YOU’RE A GOOD JIHADI, CHARLIE BROWN !!!

Why Newt Gingrich’s War on Islam is good for America !!!

Call it the war on terror. Or not. The real war is the war on Islam being fought in small towns and big cities in America as well nearly every country around the world. Newt Gingrich gets it. Few others do. Or ever will. 

Newt’s recent declaration that he would ask John Bolton to be his Secretary of State, and if we’re lucky, he would also choose Allen West as his Secretary of Defense will put the world on notice. The business of Islamic jihad, Islamization of the West and creeping Sharia isn’t business as usual anymore. The domestic and foreign Islamic thugs working to destroy America from within and America’s interests throughout the world would have a powerful new foe who intends to return America to its rightful position as the world’s only superpower where the motto is, ‘We don’t care if they like us, as long as they fear us.’

Not surprisingly, Newt has the left wing moonbats foaming at the mouth because they understand that Newt’s ideas are more than just campaign rhetoric. Newt has named the enemy and will not be made impotent by political correctness that forces most politicians into caving to the notion that Islam is a religion of peace.

Gingrich’s 2010 documentary, “America At Risk: The War With No Name,” portrays a disturbing vision of the world in which the U.S. and its western allies are at war with Islam, vividly demonstrating the dangers facing America, one decade after the attacks on 9/11. Today, Washington refuses to tell the truth about the war we are fighting. According to experts, we are at war with Islamists – and it is a war we are losing. “This war will go on until either the entire world either embraces Islam or submits to Islamic rule,” says historian Bernard Lewis, while appearing in the film.

Speaking at the American Enterprise Institute last year, Gingrich told the audience:

It’s time we had a national debate on this. And one of the things I’m going to suggest today is a federal law that says ‘no court, anywhere in the United States, under any circumstances, is allowed to consider Sharia as a replacement for American law.’ Period.

Gingrich believes, the primary threat facing the U.S. isn’t a foreign adversary but the gradual imposition of Islamic Sharia law in America.

IB TIMES Gingrich likes to couch his policy positions in broader ideas, invoking his training as an historian to offer context and clarity. So it went in a 2010 speech to the American Enterprise Institute. He depicted a clash of civilizations and ideologies between western liberalism and radical Islam, which he likened to World War II in its importance and the Cold War in its duration.

But Afghanistan, the current presidential frontrunner asserted at the time, is not the central front in this conflict. It is in the United States, where Gingrich contended Sharia principles were slowly and insidiously taking hold.

“Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence,” Gingrich said. “But in fact they’re both engaged in jihad and they’re both seeking to impose the same end state, which is to replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of Sharia.”

He went on to describe Sharia law as a “mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States” and to call for a federal law barring courts from using Sharia law. He reiterated the call for federal Sharia ban while speaking later that year at the Values Voter Summit, and told an audience at the Cornerstone Church in Texas that he feared his grandchildren would see America “dominated by radical Islamists.”

For evidence, Gingrich has pointed to cases that include a New Jersey judge invoking Sharia when he denied a Muslim woman a restraining order against her ex-husband (an appeals court reversed the decision) and a blind student at St. Cloud State University being exempted from a class after Muslim students objected to his seeing-eye dog on religious grounds. He drew plaudits from like-minded conservatives, with Andrew C. McCarthy writing in the National Review that Gingrich had “crystallized the essence of our national security challenge” by making the question of “where do you stand on sharia?” paramount. 

Further exemplifying his anti-Muslim sentiments, In an interview last week, Gingrich explained that the Palestinians are an “invented people” a statement effectively denying the right of Palestinians to a state. Such a position would end U.S. support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and rejects the policy positions of the Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama administrations.

Newt called the Palestinians “terrorists.”

Not one to backpedal his statements, even when it is considered politically incorrect, in a recent GOP debate, Newt not only didn’t back down, he doubled down on his positions on the Israel-Palestinian conflict saying, “Somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth. These people are terrorists. They teach terrorism in their schools. They have textbooks that say, if there are 13 Jews and nine Jews are killed, how many Jews are left? We pay for those textbooks through our aid money.”

Newt Gingrich has said the Arab Spring and the Muslim campaign against Catholic University are symptoms of a growing anti-Christian climate, and pledged to defend religious freedom around the globe.

Christian Post Gingrich criticized the Obama administration’s involvement in the Arab Spring – the Middle East grassroots uprising that has overthrown longstanding authoritarian leaders such as Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak –arguing that such involvement is creating an atmosphere of hatred towards Christians.

The former House Speaker also took issue with the recent complaint by Muslim students against Catholic University of America. The complaint filed with the D.C. Office of Human Rights charged that the school rooms used for Islamic prayer have religious material such crosses and images of Jesus, and that the private Catholic university would not sponsor a Muslim student association.

Gingrich responded to the complaint by asking, “Are you prepared to sponsor a Christian missionary in Mecca? Because if you’re not prepared to sponsor religious liberty in Saudi Arabia, don’t come and nag us with some hypocritical baloney. So I think we need to be prepared to stand firm for genuine religious liberty, not for something that’s anti-Christian.”

