches from his own site.

6. Again it's nice that Perry is pro-Israel. I don't know that he's any more so than most other pols, but Israel is in any case not the issue.

7. I'm quite familiar with what it is, but then are all of CAIR's positive press releases about politicians just disinformation. Or just Perry? And if this really an attack on him, then I'm sure his campaign will state that it misrepresents him. Right?

8. There's no bandwagon against Perry. Just legitimate questions worth asking.

And there's no need to resort to a flood of Salon/Pro-Israel talking points. None of those are the issue. Perry's views on Islam are.

Keliata said...

This topic is way over my head. I hadn't even heard about Perry until I read this article.

Halal...it almost sounds like there's going to be a national authority on what is and isn't halal. Aside from health regulations what in the world would the government have to do with whether something is halal or not?


I think the whole halal thing is BS. Obviously someone or some Muslim organization similar to a Vaad HaKashrus agency had local regulations on halal food.

Anonymous said...

Keliata, do you also consider the whole kosher thing BS?

Catholics don't eat meat on Fridays during Lent. Do you consider restraurants catering to that on Fridays during Lent also BS?

Van Grungy said...

Flotilla 2.0 was a failure from the start..

Perry had nothing to lose and easy credibility to gain by supporting Israel..

A RINO career politician that knew he would run for President was just burnishing his pro-Jew credentials..

It's so freaking obvious..

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

The Halal question means that the state would be put into the position of deciding what the controlling Islamic authority should be.

If Islamic law did not have its problematic baggage, this would just be a church and state issue. But there are much larger connotations carried by that idea.

Better dead than burqa'ed said...

Daniel, though I have not followed Perry closely, I get the same vibe from him as you describe: that he comes up short on sincerity and long on showmanship, and it's hard to determine who the man underneath really is.

Thank you for this analysis -- and thank you very much for your continued (and justified) castigation of Chris Christie. The widespread conservative adulation of that traitor is maddening.

I have a question for you. You include Palin in your list of pols who have spoken out about the dangers of Islam. Although I love Sarah Palin, one of the few areas in which she comes up short for me is that I have never seen or heard her say anything about creeping sharia in America. Can you provide a link to convince me otherwise?

Better dead than burqa'ed said...

On the subject of presidential candidates, Santorum and Gingrich are obviously the most knowledgeable where Islam is concerned. I also adore Rick Santorum for being the most passionate pro-life advocate of the whole bunch. However, can he be elected???

Thad McCotter appeals to youth and to many of the old "Reagan Democrats" whom we need in order to win -- but of course has a long way to go in terms of visibility. Personally, I love Thad's Burke/Nisbet/Chesterton brand of conservatism. Here's a question, though, if anyone has any insights to share: Does Thad have any dirt in his background on matters of Islam and sharia?

Anonymous said...

Just keep on pounding on the one man who sets the tone so his state can create jobs, keeps the taxes low and state regulations under control and I will come back and congratulate the bunch of you when Obama is re-elected.

Andy Texan said...

One thing overlooked in this little tempest is the importance of oil business in Texas. Now what other part of the world is important to an oil economy? This thread is much ado about nothing. Perry is solid conservative (much more so than the carpetbagger Bushes.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Better, thanks. People like tough talkers. Even if they're not always tough doers.

Palin has made a number of statements. My internet is working poorly right now, so let me just point you here for a brief one

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0411/2012_candidates_stake_out_positions_on_sharia.html

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Anon, I hadn't realized the primaries were over and that Perry was the One. I would beware of such messianism.

Andy, citing the oil industry is not all that reassuring.

Anonymous said...

Thoughtful piece. Perhaps a bit too forgiving. If we don't get our act together regarding the threat of Islam, nothing else will matter because our country, our freedom, our way of life will be altered in ways that used to seem unthinkable. The GOP field is pathetic when it comes to discourse on Islam, or foreign policy. Why, I do not know. It's stupid and dangerous. The choices in front of us are mediocre, at best. What a shame because the threat of jihad had only advanced in the years since Bush II. The world is more unstable and dangerous and we cannot afford four more years of a President who is clueless (at best) on this front. It is deeply, deeply disturbing.

