Spencer: Gingrich disavows Sharia

I thought this was one of the most sensible things G said and found it in no way objectionable.

I only wish he would disclaim any intention to impose Christian versions of divine law on the nation and an intention to try to stop any such thing with efforts equal to those he would direct against Shariah.

But that effort can be taken to extremes, too.

Isn't worrying about halal food too much like worrying about kosher foods?

Isn't worrying about Muslim rules for banking unreasonable and even silly compared to worrying about Muslim organizations gathering funds for terrorism?

PS.

Unlike so many on the left I have as a secularist and strong separationist been entirely unable to become irate at Republican efforts nationally or in the states to resist or oppose the imposition of Shariah through or in American law and American courts.

So far as I can tell, they only re-affirm the separation of church and state, though with particular regard to Islam.

Hence my only objection is that these measures are unduly narrow in concerning ONLY Shariah.

Btw, your article at HU considerably understates the hostility of 19th Century (and even early 20th Century) Catholicism to modernity, republicanism, democracy, and anything remotely connected to religious liberty - except where Catholics were a minority too weak to impose upon the state.

Kennedy's speech was in defiance of the beliefs and desires of the Vatican and the Catholic clergy of the US, much as modern Catholics in politics who support abortion rights, the legality of easy divorce, or even the legality of contraception are in opposition to the official church.

"A truly modern person who happened to worship Allah would not be a threat,” Gingrich continued, but “a person who belonged to any kind of belief in Sharia, any effort to impose it on the rest of us, would be a mortal threat."

Huh? Oh well, I don't expect his understanding to be perfect, he's doing all right so far...He can get the fine details later...

If Sharia is banned, this doesn't change the fact that Muslims will continue to read their God's commandants in the Quran, and believe it's their duty to eventually usurp the government. It's not a mere belief, overwhelming evidences show they will act on these beliefs, especially if they have the power and numbers, even if it means deaths to non-Muslims. So, we can expect greater deception and stealth jihad, as the Muslims or as Allen West calls them "enemy combatants" grow in power and numbers. From countless incidents in history and currently in Egypt, we know what this will eventually mean for the country.
If only these measure are taken, it will be like allowing murderers in your home, as long as they promise to behave, and not lie, and obey certain rules. As long as they promise and don't use taqiyah, and endless amount of murderers, whom in their hearts are hell bent on your destruction as commanded by Allah, who's more important than your laws, are allowed and welcomed to stay.

"Btw, your article at HU considerably understates the hostility of 19th Century (and even early 20th Century) Catholicism to modernity, republicanism, democracy, and anything remotely connected to religious liberty - except where Catholics were a minority too weak to impose upon the state."

I'm not a Catholic, but let me ask, would you rather live in country ruled by Catholics or Muslims?

Creeping Sharia in Britain. Muslims, dhimmis, quislings and kapos want to gag press http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/23/inquiry-into-anti-islam-press

Ain't a voter m'self, though my tuppenceworth is that Newt should rock on with that line.

When Governor Romney essentially took the side of Hamas (Hamas is the Palestinian's legitimately elected government; "Bush, Rice say Palestinian elections show "power of democracy") in the December 10 Iowa debate, I lost faith in Romney. I cannot vote for him in our Florida primary. Against Obama, yes. Against Gingrich, no.

excerpts:

Romney: 22:05:51:00 They-- Israel does not want us to make it more difficult for them to sit down with the Palestinian (terrorists - wildjew).

Governor Mitt Romney: 22:06:03:00 --and the-- and the United States of America should not jump ahead of Bibi Netanyahu and say something that makes it more difficult for him to-- to do his job (i.e., negotiate with the terrorists - wj).

Romney: 22:07:30:00 If-- if-- if-- if Bibi Netanyahu wants to say what you said, let him say it. But our ally, b-- the-- the people of Israel, should be able to take their own positions and not have us negotiate (with the terrorists - wj) for them.

