"...The stealth form believes in using cultural, intellectual, and political [means]. But their end goal is exactly the same."
While the emphasis on "radical Islamists" sidesteps the fundamental ideological cause of Islamic jihad -- the teachings of the Qur'an and the sayings and example of Muhammad -- there are several promising moments in this six-minute segment. Most of all:
"One of the things I am 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."
Of course, Oklahoma was mocked for attempting this at the state level. But on the other hand, it would come too late for the New Jersey woman in whose case a judge sided with the husband who raped her because Islam forbids wives to refuse their husbands' sexual demands.
Why is it just now that Gingrich is speaking up on this subject? I hear he is planning a run in 2012. How convenient!
Why is it just now that Gingrich is speaking up on this subject? I hear he is planning a run in 2012. How convenient!
If he keeps this up I would support him for presidental run. Hopefuly it would be better for him to run on a thrid party ticket.
Perhaps the spectre of the Ground Zero mosk galvanized him.
Yeah it's a shame he focuses on "radical Islamists" when of course the problem is plain 'ol Islam - the teachings, the texts, and the psycho Warlord, the "perfect model of conduct." Which is like calling Hitler the perfect model of conduct. The evil teachings of Islam warp young Muslim minds at an early age - just as the Nazi ideology warped young German minds in the "Hitler Youth."
Somebody forward the Jihad Watch link to Newt, so he can increase his knowledge about the immense threat we face in America - Islam.
A Newt is a salamander that eats flies...Actually he is a chameleon like most accomplished politicians...He will lean in whatever direction the wind is blowing...He sounds good at the moment, but that can quickly change...It will be a good thing if questioning Islam becomes popular among politicians and may be a subject in up coming presidential debates...
@20:30
I would develop that thought/suggestion further to include a ban on application of any foreign law in American courts, to prevent the application of law counterintuitive to our Constitutional protections, especially since foreign laws have the potential to be corrupted by sharia.
@ 22:11
So, Gingrich implies it was the very same Elena Kagan which Obama has selected for lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court wbo is ultimately responsible for:
Dots, connecting more and more dots . . .
This is a speech I was going on about on the Limbaugh thread!
But it appears that there is a deficit in Gingrich's candour but at least he has put out the notion of stealth jihad out in the open.
Pretty encouraging but still only 5 out of 10.
Gingrich makes the analogy with the struggle with Nazi Germany but was it radical National Socialism that was the problem, or was not this supremacist ideology in totality that was the problem.
If only National Socialism had not been militaristic and instead tried to spread its ideas peacefully, the USA could have lived happily ever after without challenging the ideology at its roots.
Clearly that's ridiculous and so is it ridiculous to talk about "Radical Islam" as if Islam spreading its documented supremacist ideology by non-radical means somehow is ok and we can go asleep again.
If Gingrich's message is that Islam is the Religion of Peace and only "Radical Islam" is the problem then his message is more dangerous than no message at all. It only turns the gas stove down a notch but the frog that is "Freedom" will still boil, but now it certainly won't see it coming.
To shift Gingrich's argument to where it should be: Radical Islam is only an activity, what feeds it and sustains it is Islam and its soldiers the "moderate" Muslim - Islam itself is the problem and defeating it must be the challenge to rise to.
Radical Islam, Islamists, terrorism call it what you will, is a tactical mistake, as was Poland and Pearl Harbour. Let us exploit this mistake for what it is and not be tricked into thinking that "Radical Islam" is the sum total of the problem.
I truly hope Newt reads all of Robert's books or picks up the phone to Robert to get a crash course on this supremacist ideology that has been the scourge of this earth much longer than the one-hit wonders of the 20th century.
Il seems he understands the problem fully. The use of "radical islam" is not necessarily a bad strategy if it allows to denounce all the tenets of islam that are unacceptable.
If in a first phase, by pretending to fight radical islam instead of islam we can stop the diffusion and declare illegal most of all that constitutes sharia law, in a way that doesn't offend the huge number of nominal muslims who don't even know what their religion dictates, we could deliver a huge blow to islam without sparking a huge wave of riots and acts of terrorism in the US, Europe or India.
We have to take into account the fact that muslims are now everywhere and there are large numbers of violent jihadists in free countries ready to blow things up if we engage in a direct confrontation with islam per se. I think it is not a bad idea to pretend fighting political islam until the dangerosity of indoctrinated muslims in free countries is toned down.
