Why I Will Not Support Newt Gingrich

The ex Speaker of the House exposed his hypocrisy in an article at Human Events. I thank my friend theway2k for posting a link to the Gingrich screed in
Who is at War with America?

On Terrorism it's Time to Know, to Profile, and to Discriminate by Newt Gingrich 12/30/2009

We know our opponents are radical extremists of the irreconcilable wing of Islam (Islamists, some would call them).

We know they have an ideology which is anti-female, desires to impose fundamentalist Sharia as a form of law, is hostile to other religions and is prepared to kill the innocent to achieve their goals.

Like G.W. Bush, John McCain, Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama, Newt knows something that is untrue. Our opponent is Islam. Islam's canon of scripture, tradition & jurisprudence contains demonic injunctions to make war upon disbelievers. Islamic aggression flows directly from its scripture, tradition & jurisprudence. Islam is fundamentally and irreversibly incompatible with liberty & democracy.

Islam is paternalistic & misogynistic by design. Global imposition of Shari'ah is part of the grand design, not an innovation. Islam is not just hostile to Judaism, Christianity & Zoroastrianism, it is engaged in perpetual warfare against them.


Newt's article included seven thematic headings which deserve some attention.

• Our Politically Correct Government is Making Life More Miserable For the Innocent

It is true, p.c. policy imposes a great burden on innocent travelers and puts them at risk.

• It’s Time to Be Honest About What We Know

Really, its long overdue. But the quotes included above indicate that Newt is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

• Protecting the Rights of Terrorists Has Been More Important than Protecting the Lives of Americans

While that statement appears strident at first glance, it is an understatement. Three thousand lives might have been saved if the investigators had properly inspected the contents of one terrorist's computer. We need to scan, interrogate and search Muslims, not innocent citizens. Careful background checks are needed to identify them well in advance.

• The United States Must Actively Root Out Every Terrorist Website

I don't believe it is possible to root them out, and I am not convinced that it is desirable. As soon as one is pulled down, they'll replace it with another. Those sites can serve as a source of actionable intelligence if properly exploited.

• We Need a “Grand National Strategy” That is Bigger Than the Debate Over Afghanistan

We needed a strategy eight years ago. We needed to honestly identify the enemy first. That need has not been met yet.

• The New Honesty Should End Any Thought of a Civilian Trial in New York for KSM

If there was any new honesty, it would come too late to derail that trial. But there is no new honesty, and it is unlikely that there ever will be official honesty concerning Islam and terrorism.

• We Need a New Homeland Security Secretary Who Knows We Need a New Strategy

That is a grand statement of the obvious. But we also need a Commander In Chief with the same knowledge. Newt Gingrich has identified a real need: official honesty in identifying and characterizing the enemy. But instead of promoting it, he has continued the politically correct practice of implying that mythical 'radical extremists' are the cause of terrorism.

In reality, believers of orthodox Islamic doctrine are responsible for terrorism. The Qur'an commands Jihad imperatives which require perpetual war. Those imperatives are in 8:39, 8:60, 9:29 & 9:123. Those imperatives are confirmed by hadith including Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387. Those imperatives are codified into Islamic law in Reliance of the Traveler O9.8 & O9.9. Terrorism is sanctified in 3:151, commanded in 8:12, exemplified in 33:26 and confirmed in Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220. The new honesty Newt calls for involves acknowledging the fatal fact documented in this paragraph. It is extremely unlikely that any candidate for high office will fully engage in such honesty.

Any politician who publicly identifies Islam as the source of Islamic terrorism and genocidal Jihad will be labeled racist & bigot. Which one of them has the SISU required to state the facts and pound home the proof? Who can withstand the Islamic & Democrat Party propaganda mills and mainstream media? We have two years in which to find such a hero. It appears that Newt is not the one. Sarah Palin has already proved herself too p.c. My bet is on Tom Tancredo.

Swiss Minaret Ban: Crucial Questions

Essam Derbalah wrote an article titled Switzerland Bans Building Minarets. I have quoted some critical questions from that article, and will answer some of them below.

You can wonder

Here you can wonder why the Swiss people don't liken churches steeples to missiles or their bells to the drums of war?

Why don't they consider the tattooed crosses n their hands as inspiring religious hatred?

Why don't they be too tolerant to accept Islamic hijab and minarets?

Where are the values of tolerance, recognition of the other, personal freedom and religion freedom, which Europeans in general and Swiss in particular boast to be the essence of the Western civilization?

Do minarets threaten the social peace or the national identity? Are they against the prevailing secular way of life? or are there other reasons behind this campaign?

Or is it the fear? But fear of what?

Banning the construction of minarets shows the big difference between Islam and other religions. I asked myself why have we ever called for banning the built of church steeples in Egypt or for breaking crosses?

Do you know why?

Simply because Islam prohibits that. Moreover, the majority of jurisprudents say that if a Muslim breaks a cross belongs to a Christian citizen, he will be obliges to compensate him.

Did some Christian leader recently liken steeples to missiles? BBC informs us that Recep Tayyip Erdogan read a poem in 1998 which included these words.

"The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers..."

We can find crucial clues in Shari'ah. Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 11, Paragraph 5 lists seven rules which conquered Jews and Christians must obey. The last three items in that list hold our clues.

-5- may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims' buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;

-6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

-7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

Are Egyptian Copts allowed to repair existing churches or build new churches to replace them? Tall minarets are a symbol of Islamic supremacy and dominance. Thus they have political and military significance. Building minarets in Europe is a social attack on indigenous people.

Why should a cross inspire hatred? The cross is a symbol of Christ's supreme sacrifice, which Islam denies. Islamic arrogance & supremacism render the cross a symbol of hate. Muslims hate it because it reminds them of the fallacy of their doctrine.

Islam is not tolerant. Tolerance must be reciprocal. Examine item #6 in the list from Reliance. Islamic hypocrisy and arrogance are on public display for all to witness. How can Muslims complain about intolerance in the light of 3:85 ? How can they demand freedom of religion when they deny it? The penalty for withdrawal from Islam is execution.

Minarets are symbolic of Islamic supremacism and domination. Their purpose is to intimidate the indigenous population.

The author never advocated banning church construction; big deal. Is he doing anything to lift the existing ban? Why not? What effect would his advocacy have if he did advocate lifting the ban?

Breaking crosses is an interesting diversion. Islamic law forbids displaying crosses. Islamic prophecy indicates that when Jesus Christ returns, he will "break the cross", meaning kill the remaining Christians and destroy Christianity. If you doubt that, click this link.