Romney: 22:08:29:00 And I'm president of the United States, I will exercise sobriety, care, stability. And make sure that in a setting like this, anything I say that can affect a place with-- with rockets going in, with people dying, I don't do anything that would harm that-- that ("peace"?) process.

Gingrich concluded: "I think the time has come for us to have an honest conversation about Islamic radicalism. I don't think we should be intimidated by our political elites, and I don't think we should be intimidated by universities who have been accepting money from the Saudis and who, therefore, now have people who are apologists for the very people who want to kill us."

I do believe ol' Newt just got a vote in the Arizona GOP primary, which will be held on February 28.

Newt, I thought you were smarter.

All officers of the US take an oath to “this Constitution” (5 USC §3331; the Constitution’s Article VI uses the descriptor “this” to underscore adherence to the written document; ha, ha!). The president takes a special Article II oath (again, ha, ha!).

The fundamental, overarching thesis of the Constitution is limitation, not expansion. Once again, ha, ha!

As it is now, too, too few have taken the oath seriously. That fault lies with the people who themselves do not know their document and its thesis of limitation (and the public schools and MSM make sure that situation continues). If known and understood - that freedom from government comes only when government is kept small and limited - the people in turn would elect representatives who would be faithful to their voluntarily-taken constitutional oaths.

All of this unbelievable federal expansion has occurred without muslims in Congress or the WH. (Yes, yes, I know; a strong case can be made for the present occupant.)

An oath to anything other than allah and the advancement of Islam is meaningless to the muslim. So chuck any thought that a muslim would actually and genuinely support and defend “this Constitution” since it is incompatible with shariah. The Constitution’s supremacy clause sets up “this Constitution” and laws made in pursuance thereof as the supreme law of the land. But to the muslim the supreme law is the koran; hence humans can/will NEVER be “rightly guided” from man-made law. So the Constitution is to be instantly disregarded by the muslim

Newt is way off on this one. Islam and only Islam and its imposition on the rest of the world are the overriding goals of the muslim. Thus the US could NEVER EVER have a muslim president in the constitutional sense of the word since the Constitution and all federal laws are man-made and therefore inferior.

What is more, the entire concept of governmental limitation is unknown in the islamic world. The mosque and the state are one. Islam in short is total government, the very antithesis of our system of delegated authorities, with the people being the ultimate sovereigns. (Yet another ha, ha!)

Add into the mix the concept of Taqqiyah with which most JW readers are familiar. Now can you see why John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken, and so solemnly repeated on that venerable ground, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government.[*]” Adams of course was referencing Christian morality.

Islamic morality permits, actually mandates, lying for the sake of allah and the advancement of Islam. How then could any oath uttered/subscribed by a muslim ever be considered genuine and from the heart in the sense that Americans expect? Of what value is the testimony of any muslim in court if, according to his/her Islamic code, lying is permitted?

Do you see the problems, Newt?

*Adams was a little naive on his opinion of oath takers, and we see where the failure to follow the Constitution by non-muslims expressly has taken us. Daily individual freedoms are being stripped from us. TSA, anyone?

Gingrich said something that the voters in South Carolina responded favorably to. Let the other Republican candidates take note. Let the candidates for every office in the land take note: Shariah is not welcome in this land.

The wider ranging comments about sharia law are among the very few sensible comments from this presidential hopeful.
Pity though that he's not at all a genuine conservative nor an electable candidate, because of this not-making-the-ballot issue, which means he's not in the race for some 500+ delegates.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag

I would vote for Gingrich solely because he tells the truth about Sharia. We've tried the other and it hasn't worked. Why not try telling the truth for once?

I am not counting him out just yet. He's a politician who has made things happen in the past, maybe he will do so again. He is sure getting a lot of high-profile endorsements.

Gingrich's statements may explain the "cold reception" he got in Tampa during the debates.

On a recent trip through the International Mall near the Tampa Airport, I felt like I was walking through Abu Dubai mall. There were so many hijab'd and niqab'd Muslim women walking through the mall. Surrounding malls like Westshore Mall don't have anywhere near the same amount of Muslim women walking through. The stores are nicer at the International Mall (read - richy rich) so that may explain the higher presence of Muslims since they need a place to spend their oil money.