Paul said...

The difference between creeping Sharia in our legal system and Jewish law is that Jewish law has nothing to do with anyone who is not Jewish. And Jews don't care if anyone else wants to be Jewish.

Muslims don't care if anyone else want to be Muslim, but the way they see it, you don't have any choice. It is either Islam or death and political power to Muslims has enforcing this choice as its fundamental meaning and ultimate outlook.

Consult with the Koran. Consult with history. There is no other conclusion.

Lou De Palma said...

Pandering Perry is not a conservative unless conservative now means slobbering after money and votes from anyone or anything.
Weak knees, lily livered snip of a man.
Giuliani had the guts to kick Arafat out of NYC but Prancing Perry simply follows the money like a dog in rut after a bitch in heat.

John Kingsford said...

Re; Big Brave Anonymous Commenter:

"Catholics don't eat meat on Fridays during Lent. Do you consider restraurants catering to that on Fridays during Lent also BS?"

Keliata might not but I sure do.
Its all BS to cater to religion.
Perry is not the messiah. Stop pretending he is Gods answer to the problems of the US the guy is a loser.

Lemon said...

Yael.. he didnt "thank" a muslim.. He kissed his behind over and over again.

Lemon said...

"To just keep pounding on one man"
One post is pounding to you?
Oh wait til it really gets started you knucklehead.

How ugly is this getting that someone cannot question the men and women running for office and parse out their qualities and worth without all the estrogen flowing in wild hysteria.
You guys need hormone therapy, I mean really.

Lemon said...

Since the Bill Clinton horror in the oval office with that young girl, America has been willing to take whatever it gets as long as they feel they will get something in return.
No longer do the masses stand up for moral values and what is right, no matter how popular that is, but they accept men who will pander, sell out for advantage and call it doing what they had to do.
No wonder our nation is in the state it is in.
And when people stand up and hold candidates to a higher standard, somehow they are traitors to the "cause". But I have to wonder what cause that is that accepts bad things , any port in a storm and the idea that the ends justify the means.

I also long for the America where people could have their personal view and not be excoriated for it.
Those days are gone and the bullies have taken over not just in the schools but all over now.

When people are willing to gloss over serious flaws in people's character, they lose even if their candidate wins.

Van Grungy said...

You know you all want Allen West to step up for America and the WHOLE FREAKING WORLD!!!
The die has been cast.

comon.. can I get an Amen to that?

Keliata said...

backtoiraq--Few people are Islamophobic. Phobias are irrational fears but our fears of Islam are rational.

And to Anonymous:

What we're talking about here is the government essentially appointing a religious agency to oversee religious dietary laws. Suppose we have a president who is tight, sympathetic to Muslims or relies on foreign campaign contributions.


If this president were to assign a more stringent agency to make determinations on kashrus, halal or whatever that could lead to something like the female modesty agency that goes around harassing women in Iran if even a stray hair can be seen from their burqas.

There are plenty of videos on You Tube. The non-police modesty police are just henchmen of the Iranian republic.

I didn't say that eating meat during Lent or dietary laws of other religions is BS at all.

The government regulating food preparations to protect the health of Americans is one thing. The government getting involved in the meat/Lent or diary and meat issues of Catholicism and Judaism respectively is dangerous.

All the more so with Islamic laws.

OT but Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney were scrutinized about their religions and McCain wasn't exactly embraced by evangelicals because he didn't use their buzz words his. McCain gives a deeply personal and emotional account of his war experience and religion Obama utters a few buzz words about his conversion to Christianity he's automatically the more sincere Christian.

And totally OT why hasn't Obama explained his reason for leaving Islam? He just can't say anything bad about Islam. Finally,note that I referred to myself as a former Catholic. Obama in an interview referred to his "Islamic faith."