Gingrich also compared the Ground Zero Victory Mosque project to building a Nazi monument outside the Holocaust Museum.

And perhaps, best of all, as President, Newt Gingrich would prosecute the anti-American CAIR, ISNA, NAIT, ICNA, and all other Muslim Brotherhood affiliates operating in the U.S.

Author: barenakedislam

“IF ANY STATE PREVENTS US FROM SPREADING ISLAM ON ITS SOIL WE WILL WAGE JIHAD ON THAT”

So you want to be a Martyr through Jihad here in America fine, consider Barracuda Brigade; your Delivery Service. We specialize in Expedited Shipping and Guaranteed Arrivals !!!

Romney Vs. Gingrich on Jihad and Sharia

Early and volatile, the Republican Presidential nomination race—at least for now—appears to be settling into a contest between consistent front runnerMitt Romney, and the latest surging, “non-Romney alternative”, former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich.

Unfortunately the CNN/Heritage Foundation/American Enterprise televised debate of last week did not highlight the yawning gap between these front running contenders’ views on the existential threat doctrine of our Islamic enemies: jihad and its motivational, sacralized religio-political “law”, Sharia.

During an interview with US News reporter Dan Gligoff published June 3, 2009, Mitt Romney offered the following bizarre observation about the living Islamic institution ofjihad, ostensibly to “clarify” remarks made during an earlier speech at the Heritage Foundation:

I spoke about three major threats America faces on a long term basis. Jihadism is one of them, and that is not Islam.

Romney—notwithstanding this distressingly ridiculous pronouncement—remains, for now, the front running contender for the Republican Presidential nomination.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, in stark contrast to the muddled and craven nonsense uttered by Romney on jihad during his US News interview, delivered an astute and courageous address at The American Enterprise Institute, July 29, 2010, which provided an irrefragably accurate, if blunt characterization of the existential threat posed by Islam’s living, self-professed mission: to impose Sharia, its totalitarian religio-political “law,” globally.

With vanishingly rare intellectual honesty and resolve, Gingrich described how normative Sharia—antithetical to bedrock Western legal principles—by “divine,” immutable diktat, rejects freedom of conscience, while sanctioning violent jihadism, absurd, misogynistic “rules of evidence” (four male witnesses for rape), barbarous punishments (stoning for adultery), and polygamy:

Sharia in its natural form has principles and punishments totally abhorrent to the Western world, and the underlying basic belief which is that law comes directly from God and is therefore imposed upon humans and no human can change the law without it being an act of apostasy is a fundamental violation of a tradition in the Western system which goes back to Rome, Athens, and Jerusalem and which has evolved in giving us freedom across the planet on a scale we can hardly imagine and which is now directly threatened by those who would impose it.

Moreover, Gingrich warned about efforts—deliberate, or unwitting–to represent Sharia as a benign system:

So let me also be quite clear that the rules are radical and horrific. I think again it’s fascinating that even when people go out and do polling and they say to, for example, Muslims in general, do you believe in Sharia, they don’t then explain what Sharia is. Sharia becomes like would you like to be a Rotarian and it sounds okay.

Gingrich’s unflinching portrayal of the existential threat Sharia represents—whether or not this totalitarian system is imposed by violent, or non-violent means—was accompanied by a clarion call for concrete measures to oppose any Sharia encroachment on the U.S. legal code:

Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence. But in fact they’re both engaged in jihad and they’re both seeking to impose the same end state which is to replace Western civilization with a [radical] imposition of Sharia.

The fight against Sharia and the madrassas in mosques which teach hatred and fanaticism is the heart of the enemy movement from which the terrorists spring forth. It’s time we had a national debate on this. One of the things I’m going to suggest today is a federal law which says no court anywhere in the United States under any circumstance is allowed to consider Sharia as a replacement for American law.

Subsequently, J. Mark Campbell of The United West, obtained a video recorded commitment from Newt Gingrich, to pursue and prosecute the major Muslim Brotherhood front groups currently operating unencumbered in the US, and being courted for “Muslim outreach” by feckless politicians, policymakers, and even law enforcement officials.

The Holy Land Foundation trial made unmistakably clear the agenda of this spiders web of Muslim Brotherhood organizations—which includes unindicted co-conspirators CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations), ISNA (Islamic Society of North America), and NAIT (North American Islamic Trust)—as stated explicitly by Yusuf al-Qaradawi acolyte Mohamed Akram, in his “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America”, May 22, 1991 ( translated here, on “Page 7 of 18,” bottom center pagination):

The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and by the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

“Front runner” Mitt Romney needs to provide the same unequivocal commitment, immediately, to this critically important national security goal in the struggle against jihadism

Newt Gingrich has set the standard for honest and informed discussion of Islamic totalitarianism which should be expected of all contenders—a standard Mitt Romney, thus far, fails, miserably. 

Via http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47782