Tampa is Muslim Friendly city as witnessed by the coverup of the recent Honor Killing of Fatimah. There was also a recent Jihad arrest here. The Tampa area Muslims are propagating and there is only one reason they would have an interest in this city. Ft. McDill - head of the Special Forces Command Center is here and they are the guys kicking the arses of Jihadis around the world. No wonder then the Muslims would come here to propagate so eventually they could turn the city against the base and in high enough numbers, over run it.

Newt Gingrich: America at Risk: Camus, National Security, and Afghanistan, American Enterprise Institute, July 29, 2010 (After ~15:00min. Video at http://american.com/archive/2010/july/america-at-risk-camus-national-security-and-afghanistan)

Transcribed here are parts of this speech relating to sharia (includes some notes about material not transcribed):

(Newt reads from his 1984 book "Window of Opportunity") “The long term struggle against terrorism will be a dark and bloody one. Involving years of vigilant counter terrorism, a level of surveillance and spying that the liberals will call intolerable. And a willingness to strike back with substantial force at the originator of the action, rather than the foot soldiers of the terrorist movement.”

“Let us be clear. This is not a war on terrorism. Terrorism is an activity. This is a struggle with radical islamists in both their militant and their stealth form. The militant form believe in using military power in one form or another. The stealth form believes in using cultural, intellectual and political [means], but their end goal is exactly the same thing.

The fight against sharia and the madrassas and mosques which teach hatred and fanaticism is the heart of the enemy movement from which the terrorists spring forth. And it is time we had a national debate on this, and 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, period.

And let me draw a sharp distinction between those muslims that live in the modern world and those muslims that would radically change the modern world.

Radical islamists want to impose sharia on all of us, for legitimate reasons. And let me be quite clear, you can respect your adversary without agreeing or giving in. They have profound, deeply held beliefs and one of the great challenges for secularists is they can’t understand the level of passion that a belief that is derived from an underlying religious form leads one to have. Which is why, frankly, believing Christian and Jewish Americans have a better understanding…..

Stealth jihadists use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools…
Violent jihadists use… violence. But, in fact, both are engaged in jihad.

And they’re both seeking to impose the same end state, which is to replace Western civilization with the imposition of radical sharia."

(- disagrees with universities)

"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 which has evolved and given us freedom across the planet on a scale we can hardly imagine, and which is now directly threatened by those who would impose it. So, let me be also quite clear that rules are radical and horrific.

Don’t explain it and so it becomes like being a Rotarian
Example of the moderation from stoning to handing for adultery... The left doesn’t understand that...“Sharia is a direct mortal threat to virtually every value that the left has...

...(radical) islamists are those people who seek to impose sharia.”

Radical islamists are not compatible with the modern world, and not compatible with civilization as we know it.

[There are] three Fronts [to address]: America...Europe...
Middle East...

(about the Ground Zero Mosque) ...[it] should be a Battlefield Memorial, should be rebuilt exactly as it was before the attack (19 months or as rapidly as possible)

We are trapped in our own confusion.

I see the construction of a mosque at GZ is a Political Act. An act of triumphalism “Cordoba House” built a mosque on top of a church.. Half of us are too ignorant and half of us are too timid. Congress could declare, AG of New York, City of NY... Could slow or stop it. Stunningly outrageous.

Half the mosques in the US have mortgages held by Saudi Arabia.

Temerity to stand up and say enough. We don’t need to be lectured by (apologists).

Sharia finance – largest AIG. Teaching sharia finance is the first step to the normalization of sharia.

I believe sharia is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and the world as we know it. And it is that straight forward and that real.

I believe we have to understand that the struggle - military, political, societal, economic, cultural, intellectual - with radical islamists may well last several generations, may well last longer than the cold war [with the USSR]. Because it is a much more fundamental, I think a much more difficult struggle.

