Please Be Advised
You Are About To Hear An Excerpt
Of The National Anthem

click.jpg

Saturday, August 20, 2011

Robert Spencer Asks, "Why Are You Guys Mad At Me and Pamela? We're Only Asking Questions About Rick Perry

Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller have gone on a unrelenting crusade against Rick Perry the past week or so, going so far as to call him, in a headline, "the Stealth Jihad Candidate".

Today Spencer writes:
I've never seen anything like this: friends have broken with me, I've been attacked on hitherto friendly websites, I've gotten calls from people I haven't heard from in years, telling me to lay off Perry, and more -- all because I dared to raise some concerns about Rick Perry.
In my estimation, calling him "the Stealth Jihad Candidate" is going much further than "raising concerns". Given the opinions of those of us in the know about the dangers of Jihad and Sharia, it is clear that such a characterization is meant to be a death blow against Rick Perry.


I have been trying all week to figure out why Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer would have the hubris, the arrogance, to attempt to destroy a leading Republican Presidential Candidate - and in my opinion, the only truly marketable one we've got.

I can find no palatable explanation at this point.

I must say, however, I do agree with this comment from AJAT, (from Jihad Watch):

Robert:
Listen, I am afraid it is simply wrong to characterise the manner in which you and Pamela have behaved towards Perry as simply 'asking questions'. You have both engaged in a smear campaign against Perry (with sensationalist headlines such as the 'stealth jihad candidate' and a fifth columnist), using the same tactics you rightly decry when employed against you. You are both playing a game of 'Gotcha!' and I think most conservatives would appreciate it if you stopped acting as though you were Perry's prosecutor.
In any case, this is my response to Pamela's article:
---
To begin with, you claim you 'never suggested' that Perry and Aga Khan have an Islamization agenda to promote via 'taqiyya'. In your original article, you wrote:
'including a comprehensive program to feed children in Texas public schools and taqiyya nonsense about how Islam is a religion of peace.'
As for that curriculum you highlight, the abstracts of content you draw attention to don't vindicate your case. It is not telling students that the Qur'an entails 'beauty and perfection' as the literal word of God, but only that Muslims think this is so, and the curriculum is not saying that it's bigoted to think otherwise. In addition, you appear to be unaware of the fact that the development of Islam in the 8th to 11th centuries was due to borrowings and plagiarisms from other religious traditions in the region (e.g. the 5 prayers a day was taken from Zoroastrianism). I don't see why you object to that point in the curriculum. Finally, with regards to Western colonialism, it is true that the European legal systems were instated- the curriculum is not necessarily condemning that; and it is also correct that the local Muslim populations often tried to make clear rejection of European modernity by applying Shari'a to themselves more vigorously. And nowhere does it say that the Europeans deserve to be blamed for this development. I could go on, but you get the picture.
But even then, I am only relying on the evidence given by your one of your readers. It turns out that her reader's own information is flawed. David Stein at http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/1945 completely refutes the myth that Perry is working to promote a pro-Shari'a curriculum.
Likewise, your reasoning on the al-Habib bank wildly stretches the facts. For example, the Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development and the Aga Khan are not one and the same, and even so the former is only a part-owner of that bank, not necessarily the main one. In addition, you appear to be unaware of the legal principle of innocent until proven guilty. There is of course abundant evidence that al-Qaeda had Daniel Pearl murdered, but there is nothing to show that the Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development has given money to Al-Qaeda (and why would the fund do such a thing? al-Qaeda and affiliated groups regularly target Shi'a in Pakistan for terrorist attacks). As you note, the lawsuit against the bank was dropped, but clearly not on grounds of practicality (which was probably the issue concerning why the lawsuit was also dropped against al-Qaeda).
But what conclusion do you draw from all this? You state that the Aga Khan is the owner of an alleged al-Qaeda bank. Quite a stretch, I am sure you would agree.
As for the ties with Syria, all those agreements and activity date from between 2003 and 2008. In any case, it was merely based on a false hope- held also by Western governments- that Bashar al-Assad would reform. The Aga Khan was of course wrong on that and should have realised it from the beginning- one can only presume this is why the agreements and business activity stopped after 2008. Finally, this alleged tie with Moustapha Sharba is only on Mark Mitchell's word (no sources given etc.). Surely Western governments would have long been aware of this and onto the Aga Khan Development Network if it had been the case?
The interview with Der Spiegel: like you, I disagree with many things he says, but he did not call for laws to ban publication of the cartoons, and as for the remark on Hamas, it was again based on a hope that Hamas would change their views and platform. Again, he was wrong on that, and should have recognised it from the beginning, but Haim Saban- an entrepreneur who created the Power Rangers franchise and has given millions in support of Israel- also said that there should be negotiations with Hamas, in the hope they might moderate. Like the Aga Khan, he was always wrong, but it doesn't show he is sinister- just naive.
As for the Norquist connections, they are hardly worth worrying about: the issue is solely taxation; and it's a platform essential for winning votes.
Finally, you have missed the point about the Jewish Division connection, on which you are also being dishonest. Roberta Moore (thanks for the correction on her name- sincerely) did not merely make one inquiry into aligning with the JTF. As the EDL itself notes:
http://englishdefenceleague.org/the-english-defence-league-standing-firm/

