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.

Sphere: Related Content

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.

Sphere: Related Content

Clip Their Wings

According to the Times On Line, the perpetrator was on a terrorist watch list, but not the no-fly list. Somehow he was able to carry a two part explosive device aboard Northwest 253 and set it off on the aircraft neared Detroit. After the shoe bomber incident eight years ago and the recent incident in Saudi Arabia, when a Muslim detonated a bomb he had swallowed, somebody should have wised up. While there are Muslims on this planet, there will be no security. Allowing them to access their favorite bombing venues is suicidal insanity.

There is only one way to prevent those attacks: clip their wings; prevent Muslims from entering this country by air. After they switch to blowing up cruise liners, perhaps our government will wise up enough to bar their entry completely. This is common sense, not rocket science.

The following petition is long overdue.

To: U.S. Congress

Whereas a Muslim attempted to destroy a commercial flight from Nigeria to Detroit as it made its landing approach on December 25, 2009,

and whereas the bombing, if successful, would have killed many people on the ground and done great property damage,

and whereas it is the intention and desire of Islam to do maximal damage and injury to "...raise the anger of disbelievers nor inflict any injury upon an enemy... "[Noble Qur'an, Hilali & Khan, At-Taubah 9:120]

and whereas it is impossible to effectively and reliably prevent them from boarding with explosives and other dangerous materials

the undersigned petitioners demand the enactment & enforcement of legislation prohibiting any and all Muslims from boarding any and all commercial flights destined to land on or fly over the territory of the United States of America.

Sincerely,

If you favor national security and flight safety, sign the petition linked above and urge everyone you can influence to sign it. If you perceive the petition to be bigoted, racist or hateful, you are too stupid and ignorant to be a participant in modern society. In that case, it would be better if you'd remove yourself from the voter registration rolls and the gene pool.

Recognizing the identity & character of our sworn enemy is not bigotry, neither is it racism; it is common sense. Islam declared perpetual war against Jews & Christians in 623. Islamic law requires a minimum of one attack against us in every year, failing only when Islam is too weak to mount a successful attack. Doubters and dissenters should read Surah at-Taubah and Sahih Bukhari 52. You can find crucial quotes with links to source in Jihad.chm.

Now is the time to drop the blindfold of political correctness & hoodwink of multiculturalism. Open your eyes and examine objective factual reality. 278 people had a close call with death because our government is too cowardly to name and shame the enemy. The bombing of Pan Am 103 should have been a sufficient lesson. Richard Reid's failed mission should have been a sufficient lesson. Will you ever learn?

Sphere: Related Content

Combating Defamation of Religions: Vote Trend

The optimists will say that the General Assembly vote trend on Defamation of Religions resolutions favors freedom. I am not so optimistic. Only eight votes swung in our favor between '08 & '09 and the abstention trend was flat. The slope of the yes vote line seems flatter this year compared to the previous decline. The quantitative growth has been in abstentions, not negations. Abstentions have no effect on the outcome. Unfortunately, a plurality still supports the resolutions, voting against freedom of religion and expression.

2005 101 53 20
2006 111 54 18 Wikipedia
2007 108 51 25
2008 86 53 42
2009 80 61 42* ACLJ * ACLJ shows 42 abstentions, the UN tally shows 43.

Yes votes

No votes

Abstentions

If the current trend holds, the resolution could be defeated in '11. but I do not expect that to happen. I expect that, if the vote grows closer. many member states will jump from abstention to the yes column. If they wanted the resolution to fail, they would vote no instead of abstaining.

Sphere: Related Content

Combating Defamation of Religions: the Substance

The final text of the Combating Defamation of Religions resolution (passed 12/18/'09) spans pages 67-72 of a 151 page pdf file: A/64/439/Add.2, part II. If you want to read it aloud, you'd better take breath control lessons, because the resolution is basically one long run on sentence. It begins by recalling and reaffirming previous resolutions and documents. The trip down the memory lane sewer is followed by a series of statements of alarm and concern.

Expressing serious concern at the increase in racist violence...