The victory of sharia would clearly be the end of the government that Lincoln was describing [in the Gettysburg Address]. [This] requires us to say to the radical islamists …freedom will prevail." Newt Gingrich

"And let me draw a sharp distinction between those muslims that live in the modern world and those muslims that would radically change the modern world."

How can you tell, let alone "draw a sharp distinction" in vivo, Mr Gingrich?

More hogwash from this Big Gov "conservative": liberals would oppose the WoT, and all that comes with it. Well, the police state is making great strides under über-Liberal BHO-bomber. But apart from that, isn't it deeply ironical that the bipartisan hobby of neo-Wilsonian nation building, foreign interventionism or whatever label fits the (sizeable) bill, almost never fails to - somehow - propel Jihadists-R-Us to power?

I still support Santorum ahead of the rest, but it looks increasingly unlikely that he'd be the nominee.

While Newt's statements are welcome, someone needs to ask him about the role Grover Norquist has in getting Muslim sympathizers into key positions in government. Confront him from the right, rather than from the Left.

That actual policy of his means a lot more than statements he makes about Shariah law.

Hi All,
I think we should all be very happy that a major politician (Newt), would be so bold as to begin the real discussion that needs to happen- which is to discuss where the motivation for jihadists comes from. Sharia is as good a place to start as any, as Sharia is the application of the koran, sira, hadith, and the life of muhammad. Look up some of Newt's videos and you will gather that he knows a lot; I would say much more than he is letting on to. A politician needs to be very calculating in how much one says about the most off limits discussion of our day. I, for one, am delighted with Newt. He is telling it like it is with regards to the Palistinian's, Sharia and radical islam, and the biased media. He's is helping to start these conversations. He has my vote. Go Newt!!!

Why would Mr Gingrich qualify as a genuine conservative?

Well, perhaps because he:

1) Opposes the corporate greenie "Global Warming" scheme? Yes, only thing: he actually supports it, quite avidly.
2) Strongly refuses the corporatist mixing of govt and enterprise, let alone profits from it? Yes! Just forget about that Freddy M thing then.
3) Opposes the UN? Yes! Yet he doesn't. Even worse: he said that the US "challenge" here, is "compounded" by its Constitution.
4) Rejects out of hand the Big Gov fixation on foreign "nation building", and spending money the US govt doesn't have? Yes, except that he doesn't. Another agreement here with Gore c.s.
5) Loathes the notorious Big Gov, "New Deal" pres. Roosevelt? Nope, he called this prototypical progressivist, "the greatest president of the 20th century".
6) Refuses to be a typical Rockefeller Republican? Alas..
7) Tried his utmost not to co-sponsor any bill with Ms Nancy Pelosi? Well, 418 bills would make that at least a debatable issue.
8) Doesn't support gun-control? Yes! Except that he actually does.
9) Stands for quintessential conservative modesty? Actually, "hubris" might well be his middle name.
10) Holds Woodrow Wilson below contempt? Nope, he claims to be a "realpolitik Wilsonian".

Maybe a "social conservative" then? You know, Mr Gingrich, the erstwhile "family values" crusader of the Clinton era? Well, perhaps family values only matter when it's convenient to the former speaker. Let's nutshell the current and rather remarkable Gingrich definition of "family values":

Using daughters from your first wife to convince everyone that your second wife is lying about your third wife.

Here, as in other matters, the word of this counterfeit-conservative has been, say, "less than reliable".
Only thing he seems to be really passionate about, as well as fairly consistent, is this weird Tofflerian "Third Wave" thing, combined with the typical greenie support for Al Gore's "consensus"-science" of MMGW.

But wait! The man utters some crystal clear anti-jihadism.. so let's put our single-minded CJ trust in this fine upstanding Washington "outsider".