''The decision made by individuals within the EDL Jewish Division to ally themselves with the JTF (Jewish Task Force), an organisation whose leader, Victor Vancier, was imprisoned on terrorism charges, was made without the authority of the EDL Leadership, and we have ensured that all ties have been severed with that organisation. Israel itself has proscribed the JTF as a terrorist organisation, and Vancier has been recorded making incredibly offensive and inflammatory statements about black people, Christians, and homosexuals. This could hardly be further from the objectives and beliefs of the English Defence League, and it is hugely disappointing that in the fallout of this sorry episode a small number of Jewish Division members saw fit to make personal attacks on members of the EDL Support Group for criticising their decision to align themselves with known extremists.''
It's actually obvious that this was the reason Moore fell out with the EDL leadership. She and her followers in the Jewish division were smearing as 'Nazis' anyone in the EDL who objected to the alliance with JTF. I also have the testimony of one of the editorial board members for official statements by the EDL to confirm that this is so.
The Jewish division- after Moore left- also denigrated the victims of the Norway massacre as 'scum' (http://www.edlnews.co.uk/edl-news/jewish-div-endorse-norway-attacks). Do you condemn that? The whole point of this affair is that you cannot go around smearing Rick Perry and tying him to Islamism with wild stretches of the facts unless you want to vet yourself for supporting the Moore and the (ex-EDL) Jewish division (and one could name numerous other connections, such as your endorsement of Vlaams Belang as the 'Jewish party', whose sole concern is to glorify Flemish Waffen-SS veterans, not to support Israel as you have repeatedly claimed). In short, please stop having double standards.
Someone who calls Obama a 'Mohammedan president' and Goldberg a 'Jewicidal Jihadi' cannot be taken seriously. As for Robert Spencer's forums, I never insinuated- contrary to your claims- that he is a neo-Nazi or fascist solely because there have been commentators on Jihad Watch threads who have declared support for the BNP. Otherwise, why would I have made it clear in that same article that he unequivocally repudiated the BNP?
---
Now back to you Robert. On further investigation of this matter, it turns out that the source for the Aga Khan-Rick Perry connection was a reporter at Salon. He predicted, on the basis of what he reported, that someone would soon start attacking Perry on these grounds and stir up a storm. You and Pamela fell right for the bait. If you wish to heal the rifts created, i suggest you put up a formal apology to Perry for your nasty insinuations about him.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link#

32 Comments:

Blogger Will said...

Hi Pasto.
Considering that Muslims are a part of US society it will be impossible to find a politician who has not been in contact with them.Still i believe he is A lot more American in his heart than the current President."Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"?

Saturday, August 20, 2011 5:28:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Believe me, one could connect me to Muslims too. For one thing, I've prayed with the Imam from Adam Gadahn's Mosque.

Saturday, August 20, 2011 5:33:00 pm  
Anonymous cjk said...

I'm with Spencer and Geller.