We all know that fighting political islam, if done rigorously, equates fighting islam and suppressing the diffusion of the main principles of the islamic doctrine. But "political islam" allows us to do so in an acceptable manner in the eyes of hundred of million of muslims, who won't be so inclined to support a massive retaliation against infidels.
Gingrich's approach has merit. By targeting sharia directly one neatly sidesteps the opposition's main counter argument - racism - which is still powerful enough to get many to sit down and shut up. If we can legally inoculate ourselves against creeping sharia we could seriously retard islam's political ambitions. Not perfect of course but also not too bad either.
Contact Newt and let him know how you feel:
http://www.newt.org/contact
"legally inoculate" is an illusion and ultimately counter productive - that's the whole point
A catch-all law is as easily changed as it is made - that is the curse of democracy and demographics.
Marisol wrote: "While the emphasis on "radical Islamists" sidesteps the fundamental ideological cause of Islamic jihad -- the teachings of the Qur'an and the sayings and example of Muhammad -- there are several promising moments in this six-minute segment......"
An Act For America chapter leader sent me this piece earlier, "WHAT IS RADICAL ISLAM? by Guy Rodgers, Executive Director, ACT! for America"
http://www.actforamerica.org/index.php/home/18-recent-news/2001-what-is-radical-islam
To me, this term "radical" Islam is misleading and dangerous.
You wrote: "The use of "radical islam" is not necessarily a bad strategy if it allows to denounce all the tenets of islam that are unacceptable...."
Gingrich is an historian. What do you think his judgment of FDR and Churchill would be had these two leaders defined the enemy as "radical Nazism" as opposed to Nazism? As a matter of fact, the Allies warred against the entire German people; not simply Nazis. Had these two leaders made a distinction between Nazis -- "many of whom are non-violent" -- and radical Nazis, how might we have fared in that life and death struggle?
"Newt (Gingrich)......is a chameleon like most accomplished politicians...He will lean in whatever direction the wind is blowing...He sounds good at the moment, but that can quickly change...."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This has long been my impression of this man.
The last I heard he was a CFR member...Hmmm I haven't seen a current list of CFR members for several years...I wonder if Rasool Obama is a member...A current membership list would be interesting...
Great speech, but Newt has a history of expedience. He buckled during the government shutdown showdown, he sat on the bench with Pelosi and extolled the virtues of global warmism, and when last seen he was endorsing Scozzafava in NY's 21 district.
A brilliant man, with some serious character flaws. I wish I didn't have to say that, because based on this speech I would vote for him tomorrow.
PS - 5 clicks to sign in here? Can anything be done to streamline that?
"legally inoculate" is an illusion and ultimately counter productive - that's the whole point A catch-all law is as easily changed as it is made - that is the curse of democracy and demographics.
Like I said it's not perfect but I feel the approach has merit. As to your augment that laws can be changed or reversed I say so what. The constitution can also be changed. Does that mean it is also counter productive and a waste of time?
This would be one tactic, an effective one in my estimation, in blunting islam's political agenda - the implementation of sharia. Should we end it there? Of course not.
When I first saw this, yesterday, I thought: He's only half right.
1. The term 'War on Terror', much to Hannity's horror, is one of the stupidest and most gutless phrases our politicians have ever concocted--ranking right up there with 'freedom fries'. Poor Hannity. He must feel awful.
2. Gingrich's phrase 'radical Islamist' is but another in the lexicon of obfuscation. Really, Newt! If they were merely Islamists, but not radical Islamists, should we all feel safer?
You wrote: "He buckled during the government shutdown showdown...."
Not only did he buckle by cutting a deal with Bill Clinton, he buckled in the most dishonorable way. I'll never forget the hourly radio news, after Limbaugh's program ended at 3:00 PM. The news report was that Speaker Gingrich had imposed party discipline on the "recalcitrant" freshman Republicans who were unwilling to cave to Bill Clinton's and the leftist media's caricature of the impasse. Gingrich made clear he would not help or campaign for these ideologically- motivated freshman Republicans. I learned first-hand what it means to impose party discipline on those who stand on principle; on those who stand on moral and ethical values. Gingrich is a party man, principles be damned.
Even when those political types agree about 'radical' Islam, they never bring up just where these radical ideas come from, The Quran, Sunnah and Sira, and why they are not radical ideas at all in the context of the Islamic delusion...
Remember, shsri'a lawyers are RELIGIOUS SCHOLARS and no amount of book learnin' will make them lawyers of just laws based on freedom. They are not lawyers like we know. Our law firm will not accept a J.D. applicant from any of these countries. They are scoffed at.