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag

"Just before his stunning victory in the South Carolina primary, Newt Gingrich drew the ire of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the deceptive Islamic supremacist group that bamboozles many with its pose as a neutral civil rights organization. Gingrich, fumed a CAIR spokesman, was "one of the nation's worst promoters of anti-Muslim bigotry." How did Gingrich earn this dubious honor? By telling the truth about Islamic law, and making clear his determination to resist it." -- headline

Go, Newt! We need someone strong like Newt who's willing to tell the TRUTH about islamic law. Woo-hoo! Yeah those liars over at CAIR deserve to get upset.

But what was NOT deserved, was Newt being called a bigot. No he isn't. The only thing that liars like CAIR have, or liars in general have; in their slimy bag-of-tricks, is to throw a negative label on someone with names like: bigot, hater, islamophobe, the list goes on ...

Hi, Jolene, notice my response to "Infidel Pride" ..that my first pick is Rick Santorum.

But if Newt Gingrich becomes the nominee, then he will definitely get my vote and full support, especially in defeating obama. As much as I dislike the fact that Newt has been married, what, 3 times (I think) - his problem love life doesn't even hold a candle to the enormous problems that obama has caused for our country. Wouldn't you agree?

"Can a life spent disavowing ethics in every single venue truly get you everywhere?" -- regarding Newt Gingrich

I only mentioned his past problem love life, but obviously you meant more; although I find your above comment an exaggeration. I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree on this.

"What does this say about us as a culture?"

More to the point, what does this say about our culture to have elected a man like obama?! I mean who is worse, in your opinion: obama or Gingrich? Clearly obama is worse. And those that voted obama into office need to seriously rethink about voting for him a second time, not unless they're as determined as obama is to have a socialist/communist America.

Where does it say Spencer and Geller cannot endorse political candidates? No question they have been critical of those candidates who are weak on jihad, both global and domestic.

As far as I am concerned (I don't read Pamella's site as much as this one) Spencer hasn't gone nearly far enough. To me there is a clear distinction between Gingrich and the others on Islam, jihad, etc. What am I missing? I watched most of the debates.

They (Spencer and Geller) both rightly exposed Governor Rick Perry. What would you have them do? Be silent? You don't think they should educate the public who is and isn't saying the right things about this dangerous problem we are facing, that will only get worse in the years to come? They have no moral obligations as American citizens?

Hi Jolene -

In your last comment (2:59PM), you made a cardinal point.

In case you're interested, my own - slightly awkward - Dutchie style denotation of unease with regard to the issue of scholarly independence and the drifting "above-parties" position of JW, look here.

Take care,
Sag

..."there seem to be many 'whoever the R candidate is will get my vote' people right now."

This "whoever the R candidate is will get my vote" position, is a well thought out and important STRATEGY. It's a way to eliminate obama from office. No one considers Newt or Mitt perfect candidates, but considering the alternative they certainly are! BTW, you never answered my question about who is worse: obama or Newt. I assume from your comments that you pick obama. And what are you going to do if Newt is the nominee, not vote? I assume that as well from your comments. Hey I don't mean to give you a hard time, so I hope that I am wrong and that you'll support the Republican nominee - whoever he will be.

"But many can't seem to contain their misplaced enthusiasm for Newt Gingrich. The passionate trust in this untrustworthy man is a red flag -- literally."

I don't think anyone has any illusions about Newt ...

And the brightest red flag is if someone does NOT support the Republican nominee! C'mon, as conservatives we all need to rally and vote obama out of office. This much is sooo obvious.

"What if the same people who engineered Obama's win are engineering Gingrich's win?"

Conspiracies of this magnitude are really hard to prove. All we can effectively do as individuals is vote for, or against, someone. And I propose that we vote obama out of office; which may mean holding ones nose and voting for the Republican nominee.

Talk is cheap, yes, but that's pretty much what we have. Gingrich is not an unknown. He has a record both good and bad. America has had many flawed leaders, even personally flawed wartime leaders like Franklin D. Roosevelt who reputedly had several mistresses and a disjointed marriage. I'm not saying it is good but we need to look at the entirety of a man and the times in which we are living. What candidate in the Republican race understands our times. Romney? Santorum? Both sided with the Palestinians in the December 10 debate. Seems to me if a man sides in word with our enemies, can we not expect him to side in deed with them?