Comparing some lefty Jew's naive understandings for dealing with Hamas to that of Aga Khan's is ridiculous.

Whoever called Obama a Mohammedan president was correct in everything accept his actually being a Mohammedan. It that's grounds for not taking someone seriously than I can't take that person seriously.

Double standards? I guess then the police have double standards when they question known rapists about a rape in a given area as opposed to your average citizen.

I'll be surprised if even more information on this Aga Khan character doesn't come out making him smell nastier than he already does to me.

I'll still vote for Rick Perry if he's the candidate though.

Saturday, August 20, 2011 6:15:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

My opinion is, people have been making the mistake of hearing Diplomacy/Political Maneuvering as the heart-felt words of a Presidential Candidate, or in the case of George W. Bush, the heart-felt words of a POTUS.

Saturday, August 20, 2011 6:20:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

There is a quote from The Godfather:

"Finance is a gun. Politics is knowing when to pull the trigger."

I would say likewise,

Truth is a gun. Diplomacy is knowing when to pull the trigger.

Saturday, August 20, 2011 6:24:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

We have had to navigate very rough waters since we got ourselves embroiled in this war. We are aligned with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, etc.

Roosevelt did not insult Stalin during the course of World War II, and neither can we expect our Presidents to insult our allies, no matter how marginal their allegiance is.

The attribute that makes people like Spencer and Geller believe that Perry is a weak candidate is what makes is actually a strength.

And, it is that strength which is lacking in those potential candidates that Spencer and Geller would have you believe are strong candidates.

Michele Bachmann, Allen West, John Bolton, and their like, are not serious candidates. Those are pipe dreams.

That being said, Michele Bachmann would be a great addition to a Perry ticket.

But, she is unelectable as a President.

Saturday, August 20, 2011 6:28:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

My worst nightmare is that the Republicans come to believe Romney or Bachmann are their candidate.

We will lose if that happens.

Saturday, August 20, 2011 6:30:00 pm  
Blogger Damien said...

Pastorius,

I personally don't blame Robert Spencer or Pamella Geller for wanting to look into the past of the people that are backing Rick Perry, but regardless he maybe better than Obama.

Saturday, August 20, 2011 6:55:00 pm  
Anonymous cjk said...

I don't think Romney can win, but I sure think Bachmann would.
There's a large segment of the population out there who want nothing more than to hear Obama getting verbally slammed and abused just the way he has governmentaly slammed and abused them.

99.99% will get up off their asses and vote for the abuser on election day.

As long as they don't run a pussy marshmallow ala McCain or Romney, there's going to be a HUGE turnout against this creep.

It really does all come down to voter turnout which is kinda sad.

Saturday, August 20, 2011 6:58:00 pm  
Blogger Epaminondas said...

Bachmann doesn't have a prayer (Elvis..an iconic moment?)
Paul, not a prayer
Romney will have a chance by not being an 'extremist', but has no prayer of fixing the nation
Cain,,, no intellectual drive to KNOW and understand.
Perry has a shot, but frankly he has more to worry about by being a believer in creationism than anything from islam in THIS SET OF SITUATIONS.

I am still waiting on Ryan.

Saturday, August 20, 2011 7:12:00 pm  
Blogger Avi Green said...

Spencer and Geller are right to be concerned, and it's stupid to just attack them as though it were a crime for one conservative to voice concerns about another. Allen West rightfully voiced his disagreements with Ron Paul, and if it's not wrong to criticize Paul, then it's not wrong to criticize Perry either. Failing to bring up potentially troubling matters only complicates the ability to encourage improvements. That's why it's good that Geller and Spencer have brought up the issues; it can help to make improvements in leadership.

Saturday, August 20, 2011 7:13:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Avi,
That's not how I'm attacking them, now is it?

I made my argument in the post, but I will repeat it, and I'd like you to answer my questions:

"In my estimation, calling Perry "the Stealth Jihad Candidate" is going much further than "raising concerns". Given the opinions of those of us in the know about the dangers of Jihad and Sharia, it is clear that such a characterization is meant to be a death blow against Rick Perry."

