I get it you’re all for Perry...that’s pretty evident...but there is more at stake here than a Pres. candidate. He’s a Pres. Candidate who ‘believes’ there is nothing to be concerned about Islamists if he determines so.
His nievity, as with Christy’s and others who are sucked into believing there is nothing to be concerned about is far more than worrisome or troubling....it’s high risk catering to a very large political group who has a polticial agenda in our country....and that the Islamization of the United States.
Ismailism is still Islam and still reveres the prophet Muhammed. It doesn’t matter whether Ismailis under Aga Khan are Westernized or friendly to the ways of the West, their religious beliefs and ideology doesn’t change its spots, it is still Islam........they all follow the same book.
Additionally the Aga Khan is very actively involved in ‘importing large numbers of Mohammedans into the US’ and Canada, building Muslim townships from scratch. Which Texas certainly demonstraits this.
If Muslims are instructed that the ends justify the means ...and evil things are not evil if they are doing it to expand Islam can they be trusted? .......The recent history in Europe should be a distinct warning to everyone in the United States.
So no I am not worried about Perry....I am very much frightened for our country as the risk, if he determines to and I see no reason why he wouldn’t, takes this nation the same way he has taken Texas....and that by actively inviting, encouraging, recruiting, and participating in bringing Muslims into his state and honoring them for doing so. This he has done with them from his office as well as throughout the Muslim communities...including establishing specific accomodations for Muslims...via his signiture....which adheres to Shariah Law.
He’s a Pres. Candidate who ‘believes’ there is nothing to be concerned about Islamists if he determines so.
The term 'Islamist' refers to militant Muslims. There is no one outside of Barack Obama who isn't concerned with Islamists.
And, in full disclosure, yes, I'm for Perry. Not to the exclusion of any other candidate, especially Palin. The reason I'm for Perry on this particular issue is that his handling of the Ismailis is the best feasible course of action for Muslim outreach for someone that's actually dealing with the problem. I've seen engagement from the tactical-level Army's ideal, I've seen it from the national level defense ideal, from Bush's ideal and Obama's. Perry's is head and shoulders above any of them.
People below that level are free to be as cowboy aggressive as they like, but it's the actions in the big leagues that matter. Palin, who I like quite a bit, is utterly untested in this regard. While I like to think she's do well, my idea of 'doing well' and your idea are probably quite different. And her version would be much like Perry's. Find the most moderate game in town and play it up. It's not an issue in Alaska. It is an issue in Texas. So, people give Perry a lot of crap for this, but at the end of the day, their pet candidates will do the exact same thing.
Or they'll do like Bush, and saddle up with billionaire Wahabbi exporting whackjobs or straight up terrorists like Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood. The idea that some politician in 2011 is just going to grab the bullhorn and tell the Muzzies to go home is about as likely as them putting a loaded revolver in their mouth and squeezing the trigger. It won't happen, and if that's your ideal, it's outside the realm of possibility.