What about Oskar Schindler? He was a heavy drinker and a womanizer who saved better than a thousand Jews working in his factories from the Nazis. Churchill's wife (Clementine) had an extramarital affair as did Winston according to historians. In many ways Churchill was a flawed man who understood the threat the enemy posed. He was one of few. Is it possible you are too narrowly focused? No one is saying Gingrich, much less any politician can be fully trusted but we have what we have to work with.

De nada ;)

@all -

Like I said before: please, take a step back // watch this whole vid // think.. and then think again about this man.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag

Okay, but only this once since you asked so nicely ...

Who is worse, in your opinion: Obama or Newt?

You cannot say Obama is worse? Where is your moral ballast?

Jolene -

You wrote:

"In 1994, Newt Gingrich described himself as a fan of the ideas espoused in the book, The Third Wave by Alvin Toffler, in which homosexuality, promiscuity, adultery, divorce, and abortion are all viewed as perfectly normal and even desirable."

This is very reminiscent of the old tried and tested J.S. Mill way of undermining tradition, all for the greater good of the "Religion of Humanity".

You might have heard of the work by prof Linda Raeder on this less well known side of Mill. Here's a // great synopsis // as an introduction (pdf).

Cheers,
Sag

I am not talking about presidential ability. Do you think Gingrich is a racist; a racial supremacist like Obama and his twenty year spiritual mentor?

"How's that?"

Well, since you asked, your reply is immature and doesn't even answer my question. I never asked who you would VOTE for, I asked who was worse: obama or Newt. Reading comprehension problems, I guess ..

Okay you want to play games? Fine. When you're ready to have a more serious discussion then check back with me. You started this conversation with me, and I answered your queries in a civil manner. You on the other hand apparently want to play silly games. Until then, I'm done.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Regardless, as conservatives we all need to rally to get obama out of office. Nobama 2012!

"Report me to the moderator!"

Why? You have not used abusive script. However I do find some of your comments a tad bit childish, but they're hardly worth reporting to the moderator, lol!

In other words, you haven't given me good reason to report you, not yet anyway ...

"Race wars can be purposeful. Don't you agree?"

I'm not sure where you are going. What do you mean, race wars can be purposeful? I asked if you think Gingrich is a racist like Obama? Does it matter?

...okay now you want to shut people up? I don't think so.