Here is an excerpt from an interview of Amina Lawal's attorney (Nigerian woman who was to be stoned to death after nursing her baby) This is the justice women face under "domestic-case only" shari'a:
IBRAHIM:...In our first appeal, which is of a Shari’a court, we lost all the 15—(inaudible word)—arguments. And the summary of that is that the judge did not make reference to any single—(inaudible word)—argument, the judges. And my understanding at the end of the day is that it is either we didn’t communicate at all, or they didn’t understand what we are saying. And as you know, most of the judges in the Shari’a courts are illiterate. They cannot read or write. They can recite the Koran. So that is another huge drawback. So the likelihood was that they did not understand what our argument was.
COLEMAN: Can I just ask—that’s quite a remarkable statement, that they’re mostly illiterate. On what basis, then, are they judges in the court? Is it as religious leaders solely?
IBRAHIM: Okay. We should back up a little bit. The Shari’a law was introduced in 1999. The new criminal law was introduced into Shari’a. What we used to have was always a civil—it was a civil law matter under the Shari’a. And when it was introduced, offenses such as stoning to death, amputation, crucifixion, flogging when you take alcohol was part of what was introduced into the law. And we had, before the introduction, we had what we called the area court in the north, and in the south we had the customary courts. And (up to ?) today, under Section 277 of Nigerian Constitution, which gave jurisdiction so the Shari’a court of appeal has limited jurisdiction to civil matters—(inaudible)—no criminal matters. So also those (ones ?) in the training in the cases on the lower level were not going into anything that has to do with criminal law at all.
So what happened in 1999, after the introduction of this new law, only Shari’a court in the north became—area court in the north became Sharia’ courts. Now, what that means is that all the judges of this area court transmitted themselves from area court into criminal court with criminal jurisdiction. And now we think about training. Did they have the adequate training to do that?
Remember also that the laws have always been in English, they are still in English; and the language of the court is Hausa, the language of the victim is Hausa, so these are the challenges we find when we went to court. And I started these cases immediately after the introduction, which is 1999.
And our first challenge was to look at the law in English and to give it our own Hausa interpretation, and the Hausa—(inaudible)—which is a completely different way of saying things than in Hausa. So this was a huge challenge.
But of course, also the judges didn’t understand the Hausa we are speaking, because I would be coming with my Hausa from—(inaudible), and and the words I will say, like salute (ph) may not be salute (ph) in the—(inaudible). And salute (ph) is like, “Hi. Hello.” It may not be the same word in the—(inaudible).
So we had the problem of the training of the judges, which was completely absent at the point. I think what they did was to hurry them into Ahmadu Bello University. And Ahmadu Bello University has a department for Islamic studies, and they gave them a run-down training for six to eight weeks and then they sent them back to the courts. And a lot of them were supposed to have written in exams and passed, but our understanding is about 80 to 90 percent of them didn’t make the exam, but yet they came back.
And I want to say one of the questions that this case has raised was a question of separation of religion and state, the separation of powers. When you have the chief executive of the state, as the governor, he is also the head of the judiciary because he gives them instruction as to what to do. And I will tell you a lot of cases do that. And you have him also in control of the legislators because (he took ?) the law and overnight it was passed as Islamic law. This negates what you may know here in the West as separation of powers. And I think also back home it made little sense to have one person controlling all the instruments of power, which we saw happen in a lot of the cases I was involved with...
((full transcript available at http://www.cfr.org/publication/9994/islamic_law_in_nigeria_rush_transcript_federal_news_service_inc.html))
Actually a very good speech.
But if compared to the noises emerging from America and Europe, it sounds like the voice of a marginal politician.
America and Europe have lost touch with their core values, those that made them who they are.
We have seen the same thing in India. I hope this tendency reverses everywhere.
Sanjay
If Gingrich has his way, then CAIR will scream about the draconian. selective persecution of one faith, and allows something like the pagan use of peyote in Native American Indian religious rituals. The Rubicon has been crossed, you can't take this precedent back, the Rubic's Cube is out of the box, and Shari'a Law is the only thing Muslims can turn to to line up the squares.
OMFG!!!! He used the term "Islamist"!!!!! :O
Newt gets it - Gingrich in 2012.
Why can't we Indians have leaders like this??
I hope he runs for Whitehouse. It'll be great if he wins.
