Don't Discount Newt

       A Republican pollster says about the current Presidential campaign “we’re in the personality phase of the campaign but eventually it’s going to move from personality to policy”. Enter Newt Gingrich.  Liberals of course snicker and sneer which is what they did in 1994. That is, until Mr. Gingrich, the Republican Congressman from Georgia, lead the party to its first House majority in 40 years and Congressman Gingrich became Speaker of the House.

       It is interesting to hear Democrats today tout the 1990’s as the time when our country had a balanced budget. When President Clinton was replaced by George Bush, according to some Democrats, there was a budget surplus (not really, but I’ll save that examination for another time). If one studies history accurately you will see that these same Democrats did all they could politically to keep this from happening.

       In the spring of 1995 President Clinton revealed his plan to balance the federal budget after relentless Republican pressure.  In 1994 he said he thought a balanced budget could be obtained in 10 years. The speech in the spring of ’95 he had moved his balanced budget goal to 7 years. This was the direct result of pressure from the newly elected Republican house majority and Speaker Gingrich. Liberals were angry. Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, Erskine Bowles, George Stephanopoulos and Laura Tyson said they were considering resigning because of the President’s budget proposals. President Clinton had, according to memoirs, remorse and thought he might have made the wrong decision. And these are some of the Democrats that today brag about the balanced budget of the 1990’s.

       Newt Gingrich was the driving force behind the federal balanced budget of the 1990’s. So we may be talking today about President Obama’s attractive personality or Donald Trump tossing the “f” bomb at a recent appearance but at some point, as pointed out by liberal pundit Walter Shapiro in the New Republic, we will move from personality to policy. Even die hard ideologues know that when that occurs, Newt Gingrich will be a very formidable opponent.

Presidents Bush and Obama Are Wrong About Islam

Within a month of the September 11^th attack on the World Trade Center in New York City President Bush said “Our enemy does not follow the great traditions of Islam. They’ve hijacked a great religion”. President Bush and President Obama are trying to have us believe that Islam is no different than Judaism or Christianity. That it is a religion of peace. Our Presidents are wrong.

Playboy magazine’s German edition features actress Sila Sahin on the cover of its May edition. She is Turkish Muslim. Her nude appearance in the magazine has so angered Muslims she has received numerous death threats. Is there any other religion that has done so? Islam teaches that to disagree with its law and politics is punishable by death.

Authorities on Islam teach that the Koran must be read so that the parts written last override the others. This holds that parts of the Koran written after Muhammad went to Medina are the ruling parts. I refer to Suras 9 and 5. Sura 9, verse 5, reads: “Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever ye find them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war. But if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them….”

Sura 9, verse 29, reads: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, even if they are of the 40 people of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

Sura 5, verse 51, reads: “Oh ye who believe!  Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them for friendship is of them. Verily Allah guideth not the unjust.”

Sura 3, verse 28 introduces taquiyya which dictates that Muslims should not befriend infidels except as deception, always with the end goal of converting, subduing, or destroying them.

Brian Kennedy, author of the book Shariah: The Threat to America in a recent address to the Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington D.C. quoted studies by the Pew Research Center showing that eight percent of American Muslims who took part in the survey said they believed that suicide bombing can sometimes be justified in defense of Islam. Assuming the estimates of 3 million American Muslims in the U.S. this would mean that 240,000 among us hold that suicide bombing in the name of Islam can be justified. Among American Muslims 18-29 years old, 15% agreed with that and 60% said they thought of themselves as Muslim first and Americans second. Also according to the Pew survey 5% (150,000) say they have a favorable view of al Queda.

Given these numbers and the teaching of Islam I believe it quite reasonable to believe that organizations in the U.S. such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American Islamic Relations represent a real domestic threat and should be treated as such.

The average Muslim in America probably does not understand the Koran in such detail and perhaps the above paints an unfair picture of this “average American Muslim” belief. But it does paint an accurate picture of the teachings of Islam and clearly shows that Islam is different from Christianity or Judaism.

 Islam is making a difference in our world, one body at a time. Islamic terrorists have carried out over 17,000 attacks since September 11, 2001. In April, 2011 alone there were over 150 jihad attacks killing 802 people in 19 countries. What we see among our leaders today is a desire to see Islam as they would like it to be rather than how thousands of Muslims understand it. Islam is not a religion of peace.