This man, Dr. Rich Swier, Posted on June 20, 2011 an article that stated the following:
“Two Republican Presidential candidates have embraced sharia Islam. Their names are Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty.”
I just posted an article and video from Dick Morris explaining why Morris has a problem with Pawlenty. It’s about Pawlenty trying to help Muslim people buy homes because Sharah Law won’t let them pay interest. So, Pawlenty tried to make some sort of accommodations to help Muslims buy homes in America.
You know, it’s the American dream. It’s using the concept that you are an American if you own a home.
Dr. Rich Swier also stated the following: At the recent Republican Presidential debate held in New Hampshire on June 13, 2011 the issue of Shariah Law came up. CNN.com reports Candidate Herman Cain Said:
“I don’t believe in Sharia law in American courts, I believe in American laws in American courts, period. There have been instances in New Jersey, there was an instance in Oklahoma , where Muslims did try to influence court decisions with Sharia law, I was simply saying, very emphatically, American laws in American courts.”
As Cain, I believe in American law being upheld in American courts. Oklahoma passed a law in November 2010 to prevent Shariah law from being considered and upheld in American courts. However, a Liberal judge prevented that Oklahoma law from being enforced.
A recent study by the Center for Security Policy backs up the comments made by Cain and found Shariah Law was used in recent court cases in 23 states. After you go to this link and read the short report (you really must read it!), notice that, although frightening, nothing there says a word about Pawlenty or Romney agreeing with this type of law being acceptable in America.
So how did the other candidates respond to this fact?
According to CNN.com:
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who spoke next, appeared to brush aside Cain’s concerns about Sharia and his suspicions of American Muslims. “Of course, we’re not going to have Sharia law applied in U.S. courts. That’s never going to happen,” Romney said. “We have a Constitution and we follow the law.” Romney then appeared to defend American Muslims, even if he didn’t mention them specifically.
Did you note the comment Romney said: “WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION AND WE FOLLOW THE LAW.” Someone, I suppose it was CNN, followed up with this observation. “Romney appeared to defend American Muslims, even if he didn’t mention them specifically.” So APPEARED TO is the same thing as DID DEFEND. EVEN IF HE DIDN’T MENTION THEM SPECIFICALLY. Oh, my goodness. Do you see the bias in that statement. Was there ANY TRUTH in that statement? NO there was not so don’t make such a statement.
The article goes on to say: “This is interesting because Politico reports that in November 2007 Mitt Romney said:
As [Mansoor] Ijaz recounted the exchange in an opinion piece in Tuesday’s Christian Science Monitor, “I asked Mr. Romney whether he would consider including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his Cabinet as advisers on national security matters, given his position that ‘jihadism’ is the principal foreign policy threat facing America today. “He answered, ‘ … based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a Cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration,’” Ijaz wrote.
So what has changed?
Let’s see, didn’t Romney say “I CANNOT SEE THAT A CABINET POSITION WOULD BE JUSTIFIED. BUT OF COURSE, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT MUSLIMS COULD (that is not the same as WILL) at lower levels…”
I can think of a few possible ways Muslims might serve in lower levels of an administration, but that would mean major vetting wouldn’t it? Are ALL Blacks lazy, worthless, hood looms? Of course not! Making an assumption like that shows our ignorance and prejudice just as making comments about Muslims all being radical jihadists and want to kill Americans.
One point to consider here is when would it NOT be wise to talk about Muslim issues? Is it wise to discuss it in a crowd where people can become angry, where what we say can be misconstrued and inflame people, or should it be something spoken of in general as Romney did?
However, Kevin Madden, Romney’s national press secretary, told Politico: “At this point, we’re not focused on what Gov. Romney’s Cabinet might look like. But the governor does not believe that in order to effectively fight radical jihad you need to have Muslims serving in the Cabinet.”
NOTE: Mansoor Ijaz, a New York financier and commentator of Pakistani ancestry, says the exchange with Romney occurred at a closed fundraiser in Las Vegas in mid-November. Ijaz describes himself “an American-born citizen of the Islamic faith.”
Fundraisers for Romney’s Republican presidential campaign are generally closed to the press, so the full context of the comment is unavailable.
I’m sorry but it really ticks me off when people misrepresent the truth to slant their bias. I suppose I do sometimes too, it’s probably hard not too, but in this case, it appears Romney choose his words carefully. Obviously, he choose his words more carefully than the Dr. Rich Swier. Let this be a lesson for all of us when we report stories. Try to choose our words carefully and accurately and leave out the bias.
Both Pawlenty and Romney appear to be good men and should receive the utmost respect. I have said good things about Cain because I like him, but he cannot go around spouting this kind of talk about Muslim this way and expect to be elected. We have enough divisiveness and we don’t need any more.
Please pass along this article to others so they have a chance to see the other side of this story. We need to use discernment in this election because we cannot afford to be fooled this time. This election is extremely important and we cannot afford to make another mistake. I try to look at why people are making the statements that they are, what are they trying to gain by it, and how that statement improves our understanding or if it creates divisiveness.
I call that type of examination “Turning the penny over to see the other side.”