Are they seriously concerned about the recent burning and looting of Christian churches, homes and businesses in Egypt & Pakistan? Of course not, that is not what concerns them.

as a result, inter alia, of the resurgence of activities of political parties and associations established on the basis of racist, xenophobic and ideological superiority platforms and charters, and the persistent use of those platforms and charters to promote or incite racist ideologies,

No, their concern is about the Dutch Freedom Party and similar parties in Europe which express concern about Islamic encroachment & demographic conquest. But they are deeply concerned about:

the negative projection of certain religions in the media

Next they progress to stressing:

the defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading to the illicit restriction of the freedom of religion of their adherents and incitement to religious hatred and violence,

Do they refer to these examples?

• 1:7. The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).
• 8:55. Verily, The worst of moving (living) creatures before Allâh are those who disbelieve , - so they shall not believe.
• 9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
• 9:30. And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!
• 9:123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2).
  

Islamic scripture calumniates Jews, Christians and disbelievers in general, then it declares war and incites violence against them. Where is the U.N.'s concern about that prime exemplar of evil? See what else they are stressing.

the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general,

Reaffirming that discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief constitutes a violation of human rights and a disavowal of the principles of the Charter,

What is defamation of religions; what constitutes incitement to hatred? Who decides? I direct your attention to Ban Ki-moon's egregious condemnation of the short documentary by Geert Wilders.

Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:

“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”

The man chiefly responsible for enforcing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that there is no right to tell the truth about Islam. [Emphasis added for clarity.] Fitna is not hate speech nor is it incitement; it accurately depicts Islamic hate speech and incitement.

Demonstrating the intimate connection (cause & effect) between Islam's scripture and violence evidently constitutes hate speech and violence. Take a good long look at the incidents the OIC complains about in their Islamophobia report. Here is what it all boils down to.

Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism;

Human rights violations? Such as the right to life? How about the right to be secure in their person and property? How are our rights affected by the declaration of war previously cited (9:29)? How are our rights affected by Muhammad's complete denial of them, as well as the sanctity of our blood & property?

Is Islam wrongly associated with terrorism? Who created that association? What did Allah say about terrorism?

• 3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers).
• 8:12. (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes."
• 8:57. So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson.
• 8:60. Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.
• 33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.
• 59:2. He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Banî An-Nadîr) from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allâh! But Allâh's (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).
• 59:13. Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allâh - Islâmic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Banî An-Nadîr) breasts than Allâh. That is because they are a people who comprehend not (the Majesty and Power of Allâh).
  

Allah said that he would cast terror, Muslims must cast terror, and they did cast terror. What did Muhammad say?

• Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331 [...] Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. [...]
• Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220 [...] I have been made victorious with terror [...]

Allah said he would cast terror, Moe said he was made victorious by it. There is nothing wrong with the association of Islam with terrorism! Lets look at the specific application of the wrongly associated meme.

Reiterates the commitment of all States to the implementation, in an integrated manner, of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, which was adopted without a vote by the General Assembly on 8 September 200614 and reaffirmed by the Assembly in its resolution 62/272 of 5 September 2008, and which clearly confirms, inter alia, that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group, stressing the need to reinforce the international community’s commitment to promote a culture of peace, justice and human development, ethnic, national and religious tolerance, and respect for all religions, religious values, beliefs or cultures and prevent the defamation of
religions;

Any association of Islam with terrorism is defamatory by default. So I have defamed Islam by quoting from its own canon of scripture and tradition. Yeah, right. What is the bottom line?

Reaffirms the obligation of all States to enact the necessary legislation to prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and encourages States, in their follow-up to the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance,7 to include aspects relating to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities in their national plans of action and, in this context, to take forms of multiple discrimination against minorities fully into account;

Do you remember what Ban said about Fitna ("incitement to violence")? They postulate a national obligation to criminalize documentaries such as Fitna and this blog post.

The Combating Defamation of Religious resolutions are propaganda, not law. But they serve to add a false patina of legitimacy to existing blasphemy laws in Pakistan and other places where they are used to persecute adherents of minority religions. They also create an atmosphere of support for the proposed protocol to ICERD which is slowly progressing in the Ad Hoc Committee for the Elaboration of Complementary Standards. That protocol will become binding international law.

For an extensive bibliography refer to: Defamation of Religions: Background Info. To find U.N. documents referenced in the resolution's foot notes use this search engine.

Sphere: Related Content