I'll bet Gingrich knows and respects Spencer's work. The fact that Gingrich is not pointing to Islam and Muhammad, only to "radical Islamists," is probably a sort of fig leaf for what he has in mind. I suspect he knows that Sharia is core Islam.
He also knows that the U.S. Constitution will not throw up obstacles to stopping Sharia. Whereas the Constitution will tend to put the First Amendment in the way of stopping Islam.
If Americans focus on attacking and criminalizing every effort to further Sharia, that will go a ways toward defeating Islam itself, because Sharia is so central to Islam.
I watched the entire speech last night on the AEI website and overall it was a pretty good speech, even with the PC “radical Islam” references, until he got to Afghanistan, where he recommended building an Interstate system and making sure every Afghani has a cell phone in order to join the 21st century. In other words, he advocated more fantasy based nation building except on steroids. Hence, I should have known since he was after all at the AEI headquarters.
Apparently Newt doesn’t realize and understand that thanks to our lost cause State Department the corrupt government we are propping up in Afghanistan is in reality a Sharia state that prosecutes apostates of Islam even while we are propping it up. Therefore, even if the mission in Afghanistan manages to somehow be successful, and that is a mighty big if, whereby that corrupt Sharia state can somehow become strong and independent enough to fend off the Taliban and AQ on its own without our help, because it is a Sharia state as opposed to a true democracy, Afghanistan will never become our loyal ally or friend, and instead in reality will be our enemy.
Moreover and more importantly, how will either fantasy based nation-building mission in Iraq and Afghanistan alleviate the global jihad and its permanent nature? The answer is, of course, it won’t have any impact whatsoever and is therefore a gigantic waste of time, manpower, and resources.
There is only one logical way to solve the problem, outlaw, ban, and reverse Muslim immigration in the West. Then oust the regimes that are responsible for financing and funding it, confiscate their oil wealth and oil assets, render the entire Dar al Islam into abject poverty so that it will become too poor to wage jihad, and then isolate it. Any other alternative entails dealing with jihad on a permanent basis.
I understand—and share—many of the reservations people have voiced here rearding Gingrich. Overall, though—compared to the caliber of rhetoric we usually hear regarding Islam and the Jihad threat—this was very good indeed.
More:
"...The stealth form believes in using cultural, intellectual, and political [means]. But their end goal is exactly the same."
.....................
Gingrich actually *mentions stealth Jihad*, I cannot recall *any* other American politician ever mentioning this. That impressed me right away. Usually it is enough if some politician recognizes outright Jihad terrorism—or even *9/11*—as a serious issue.
More:
"One of the things I am 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."
.....................
Gingrich also recognizes Shari'ah law as a threat. Again, I am impressed.
watchman55 wrote:
Why is it just now that Gingrich is speaking up on this subject? I hear he is planning a run in 2012. How convenient!
.....................
Well, there are two possibilities—one, like a lot of people who should know better, it has taken him almost 10 years following 9/11 to fully realize that Islam is a real threat.
Maybe, as Courreges W speculates, the ugly specter of a mosque at Ground Zero finally woke him up.
In which case I say, better late than never. If it is, as you surmise, simply a cynical political ploy, then it at least means that Gingrich feels there is a great deal of concern among the electorate about the threat of Islam. This itself would not be a bad thing, and is certainly more than we are ever going to see from the Obama White House.
Duh Swami wrote:
...Actually he is a chameleon like most accomplished politicians...He will lean in whatever direction the wind is blowing...He sounds good at the moment, but that can quickly change...
.....................
You are almost certainly correct, Swami.
I am generally familiar with Gingrich from back in the 1990s, and he is hardly perfect—it sounds as though his foreign policy, from what little I have heard, would not be all that different from George Bush's, and that is hardly perfect.
Just having someone make a serious run for the presidency who takes the Jihad threat seriously—and would not attempt to actually further Islamic goals—sounds pretty good right now to me. The mere fact that he is talking about it may lead other potential candidates to broach the subject as well, which would be a start.
Every year pharmaceutical companies blend together a mix of anti-flu serums for their seasonal 'flu shots'. The effectiveness of this concoction depends upon the accuracy of their guesswork regarding the flu strains. The ideal flu shot would combat every strain but they are so numerous, it simply cannot be done.
Islam, like the flu, has various strains but they are all Islam. Just as one type of flu can make you sicker than another, in fact, they all make you sick. "Moderate" Islam maybe a less severe form of the disease but it still make you sick and weakens any society in invades.
This nation and in fact every Western nation must begin to see Islam for what it is and find ways to purge it from its system.