Do you agree? Is that meant to be a death blow? Would you vote for a "Stealth Jihad Candidate?"


Quite frankly, I don't like my points being mis-characterized any more than Pamela or Robert like it. And, you mis-characterized my point, Avi.

Please explain yourself by addressing my questions.

Saturday, August 20, 2011 8:04:00 pm  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

This makes my alarm bells ring:

the source for the Aga Khan-Rick Perry connection was a reporter at Salon. He predicted, on the basis of what he reported, that someone would soon start attacking Perry on these grounds and stir up a storm.

I haven't done a lot of research on Perry. Yet.

As most know here, I'm particularly interested in how school curricula portray Islam. Realistically, we who teach history (as I do - this year, it's World History) must cover Islam in what we're teaching. It's one thing to say, "Muslims believe that Mohammed received revelation from Allah [God]" and altogether something else to say, "Mohammed received revelation from Allah" [God]."

The biggest gripe that I have about GWB's dhimmitude was his statement that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. That's kumbaya crap, IMO.

Is Rick Perry "the Stealth Jihad Candidate"? I don't know. I'll do my own research. Much as I respect Robert Spencer, I do practice "trust but verify."

IMO, real politic demands that we be realistic about who has the best chance to defeat Obama in 2012. I'd sure as hell be disheartened to see Perry pushed aside in favor of nominating Mitt Romney!

Furthermore, when it comes to the November 2012 election, there are other issues to consider besides stealth jihad. Don't get me wrong! I am VERY CONCERNED about stealth jihad! But we'll all be shut up if Obama's second term turns out to be what I think it would be: regulation of the Internet and the silencing of dissenting voices.

Saturday, August 20, 2011 8:25:00 pm  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

And one more thing....Grover Norquist is well entrenched in the GOP.

What shall we then do? Toss the entire GOP out the window and let Obama take the victory in 2012?

Saturday, August 20, 2011 8:28:00 pm  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

Sultan Knisch has written this essay on the topic. Worth reading and considering.

Saturday, August 20, 2011 8:48:00 pm  
Blogger Prophessor said...

I cannot take anyone seriously who dismisses Obama as a Mohammedan president. Doing so means you have no clue about the value of a politicians background and personal connections, which are in Obama's case all pro-Islamic in ideology or in their respective geopolitical efforts.

It makes me sad to this endorsed on by anyone claiming to be an Infidel. Robert Spencer must do all he can to create an environment were Americans are weary of any connections to radical Islam. I rather have another Obama term then continuing on this path of apathy towards Islamic geopolitical endeavors. Can't say i am the same fan of this blog as i was yesterday.

Saturday, August 20, 2011 8:49:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

AOW,
I agree with you that there is no way Christians and Muslims worship the same God.

That's a very good point.

I wonder if Rick Perry would say the same thing.

I also agree with your point that the whole Republican Party is in bed with Norquist. Though, I would not be surprised to find that Pamela Geller has found someone else to be in bed with other than the Republican Party.

Spencer, at this point, seems to be along for the ride with Pamela, no matter what. Wtf does he claim to know about politics anyway? Dude never went on about politics until Pamela, and now he parrots everything she says.

One of the things that bothers me so much about Pamela's attack on Perry is that it irresponsible. Sure, she says she'd support Perry if he is the Candidate, but meanwhile, she's going to deliver him the worst blows she can imagine. How is that good for the Party?

Once again, here we are witnessing a person who's tent is curiously large when it comes to acceptance of European neo-fascist entities (or, at the very least, the appearance thereof) but who's tent suddenly become curiously small over some obscure issue within the primary Party itself.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Saturday, August 20, 2011 9:30:00 pm  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

Surely to God the followers of Spencer and Geller won't stay home on election day!

My biggest fear is that these concerns about Perry will cause many people to go to the primaries and vote for Bachmann as she's been "endorsed" by certain counterjihad web sites now. Yes, I like her very much, but I don't believe the GOP will be elected to the White House if she sits at the top of the GOP ticket in November 2012. I think the same goes for Palin.

There. I've said it.

Saturday, August 20, 2011 9:37:00 pm  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

IMO, the GOP POTUS candidate will need every possible vote in November 2012.

