Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) blasted Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) for failing to take a hard-line against Muslims or embrace the Islamophobia currently sweeping across the GOP.

Tancredo, who has suggested that bombing the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina would serve as a good “deterrent” against Islamic terrorism, opines in the Daily Caller:

What is not yet as widely known about Perry is that he extends his taxpayer-funded compassion not only to illegal aliens but also to Muslim groups seeking to whitewash the violent history of that religion. Perry endorsed and facilitated the adoption in Texas public schools of a pro-Muslim curriculum unit developed by Muslim clerics in Pakistan.

Tancredo cites “Islam scholar” Robert Spencer — Spencer plays the role of a “misinformation expert” in the Islamophobia network examined in the Center for American Progress’ new report Fear, Inc. — who examined the program and concluded:

The curriculum is a complete whitewash and it’s got the endorsement of Perry. It’s not going to give you any idea why people are waging jihad against the West — it’s only going to make you think that the real problem is ‘Islamophobia.’

Indeed Perry did develop a relationship with Pakistani religious leader and philanthropist Aga Khan and helped facilitate a 2009 agreement between Texas and Aga Khan organizations in the “fields of education, health sciences, natural disaster preparedness and recovery, culture and the environment.” At the signing ceremony, Perry said:

[T]raditional Western education speaks little of the influence of Muslim scientists, scholars, throughout history, and for that matter the cultural treasures that stand today in testament to their wisdom.

Not all conservative pundits have bought into the anti-Muslim hysteria. The Center for Security Policy’s David Reaboi and conservative blogger Ace of Spades have written lengthy rebuttals and characterized the attacks on Perry and his Aga Khan connections as inaccurate. But Perry’s involvement in the development of curriculum to teach Texas high school students about Islam has served as a rallying cry for anti-Muslim advocates who see the curriculum as a threat to their portrayal of Islam as an inherently violent religion.

Tancredo concludes his anti-Muslim editorial by suggesting that Perry’s affiliation with Grover Norquist, a Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) board member and president of Americans for Tax Reform, is yet another sign of “Perry’s Muslim blind spot.” Tancredo asks:

Why does [Perry] think he can claim to be the “tea party candidate” while endorsing a whitewash of Islamic extremism in Texas schools?

Tancredo’s reliance on discredited “scholars” like Robert Spencer and his assertions that radical Islam, via Grover Norquist and Aga Khan, have coopted Perry into spreading a “pro-Muslim curriculum unit” in Texas public schools offers an insight into the hateful and paranoid mindsets of those who embrace an anti-Muslim political agenda. (HT: Little Green Footballs)

Our guest blogger is Martin Wolberg-Stok, sustainable security intern at the Center for American Progress.

The Department of Defense notified Congress on September 14 of its plans to sell the government of Bahrain a package of arms worth $53 million, touting the island nation as “an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.” This disturbing news comes as the Bahraini government continues to crack down on protests that began in February of this year. In March, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates visited Bahrain and met with the country’s king and crown prince, telling them that “citizens’ desire for governmental change and reform across the region was real and irreversible” and urging them to engage in dialogue with the Bahraini people.

Speaking last week before the United Nations General Assembly, President Obama declared that the United States “will always stand up” for “universal rights.” Indeed, the President had strong words to say about Syria’s crackdown on peaceful protesters, urging the United Nations Security Council to “stand with the Syrian people” and sanction the Syrian regime.

But President Obama’s words were far tamer when it came to Bahrain, a country that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, has called a “critical ally.” The United States Navy has used Bahraini ports since 1947 and the island now serves as the headquarters for the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command and the Fifth Fleet, which together are responsible for an area that stretches from the Persian Gulf to the Horn of Africa. In his speech at the United Nations, Obama praised the steps Bahrain has taken toward reform, though he warned that “more is required” and that our “close friend” should “pursue a meaningful dialogue that brings peaceful change that is responsive to the people.” Despite multiple claims of torture of pro-reform activists at the hands of Bahraini security forces, the President made no mention of Bahraini human rights abuses in his speech. This stood in stark contrast his strongly worded comments about the Syrian regime.

In response to the administration’s hypocrisy in the face of Bahraini human rights abuses, the Project on Middle East Democracy has drafted a letter to Congress, signed by a group of organizations including Human Rights Watch and Freedom House, urging members of the House and Senate to block the arms sale to Bahrain. According to the New York Times and various human rights groups, more than 30 people have died and scores more have been injured since the protests began in February. Thousands more have been arrested or fired from their jobs. The ironic decision to sell defense equipment to Bahrain comes at a time when the Obama administration is increasingly promoting the importance of preventive diplomacy and conflict prevention. The Pentagon’s press release claims the sale will “contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a major non-NATO ally,” but at what impact to America’s credibility in the region?

