The sharia of the IIIT and their chums at CAIR is patently antithetical to the individual liberties, equality of opportunity, and separation of powers that undergird our constitutional system, which any president must swear to preserve, protect, and defend. It is, of course, permissible in our free society to believe that our system should be overthrown in favor of a sharia system — just as it is permissible to believe the moon is made of blue cheese. But the rest of us are not required to admire an Islamist’s beliefs just because there is no crime in his holding them, or just because they derive from a belief system he labels “religion.” And given that one cannot rationally believe both a proposition and its opposite, Newt is exactly right to argue that a presidential candidate could not be faithful simultaneously to the Constitution and to the classical sharia preached by the Brotherhood.Do I love Newt? Not really. Do I think he can defeat Obama? Not on your life. But do I love his refreshing and decidedly un-Barackian refusal to mince words re sharia? Absolutely!
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Newt Lays It (Sharia and the MuBros' Sharia Agenda for America) on the Line
Say what you will about Newt, at least he knows that sharia, Islam's totalitarian law, is inimical to Americans' freedom--and is willing to say so. Out loud. In public. Andrew McCarthy gives him kudos for that, and for eliciting the wrath of Muslim Brotherhood offshoots CAIR and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), two outfits that are working so hard to make sharia seem pleasant and benign:
Posted by scaramouche at 7:22 AM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Yeah, Mr. Gingrich's marital history disgusts me, and his erratic thought processes--he comes across as a bright, precocious 12-year-old who reads a lot--make me wary of his ability to provide steady leadership as President of the U. S. A. I would much rather see Rick Santorum take the nomination, but that is a very long shot at present.
That said, I must respectfully disagree with Scaramouche regarding his chances against Obama: the Big O was able to ride the Honkie Guilt Trip Express all the way to victory in 2008, because McCain just could not bring himself to broach the topic of his opponent's repellent ideological and associational history; at times he sounded like a spokesman for the Obama campaign! Yet, the McCain-Palin ticket came tantalizingly close to victory, once the handlers unleashed Sarah Palin to go after Obama. At one point, you might recall, McCain-Palin had begun to pull ahead in the opinion polls, but at that precise moment the housing bubble burst and McCain started to play a blend of King Lear and Hamlet before the prospective voters. That's when Obama was able to retake the lead definitively. (And, even so, his eventual victory was not the runaway landslide it should have been under the political circumstances.)
Gingrich, I think, would do what I fear Romney would be constitutionally unable to do: take the fight aggressively to Obama, undeterred by the prospect that he might be tagged a _racist_ (shudder!). Obama is so vulnerable on his sorry performance as President and his unsavory political past that I think just about any reasonably articulate Republican candidate--including Gingrich--willing to take and keep the rhetorical offensive against him would stand a good chance of winning.
Just heard Newt say this (on CBC radio)re Canada selling its Obama-rejected oil to China: "An American president who can create a Canadian-Chinese partnership is truly a danger to this country."
Post a Comment