Who died and made you the micromanager / moderator of JW?

~~~~~~~

wildjew,

Your questions are excellent, but I wish you luck in getting a straight answer out of this poster ...

:)

CAIR characterized Sharia as teaching “marital fidelity, generous charity and a thirst for knowledge," but left out the unpleasant bits.  Anyone who wants to see what Sharia is like can look to the states where it is implemented, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.  Western apologists for Sharia claim that it is so multiform that it has no particular character that anyone can point to.  In reality, wherever and whenever Sharia has been implemented, historically and today, it has looked pretty much the same, and has contained elements absolutely inimical to Western notions of freedom and human rights. - Robert Spencer

Exactly right. Islamic Sharia looks the same now and forever, totally inimical to our modern Western Multicultural values of freedom, fairness, equality and human rights. Gingrich is a champion for calling it.

Newt Gingrich may be the most honorable citizen when it comes to the Islamization of America than any we've heard of.

It may take that kind of assertiveness and honesty to stand up to these jihadists and their allegiance to the ideology of Islam.

I'm not suggesting further killings. There are much wiser ways to keep our constitution, civil freedoms, and laws. However, assertiveness and honesty is about 80% of it.

For example standing up for our rights and liberties, and helping all apostates so they are not murdered, or forced to suffer extreme mental and phyisical barbaric domination and submission

Our fears are warrented as free and civilized citizens. However, fear is neither a good defense or offense in this case. War isn't effective when dealing with an ideology that is 1400 years old. It wasn't in the 8th and 9th century's either.

Put yourself in the shoes of a typical Muslim who sees no way out. Who's family and friends have lived this way forever. And the alternative is (and always has been) the evil enemy. Of course you are submissive and abused. But apostating means certain death.

These people see no other way out but to stay the same. But wait, what if apostating was possible without death, or punishment.? What would you do.?

Indeed you would apostate in a second. So you see my friends helping those in need can be both a defense and an offense, without killing or WWIII.

We forget that the Speaker of the House does not vote. Therefore, the Speaker typically says things that are not backed up by a voting record. Mr. Gingrich is used to making daring speeches that other Congressmen and Congresswomen would not make because they would be compared to their actions. So, the question is what action would Mr. Gingrich actually take?

Ever since "Gaius" began his debut last week on JW, I have come to expect these kinds of snide and thoughtless remarks from him. He hates Christians, and on more than one ocassion has brought up hot topics like: abortion, homosexuality, in what appears to be an effort to stir up trouble. Also, he'll go off topic in bringing up these hot topics, and then he tries to disguise his hate for Christians in his comments. But he isn't fooling me.

Spencer: Gingrich disavows Sharia
.......................

Some real sanity from Newt Gingrich.

No—he is not perfect—but he seems the most consistently anti-Shari'ah and anti-Jihad candidate still in the race, and is not afraid to say so. That goes a long way in my book.

Newt the extravagant liar is back

Gingrich: Secular 'Elite' Promoting 'Radical Islam'

"Secular" does not mean "secularist."

Our secular elites are just the elites of the entire county, minus the clergy.

The claim that the elites of the entire country, minus the clergy, are promoting radical Islam is paralyzingly stupid and transparently absurd.

What about our secularist elites?

Now, our elites as a whole are by no means especially devoted to secularism, even with the clergy left out.

But no doubt some of them are, just as some of the population as a whole are.

But secularism is of course completely contrary to the cause of radical Islam.

Once again, Newt is talking nonsense.

But it is nonsense that works for the more stupid of the voters he is trying to reach.

All right, to address the actual quoted remarks of he ex-Speaker, there is this.

All judges, except those in ecclesiastical courts, are secular.

In America, very likely nearly all are in some measure secularist.

A minority seem to be separationist to the point of taking the First Amendment to exclude such things as plaques of the Ten Commandments in courthouses.

We already have, on the whole, and have had from the beginning, a secular state.

The alternative would be a formally clergy-dominated state.

Think of the official role of the organized clergy in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Now imagine any clergy at all playing such a role in America.

Who actually wants that?

Not even Newt, I suppose.

Who are the religious bigots who want to "drive Christianity out of public life in America"?

The stricter separationists among the secularists do, yes, which is to say they want to drive the crèches off the City Hall lawns and the quotations from the Bible off the walls of court houses.

But religious bigots?

The Buddhists, perhaps?

Animists?

Phooey.

There are none.

And who are the (secularist?) judges and religious bigots who, together, want to make excuses for Shariah?

Pshaw.

The only truthful part of the quoted portion of Newt's remarks was his characterization of the OIC.

And negotiating a deal with them is not the same as sharing their goals.

Reagan made arms deals with the Communists.

No one was foolish enough to suppose he had any sympathy with Communism.

I'm sorry, but tell me again he's not a right-wing panda bear for the Christianist loons of America.

In two days he's sucked up to John Hagee and the goofs at CBN talking complete, crazy eyewash both times.

He's nuts or he's one of the most skillful bullshitters in the Republican Party.

Further proof ...

Note the above comment by "Gaius" as he unleashes more of his hatred towards Christians. He was hinting at it over the past week, but now this poster has revealed what he's truly about here:

"I'm sorry, but tell me again he's not a right-wing panda bear for the Christianist loons of America.

In two days he's sucked up to John Hagee and the goofs at CBN talking complete, crazy eyewash both times.

He's nuts or he's one of the most skillful bullshitters in the Republican Party."

Changed my mind over Gingrich - he's dishonest. Maybe Romney's the better bet

Thank you, David :) ...lol, yeah that comment doesn't make any sense.