This week on Fox News, anchors Bill O’Reilly and John Stossel discussed former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean’s advocacy for the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), an exiled Iranian opposition group designated as a “foreign terror organization” by the State Department. The leadership of the group is based in Paris, while more than 3,000 former fighters linger in Camp Ashraf — a base set up outside Baghdad in the 1980s when the group allied with Saddam Hussein against Iran — where they face violent harassment by the Iraqi authorities.

O’Reilly and Stossel went through some background about the group and Dean’s history of paid speeches advocating for their removal from the terror rolls and U.S. recognition of the group’s leader, Maryam Rajavi, as the president of Iran.

Their history is shoddy. For example, Stossel blames the group’s U.S. designation solely on acts committed in the 1970s, which he says were carried out by a “nasty fringe” and occurred “30, 40 years ago.” But the MEK only renounced violence in 2001 and fighters were separated from their tanks in Camp Ashraf only in 2003. The U.S. government actually directly accuses the MEK of carrying out terrorist acts as recently as the late 1990s.

But the really staggering ignorance on the part of Stossel is his misunderstanding of the statutes that criminalize material support for groups designated as terrorists. Stossel compares Dean’s paid speeches advocating for the MEK to speeches on behalf of medical industry groups and Stossel’s own paid speeches. O’Reilly, to his credit, pushes back:

O’REILLY: He’s lobbying, and he’s getting paid by this group, Dean, to…

STOSSEL: We don’t know that he’s lobbying for them. He’s made speeches for them, but so has Rudy Giuliani.

O’REILLY: Come on. Why would these guys do that unless they were getting paid?

STOSSEL: Because they say, “Oh, we have Howard Dean speaking here in Belgium. Come over and meet Howard Dean.”

O’REILLY: That’s right. And Dean wouldn’t do that unless they were greasing him.

STOSSEL: Right. They’re greasing him.

O’REILLY: Yes, so he’s getting money from these people.

STOSSEL: So? I make speeches for money.

O’REILLY: Yes.

STOSSEL: If he checked them out and he believes…

O’REILLY: You do the chamber of commerce in Toledo. Not the Muhajadeen.

STOSSEL: If I believed in their cause, as he says he does.

O’REILLY: Oh, yes, he believes in their cause. Socialized medicine people? That’s what he believes in.

STOSSEL: He’s also taken money to change the patent rules for pharmaceutical companies. I don’t blame him for doing that.

O’REILLY: Dean is a lobbyist now, that’s what he does. And he gets paid by MSNBC.

Watch the whole exchange:

Stossel’s defense closely mirrors that of Rudy Giuliani, Tom Ridge, and Fran Townsend (a paid CNN contributor), who argued after they were accused of material support for terrorism that they didn’t consider the MEK to be a terror group.

That Dean was paid by the group — or more accurately, American supporters of the group (if that’s indeed the case) — is less important than whether or not he made what is considered speech that was “coordinated” with the group. Having spoken to actual MEK rallies in Europe alongside Rajavi, that is a difficult defense for Dean and other paid or unpaid advocates to make. (This is not to say one shouldn’t be able to speak in favor of delisting the MEK, or that they do not deserve today to be delisted, but simply that until they are delisted, the laws on the matter are clear.)

But one does not simply get to choose which laws they follow and which designations they recognize. In a nation where the rule of law matters, it needs to be applied equally to all violators, irrespective of what they or others feel about it. That’s why the false comparison between the MEK and the Toledo Chamber of Commerce is so staggering.

As ThinkProgress documented, the congregants of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro in Murfreesboro, Tennessee had been working for more than a year to gain approval for an expansion of the mosque and the building of an Islamic Center. While making their case for an expansion, these peaceful Muslims faced a vicious campaign of hate from far-right political activists in the state, which included Islamophobic accusations that they were trying to establish Sharia law in Tennessee, comments by the state’s lieutenant governor that Islam was a “cult,” and an arson attack.

Yet the mosque’s attendees overcame these trials, and the far-right political activists failed to convince Tennesseans, among whom only 28 percent objected to the expansion, according to polling conducted last October. Yesterday, the Murfreesboro Islamic Center finally broke ground on its mosque expansion, to the cheers of hundreds who came to celebrate, and without any controversy or threats. “We are not really celebrating the groundbreaking of this center. We are celebrating that liberty and freedom and religion exists as a fact in this nation,” said Ossama Bahloul, the mosque’s imam. “And we can be here in America and set an example for people.” Watch The Tennessean’s video report from the groundbreaking ceremony:

Given the past threats, the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro does plan to take security measures at their new expansion, including the installation of 24-hour video surveillance cameras.