Right now, the Left of all ilks is griping about Obama. But you can bet that in November 2012, those same gripers will head to the polls and vote for Obama -- again.

Saturday, August 20, 2011 9:38:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

AOW,
The Left will pull out all the stops.

Don't be surprised to see Ron Paul Ross Perot-ize the Republican Party. And, the way Pamela seems to be attempting to draw up the lines on the map (inspired by Gaffney and Brim, I'm guessing) it looks like we might have more dividing up of Conservative territory.

If I did not know better, I'd swear it looks like Geller and Gaffney and Brim don't like the Republican Party.

Here's something else to chew over, if this kind of Conservative assassination goes on much further:

If Obama is a treasonous President, what would that make those who help him get elected by sabotaging the Republican Party?

Let's be clear, if you want to attack Perry, fine. Don't call him a "Stealth Jihadist". You can't get away with that. We know what it means. In our circles, that's like calling him Hitler's Willing Executioner.

Saturday, August 20, 2011 9:44:00 pm  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

That something to chew over is worth considering.

I might not put it so strongly. Yet.

In any case, we must get Obama out of office. He's governing more and more by fiat. Just imagine what he would do were he to gain a second term! The mind reels.

Saturday, August 20, 2011 10:33:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some pros & cons re: Perry

**********************PROS******

Perry's story as told by him to the Texas Monthly

What Paint Creek Texas can tell you about Rick Perry

The Paint Creek Boy Who Would be King

The Governor Who Almost Wasn't

On the Fed:

Perry would consider Bernanke printing more money "almost treachorous, or treasonous."

Perry refuses to apologize for remarks on Bernanke.

Perry advocates audit of the Federal Reserve.

Global warming:

Perry rejects global warming - science skewed by financial interests.

Economy:

Perry against raising debt ceiling.

Perry calls for 6 month moratorium on government regulations.

Supports balanced budget amendment.

Guns:

”Perry’s pro-gun resume reads like something the late Charlton Heston would have been proud of… strongly supports the individual right to gun ownership and the subsequent right to use guns in self-defense.”

"Card carrying" member of the NRA

Perry has a permit to carry a concealed firearm

Perry Signs Legislation Protecting Texas Workers’ Right to Self-Defense

NRA Endorses Perry in Governor's Race.

Rick Perry's speech at the NRA convention

Perry carries a laser sighted .380 loaded with hollow points.

While jogging, Perry shoots and kills threatening coyote with one shot

Press: Are you packing heat? Perry: No comment, "that's why it's called 'concealed.'"

Supports campus concealed carry.

continued

Saturday, August 20, 2011 11:13:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

continuing with pros:

Military:



Perry spent 4 years active duty (not Reserve or Nat'l Guard) as an Airforce pilot.

Left Airforce with the rank of Captain

Was in the Corps of Cadets at Texas A&M

Opposes the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell."

Lifetime member of the American Legion.

Social Issues:

Supports constitutional amendments against abortion and for one-man, one-woman marriage amendments.

Opposes gay marriage, opposes special protection for homosexuals in workplace and housing, opposes the repeal of DADT

Pushed bill for ultrasounds before abortions and pro-life license plates

Education:

Perry behind removal of left-wing textbooks from Texas schools.

Texas homeschoolers endorse Rick Perry

Perry speaks at home school rally

Perry refuses millions in Obama education funds because of federal mandates

Perry seeks major reform of higher education

Fought for school vouchers.

