Herman, of all of the current crop of candidates, knows how to bring a crowd to its feet – lustily and many times. Afterward, he held a presser for bloggers and media to ask questions. I arrived late as I got stopped a couple of times right after the session ended. Thus, I entered in as Herman was giving his explanation of why he hadn’t signed the Susan B Anthony anti-abortion pledge (he is pro-life but he has procedural reasons, separation of branches, for not signing it. He also stated that if legislation came to him, he would sign it).
Anyways, here are the questions that were asked while I was present:
- Abortion: (In process) Not signing the Susan B. Anthony pro-life pledge
- Currency: On the Federal Reserve
- Foreign Policy: What will President Cain do about Libya, Syria?
- Cabinet: Appointing Muslims – special precautions?
- Debt/Deficit: How reduce the $1.5 Trillion annual deficit / Paydown the $14 Trillion debt?
- Media: don’t like your "biz" approach, want "better answers now.
- Regulation: what to do about the 80K new Fed regulations this year w/a $1.75 Trillion compliance cost?
Now, there is an ongoing kerfuffle over the Muslim question where Herman, well, raised his voice. Some folks have called it screaming; having heard him when he has decided to be LOUD, I can tell you that he was FAR from being at that volume.
This whole thing started when Lee Fang of ThinkProgress (a George Soros financed entity – you know, that “international financier” whose hobby is crashing a country’s currency?) with what has turned out to be a gotcha meme – certainly one that has made an impact on the Left and has accomplished EXACTLY what he wanted by asking it – torpedoing a solid rival to Obama by using identity politics. I have a video of Herman already confronting this issue here.
The guy here is just perpetuating the meme that Fang started and that is what Herman is objecting to. As it came up during the NH Debate, I think that the issue is this: How does one prevent getting a militant Muslim that wishes to implement Shariah Law from getting into the Cabinet? Newt got it exactly right by…
…bringing up the NY Times Square bomber who simply said, when questioned by the Judge as why he would do it as he had sworn an oath to become a citizen, "I lied" – the Islamic technique of Taqiyya (lying to advance the faith). Ask the same question of Major Nidal Hassan, the militant Muslim, who also swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, but still shot 32 soldiers while screaming "Allahu Akbar"! Add in the latest example: the Marine lance corporal reservist that left the package at the Pentagon? How do we figure out who the ‘sleepers’ are in this oh so Politically Correct world that the Left has constructed (and is all too willing to label questioners as McCarthyites)?
THAT is the basic problem – and conservatives, like that blogger at the press avail, are using the same PC techniques that the Libs will use to "circle shoot" on of our own. Given that, what are the decent solutions that could be proposed? How DOES one filter the militant Muslim wishing to transform America stealthly, from a Muslim that is the equivalent of a "Sunday Baptist" or believes that jihad is strictly an internal / personal one of self-betterment? As opposed to the one that believes in Taqiyya)?
The standard answer to which all of us agree to is that you look at the character of the person over a long term, not religion, race, age, or sex when appointing. But it still remains: How oft have you seen a Ba’hai talking about replacing a govt? Or a Druid? Baptist? Jew? Wiccan? Problem is, we ARE seeing that from militant Muslims and the call to see Sha’ria Law implemented, if not by de jure then by de facto, here in the US (the founder of CAIR advocated for it, and now has gone silent (but not rejecting it)). Go ahead and try to preach the Gospel or use your First Amendment rights up in Dearborn during the Islamic festival. How does one determine the "Jihadist" part from someone that has tried hard to make that disappear?
A candidate loses twice on this issue ("…willingly appoint a Jihadist") no matter what they do:
- Work too hard to make the willingly go away and you’ll be made to look like a bigot during the campaign – as Lee Fang has done – even as the heart and brain is in the right place in being aware of the danger.
- And if s/he swings too hard to the other side to be seen as tolerant (to the point of being PC), might actually allow it to happen, only to get nailed later for not being more discerning in the first place (e.g., while Hassan’s superiors seem to have gone unscathed, a President would be excoriated for being a chucklehead for the appointment).
PC pilloried up front, actual failure on the second. So, how does one find the ones that ARE? Or are you saying it isn’t a problem at all and should not be considered?
Remember, we never used to think that airliners would be used as flying bombs into tall buildings either. Islam is not a religion per se – it IS a political system wrapped up in religious themes. Even as it praises God / Allah and has its sacred writings and religious ceremonies like any other, Shariah law requires absolute fealty to the collective way of living and subsumes the individual to being…..nothing.
We used to talk about the "ink spot" paradigm in Iraq: go to an area, hold it, and then expand outward. Do it lots of times until the dots start intersecting. That’s how the Libs/Regressives have changed our culture in one area after another, right? Militant Muslims have watched – and learned. Look at the inkspot effect over in Europe as well as lawfare inkspots. In many places in Sweden, one of my ancestral homes, large swaths of the country are no-go zones (re: Malmo) for native Swedes and have become complete Islamic-only cultures. Yet, it didn’t start out that way.