He used Islamic faith in the present tense.

That's about all I have to say on this. Rant over.

Anonymous said...

http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/1945
Debunking the Rick Perry "Pro Sharia" School Curriculum Myth

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

The CounterContempt link doesn't address the material in my article.

Better dead than burqa'ed said...

Lemon,
I like the way you think.

Van Grungy,
AMEN, brother!

cornholio said...

Daniel said:

"Andy, citing the oil industry is not all that reassuring."

And isn't that the truth, after all the senior members who control OPEC are all representatives of Islamofascist states and they tell the oil companies what to do, not vice-versa.

Better dead than burqa'ed said...

Daniel,
thanks for that Politico link.

Palin has the right sentiments against sharia law being adopted in U.S. jurisdictions. That's fine, but I don't know if she -- or anyone besides Rick Santorum, Herman Cain and Allen West -- realizes:

1) Islam is more a political ideology than a religion -- and its leaders have learned how to cleverly use our own First Amendment to subvert us;

2) More than 80 percent of American mosques are either funded by the Saudis, linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, and/or display and distribute violent jihadist literature on their premises;

3) All of the major Muslim organizations such as CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, MPAC and the Muslim Students Association, are offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood and/or have links to Hamas or other radical/violent groups and/or individuals.

4) The Muslim principles of taqiyya and kitman allow/command Muslims to LIE to infidels about their real intentions;

5) At least 35 jihadi terrorist paramilitary training camps are operating at present within the U.S., as documented by Christian Action Network;

6) Hezbollah has a strong and growing presence all over Latin America and the Caribbean, including in Mexico, where they collaborate with the drug cartels, and have infiltrated our country via the Mexican border.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Not everyone knows but more people are waking up to it. The very fact that this is showing up in so many states and is now a debate question proves it.

Jerry Frey said...

Jerry Frey


http://napoleonlive.info/see-the-evidence/islam-in-america-2/


http://napoleonlive.info/see-the-evidence/islam-in-europe-2/

Anonymous said...

@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 dependance on saudi oil will heavily influence his decisions.
We should therefore see a condoleeza 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

Yael said...

For anyone who thinks Rick Perry is another George Bush:

http://www.texasmonthly.com/2010-06-01/feature9.php

cornholio said...

@ Yael

LOL, your link is nothing more than a plain-folk argument in support of an islamofascist sympathizer/collaborator. Personally, I wonder if his narrative is even true.

cornholio said...

Daniel, I have a quick question for you that I hope isn't offensive or problematic WRT Israel.

I've noted that in the past some Israelis have been persecuted/prosecuted for defaming Islam (I seem to remember a woman who drew an offensive picture of Mohammad). Would you or Pamela Geller be persecuted/prosecuted for criticism of Islam in Israel?

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

If she were a resident she would have to tread more carefully.

Israel operates by more European laws. So some of the same things that apply in Europe apply there.

silentnomore9 said...

Yael, was your reference meant to confirm our fears? I went to your link of texasmonthly and read a very down home profile of a politician's "humble beginnings". It didn't give much of substance to see.

silentnomore9 said...

You know I'm kind of tired of hearing Ron Paul slammed. I recently started researching him. It turns out, he's not crazy. The reason he doesn't want to send money to Israel is not just because we are not supposed to get involved in other nation's wars, it is also because we send more money to the Arab world. For every dollar we send to the Arab world, it costs Israel $1.40 to try to defend against the harm that the Arabs do with the money we send them. It turns out, Ron just doesn't like sending stolen tax money all around the world to try to interfere in things that are none of our Constitutionally authorized business.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

This has nothing to do with foreign aid. Ron Paul has a longstanding obsession with Israel. As do his ideological allies.

Keli Ata said...

"Yael.. he didnt "thank" a muslim.. He kissed his behind over and over again"


Right you are Lemon. All the excessive kissing shows deep affection. Not to mention that in many cultures kissing a person's head is a way to bless the person.

cornholio said...