Saturday, August 20, 2011 11:14:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

**************CONS*********
Perry... None of this screams conservative to me:

Rick Perry defended the Texas “Dream ACT,”

Bank of America to Rick Perry: ‘We Will Help You Out’


New Hampshire Tea Party Coalition warnings about Perry


Michelle Malkin: Plumbing the Rest of the Perry Record

Texas RLC Sends Out Warning on Rick Perry | Republican Liberty Caucus

First Read - Perry calls idea of U.S.-Mexico border wall ‘ridiculous’

Rick Perry’s dangerous Muslim compromise

Gov. Rick Perry’s Billionaire Backers - Forbes.com
www.forbes.com

Half of Perry ‘mega-donors’ allegedly received political kickbacks

Gov. Rick Perry at La Raza Convention

Rick Perry Shady Donor Deals Exposed

Rick Perry tied to Agenda 21: Selling Texas to foreigners, jabs Obama for same

Rick Perry Invested in Pornography

Rick Perry Tries to Get Out of Ticket - Texas State Trooper Dashcam

Saturday, August 20, 2011 11:15:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Apologies if the above comments do not flow . . .there were three comments in sequence providing links to pros & cons for Perry. The first comment appeared to post then disappeared.

Saturday, August 20, 2011 11:19:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Thanks for the information Anonymous. I really appreciate it.

Actually this post,

Rick Perry Invested in Pornography

is a good example of why the criticism of Perry by Geller and Spencer is so outlandish.

Why do I say that?

Well, the whole case for Perry investing in Pornography is that he bought $5-10K in stock in a chain of video rental stores (like Blockbuster) called Movie Gallery. At the time, they rented pornographic movies as well as mainstream movies. So, in that article which you link, the statement is made that Perry is associated with "Bareback Bisexuals" and "Teens with tits"

Right.

You see, because he invested in a chain of video rental stores he is a purveyor of teens with tits. Got that?

That is almost the exact equivalent of what Pamela Geller has done to Rick Perry by calling him a Stealth Jihadist candidate.

First, it's a disingenuous argument, just as Pamela's was. And second, even if it is essentially true, it is nothing that the average American might not be involved in as well.

As I said above, one could associate me with Muslims. Some of the stuff I can not go into personally, but let's just put it this way: there is at least one person in my family with Muslim names. Additionally, as I have mentioned above, I participated in a Prayer Breakfast with the Imam from Adam Gadahn's Mosque, on more than one occasion, as I recall. Additionally, I have frequented a local Muslim restaurant ("Persian food") and spent time with people who were not exactly moderate Muslims.

And, I did both of those latter two things FOR POLITICAL REASONS.

So, am I a Stealth Jihadist?

No, I am a fucking businessman is what I am, and part of my job as a Marketing and PR person has been to forge alliances with people in positions of power in the business and political communities.

JUST LIKE RICK PERRY.

Saturday, August 20, 2011 11:34:00 pm  
Blogger felix said...

Geller and Spencer are right to raise concerns about Perry's connection to Islamists, but they appear to be going over the top in their criticism. It would help if Perry would isssue statement opposing sharia law intrusion into US law--like Backman did.

BTW, several posters above wrote that Romney would lose to Obama--not true--Romney has been running even with Obama in national polls. And at this point in campaign I favor Romney. He appears very electable to me.

Sunday, August 21, 2011 2:50:00 am  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Felix,
I don't recall ever disagreeing with you before.

:)

Anyway, wanna bet?

Sunday, August 21, 2011 3:27:00 am  
Blogger felix said...

I don't know if you saw Dick Morris saying he wouldn't support Pawlenty (before he dropped out) because T-Paw had allowed a sharia home loan gov't program in Minn. when he was Gov. Pawlenty said he didn't know about it at the time and discontinued it when he found out. Who knows?

re Romney-check out

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

Sunday, August 21, 2011 3:44:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Money.

It's all about the money.

Forget everything else.....

It's ALWAYS all about the money.

Sunday, August 21, 2011 1:52:00 pm  
Blogger Dymphna said...

Thank you for covering what appears to be another outbreak of Sudden Smearing Syndrome. It has become more and more common, a worrying sign of the growing disarray among conservatives. That problem could mean Obama’s easy re-election.

But it wasn't just these two doing the smearing. Michelle Malkin?? That one really took me aback. Malkin & WaPo?? What gives?? I don't follow MM closely enough to know if she favors whatever candidate the Tea Party has crowned. Or if they have favored a particular candidate so early on. But her alliance w/ WaPo, the D.C. sneer'n'smear machine, and their latest meme -- Perry-is-Poison -- surprised me. Malkin & the leftist MSM??