I would love to hear from Marisol on the content of the second paragraph of "Podcast" in the reply section. Podcast is dead on in his take on this position Newt has staked out and it certainly is not in sync with what has been written here by Hugh and others.
With regard to Newt Gingrich, there seems to be many speaking out in opposition to him running for the presidency in 2012. While certainly not my 'ideal candidate', I think it unwise to rule him out completely. Remember, he's a politician and in 2012 a politician will be elected President of the United States.
In 2012 either Mr. Obama will be re-elected or someone else will. If Newt is running against Obama ... Newt gets my vote. He certainly could not possibly be worse than Obama and probably would be MUCH better.
One thing I can say - BETTER LATE THAN NEVER on realising the truth.
I wish British poloticians were like him
I have mixed feelings about Newt. "Smarmy" has always described how he appeared to me. But he seems to be taking leadership in a new reality based politics that the majority of our government fails (or refuses) to understand.
Well said.
Wow - sounds like someone understands the nature of the problem and has something like a solution! I've always had a lot of respect for Gingrich.
In the UK we have Shariah courts acting like the law of the land throughout the country.
I think we should rule out of order any such court that claims, or acts in such a way as if to make such a claim, that it has jurisdiction over matters on which the secular law has pronounced, or which makes decisions which impinge upon people's human rights as defined in law.
Their decisions should be recorded and lodged with the local Police in English in all cases and it should be a serious criminal offence not to provide an accurate summary of proceedings.
This should apply not just to Islamic courts of course, but Jewish, Sikh and other courts of other religions.
There can only be one legal system in a country.
On some of the other comments - I don't think we can be too absolutist in expecting politicians to launch a full frontal attack on Islam. Islam is totalitarian but it is not Nazism (though I would agree there were many parallels). The problem with Islam is that is gets in "under the radar": by sharing some traditinos with other "Abrahamic" faiths as they call them; by often being identified with minority racial groups; and by using the democratic system to exert influence.
As war is deceit, it has to be fought with a certain amount of deceit, and as much as dividing Islam into radical/misinterpreting and true can confuse people in their understanding of Islam, it is a good way of fighting what is objectionable in Islam and sowing confusion in their ranks as well (there must be many millions of Muslims who are indeed deeply troubled to find that their leaders deny in public what they are being taught in private in the Mosque - forcing the leaders to make these lying denials in public undermines the moral authority of Islam for its followers in my judgement).
I wish Newt would go home and just leave us alone.
"Why is it just now that Gingrich is speaking up on this subject?" Reasonable point.
But, then again, he knows better than to try to speak over the adolescent ravings of country enthralled with a rock-star whose only attributes are shifting eyes and stance to recite from a teleprompter. In case anyone hasn't noticed.
(Apprpriate to this forum: (Does he read right to left or...?)
"Islam is totalitarian but it is not Nazism"
Yes it is. The Jew-Hating Mohammedans would consign Jews to ovens with NO PROBLEM.
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZjEwOTk4ZmIzZGYwOTNlOTRlMTY1OWIxMWNkMmYyYzA=
From Atlas Shrugs -
" The Attorney General must examine and investigate the alleged ties and funding by Xenel Corporation and Imam Rauf and Daisy Khan. Who is Xenel? They fund the Imam and .....
The website lists Xenel Industries Ltd. as a primary donor to the Al-Falah Program. Xenel, a Saudi owned conglomerate, "provides development, manufacturing, investment, trading and services throughout a wide range of areas of interest" ranging from healthcare and infrastructure to oil and real estate, according to the company's website (www.xenel.com).
On December 10, 2002, the Orlando Sentinel published an article describing the research of a local trade union regarding Xenel, who had just been awarded a $100 million contract to build the city of Orlando a new state-of the-art convention center. The article reveals that Xenel CEO Abdullah Alireza sits on the executive board of Dar al-Maal al-Islami (DMI), a bank based in Switzerland. Haydar Mohamed bin Laden, half brother of Osama bin Laden, also sits on the twelve member executive board. "
"This connection between Xenel and al Qaeda, according to the Orlando Sentinel, was persuasive enough that the city of Orlando decided to cancel the contract it had previously awarded to Xenel. The involvement Bin Laden-tied Xenel led to the cancellation of a different 100 million dollar project in Florida. If such ties would cancel a convention center, why not a 100 million dollar Islamic supremacist mega mosque at the site of largest attack on American soil by these same players? "
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/