Ron Paul has muslime and ne0-nazi supporters. AFAIC, that's all I need to know.

silentnomore9 said...

What do you mean Ron Paul has an obsession with Israel? Have you written something on it in the past? I have only read his speeches and positions as fully supporting Israel on the individual level, but remaining true to the Constitutional mandate not to get involved in other nation's wars. (He's really big on that and wants to get all our military forces out of all the nations where they have been placed without Constitutional authority over the last 100 years.

Barry said...

Yael,
The problem is not that he has been an Israel supporter but that he is going to be soft on Sharia getting on the offensive in the US.
To add to that, his leanings toward Muslims are going to provide him and Israel with some very big headaches as a result of coping with the mess the current administration has allowed to develop.
Just look at how the Egyptian spring has sprung a leak on Israeli security on its Sinai border. Hamas and the Iranians are doing everything to stoke the fires.
The Arab League is going to hold an emergency meeting because of the latest Israeli attacks against the terrorists, but are saying nothing about the Syrian murder of civilians including Palestinians there.

With separation of state and religion a politician has no right to get involved with the dictates of said religion and its adherents.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Ron Paul has issues with Israel going way back and while he starts off hiding behind an isolationist policy, the longer he talks, the clearer it becomes whose talking points he's repeating

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27esxkQtfTc

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLp1GmEYywU&feature=player_embedded

silentnomore9 said...

I watched the videos you suggested. I see no discrepancy in his position. He supports a restoring the foundations of the Constitutional protections, which includes getting us out of worldwide imperialism. I am with him on that one. These wars in the middle east are unwinnable and they are not our wars. He was in favor of going in and getting Osama bin Ladin and the 9/11 perpetrators and then getting back home. I understand his position on the embargo business (I don't agree with his statement) but I understand he felt trapped into having to take sides in a situation that was none of our business because we had funded Hamas and we had funded Israel and that puts us in an imperialist position with them both. If we stop funding them, they are no longer our babies, they become sovereign again without our government intrusion into their affairs. Israel is strong enough to defend themselves against their enemies and God has told Israel not to trust in their alliances. So, in my opinion, God could very well be in agreement with Ron's policies.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

I didn't say there was a discrepancy. I said that he supports Muslim terrorists and dictatorships in general, over the countries they're attacking.

The only discrepancy is that he claims to be disinterested, when actually he keeps repeating terrorist talking points.

But that's not surprising when you look at Lew Rockwell, Scheuer and others who are his allies.

There's most certainly a hidden agenda there and it's not the Constitution.

Barry said...

silentnomore9,

The US had to project its power to maintain its integrity and security in a world rampant with fascist dictators and funding Israel during the Cold War against the Soviet Union was part of the strategy which paid off in spades.
The reduction of "Imperialism" to metaphoric hyperbole does not cut it as the US does not have its Governor General on the ground in Tel Aviv dictating internal Israeli policy, as Obama found to his chagrin.
The influence America does have is its ability to withhold political support in the International arena just as all the other independent nations do.
What the Israelis choose to do is not by order of the Whitehouse but the quality of their courage and pragmatism.
Ron Paul's excuse of not getting involved and taking sides is rather lame when it permits him to stand by and watch the Darfurs of this world while professing a moral posture.
There is a similar bigotry and hypocrisy in not discussing Whites beaten up by "flash mobs".

Zilla/MJ said...

We MUST properly vet all potential presidential candidates and hold No Quarter
for those who are ignorant, or, worse, enablers of islamic supremacist conquest of America through jihad and sharia. I've quoted from and linked to the above article in my piece here about this subject:
http://zillablog.marezilla.com/2011/08/no-quarter.html

Zilla said...

Remember the Counter Contempt blog that people used as if it were legitimate to attack the counterjihad for telling the truth about Rick Perry? It was run by a notorious Holocaust denying fraudster:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/03/david-stein-cole-holocaust-revisionist
EAT CROW dhimmi trolls!

Post a Comment