So I went looking for Qui Bono. Here's a possible lead:

The Horserace*

A snip:

...Karl Rove was a key player, despite his occasional denials, in Kay Bailey Hutchison’s defeat at Rick Perry’s hands last year in the Republican primary for Texas Governor.

Even Obama’s campaign guy, David Axelrod, has been crushed by Rick Perry.

So you have these guys, the Romney camp, and all their related friends on the left and the right trying to settle every score they can with Perry and his consultant, Dave Carney.

This, by the way, is why the attacks are coming fast and furious right now. This is why Republicans are leaking to reporters that Perry is too out of control or has, as Alex Castellanos put it on CNN last night, “Mad Cowboy Disease.”

Because so much of the consultant class will be shut out of the White House should Rick Perry win, their livelihoods depend on Rick Perry losing either now or in November. And frankly, for a few in the GOP consultant class, they’ll gladly see Perry lose in November just to ensure they are not shut out of a Republican White House.


In an aside, Erickson links to another essay:

Perry’s War With the Bushies

The lede summary:

Karl Rove and his operatives appear to have launched a campaign to derail Rick Perry’s 2012 bid, beginning with criticisms that he is 'unpresidential.' Matt Latimer on a decade-old feud over power and money.

So there's one possibility: the Left and the Right power boys with some scores to settle. Or some fears to allay...who knows.

Normally I start paying attention to campaign politics closer in. Here, that would be ~January 2012. Given the peculiarity of this Perry-bash (peculiar enough to draw attention to the accusers, as it has here), my curiosity has been piqued. Perhaps ironically, more attention to the ppl with the tar brushes than to Perry himself will produce some blowback? Your post is proof of just such a possibility.

BTW, linking Geller & Spencer w/ the Center for Security Policy in this issue is mistaken. Yes, I do admire much of Frank Gaffney's work, especially since he’s the only one of the Beltway insiders to call out Norquist on his deep Muslim Brotherhood connections. Also, the two-year study CSP sponsored re American mosques is outstanding. With that proviso, pls check out the CSP position as outlined by one of their spokesmen:

Anti-Sharia Activists Split on Perry

You could call CSP and ask to talk to or email the person named there; they could give you more details. One of our readers said there's also a PJM article, but PJM takes sooo long to load w/ our slow connection. Anyway, it's obvious that CSP doesn't align with this attack.

*BTW, the link to Red State's "Horse Race" is helpful for those of us who aren't haven't kept up with the players. He has a rundown of the problems and plusses for all the current campaigners.

Sunday, August 21, 2011 6:55:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. Islam is a false and demonic religion , we have the proof.

2. Moselms are two categories: Bad Moslems who follow Islam, and good Moslems who do not follow Islam.

3. But Good Moslems didn't get what we proved to them alright. Otherwise they would have denounced Islam as we did and convert. So they must be practicing Takkiyya (refer to 1 to know what it is).

4. So there is no good Moslem. All of them are bad.

5. But there are people who are associated with Moslems. They are either fools, or are stealth Moslems themselves, practicing Takiyya. They cannot be fools, since we proved outright that all Moslems are bad Moslems in points 1-4.
After all, since Moslems are allowed to hide their faith to deceive us, how are we sure that Perry is not a Moslem?

6. Therefore, everybody is proven to be Moslem
unless he abuses and defames Islam and Its
Prophet publicly. Even then we are not sure, since perhaps some Moslems would do that to practice Takiyya and to deceive the unbelievers to push their agenda. For example, Mr. Spencer hismelf, might be a Moslem trying to spread Islam. Isn't he a scholar?
Isn't Islam poison? He has been poisioned, and he's
spreading the true teachings of Islam under the cover of fighting it. After all, these teachings of Islam proved extremely attractive to billions of People
over 14 centuries, and it is enough for people to
become aware that such things exist, to begin to read Koran for themselves, for a new wave of conversion to Islam begins.

7. So finally, I proved that everybody is a covert Moslem by default, including the owner of this weblog. I only trust myself from now on. You can go to hell all of you 7 billions minus one , Sharia supporters. Armaggedon now.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011 6:34:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home