Why Newt Gingrich’s War on Islam is good for America

Call it the war on terror. Or not. The real war is the war on Islam being fought in small towns and big cities in America as well nearly every country around the world. Newt Gingrich gets it. Few others do. Or ever will.  

Newt’s recent declaration that he would ask John Bolton to be his Secretary of State, and if we’re lucky, he would also choose Allen West as his Secretary of Defense will put the world on notice. The business of Islamic jihad, Islamization of the West and creeping Sharia isn’t business as usual anymore. The domestic and foreign Islamic thugs working to destroy America from within and America’s interests throughout the world would have a powerful new foe who intends to return America to its rightful position as the world’s only superpower where the motto is, ‘We don’t care if they like us, as long as they fear us.’

Not surprisingly, Newt has the left wing moonbats foaming at the mouth because they understand that Newt’s ideas are more than just campaign rhetoric. Newt has named the enemy and will not be made impotent by political correctness that forces most politicians into caving to the notion that Islam is a religion of peace.

Gingrich’s 2010 documentary, “America At Risk: The War With No Name,” portrays a disturbing vision of the world in which the U.S. and its western allies are at war with Islam, vividly demonstrating the dangers facing America, one decade after the attacks on 9/11. Today, Washington refuses to tell the truth about the war we are fighting. According to experts, we are at war with Islamists – and it is a war we are losing. “This war will go on until either the entire world either embraces Islam or submits to Islamic rule,” says historian Bernard Lewis, while appearing in the film.

Speaking at the American Enterprise Institute last year, Gingrich told the audience:

It’s time we had a national debate on this. And one of the things I’m going to suggest today is a federal law that says ‘no court, anywhere in the United States, under any circumstances, is allowed to consider Sharia as a replacement for American law.’ Period.

Gingrich believes, the primary threat facing the U.S. isn’t a foreign adversary but the gradual imposition of Islamic Sharia law in America.

IB TIMES   Gingrich likes to couch his policy positions in broader ideas, invoking his training as an historian to offer context and clarity. So it went in a 2010 speech to the American Enterprise Institute. He depicted a clash of civilizations and ideologies between western liberalism and radical Islam, which he likened to World War II in its importance and the Cold War in its duration.

But Afghanistan, the current presidential frontrunner asserted at the time, is not the central front in this conflict. It is in the United States, where Gingrich contended Sharia principles were slowly and insidiously taking hold.

“Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence,” Gingrich said. “But in fact they’re both engaged in jihad and they’re both seeking to impose the same end state, which is to replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of Sharia.”

He went on to describe Sharia law as a “mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States” and to call for a federal law barring courts from using Sharia law. He reiterated the call for federal Sharia ban while speaking later that year at the Values Voter Summit, and told an audience at the Cornerstone Church in Texas that he feared his grandchildren would see America “dominated by radical Islamists.”

For evidence, Gingrich has pointed to cases that include a New Jersey judge invoking Sharia when he denied a Muslim woman a restraining order against her ex-husband (an appeals court reversed the decision) and a blind student at St. Cloud State University  being exempted from a class after Muslim students objected to his seeing-eye dog on religious grounds. He drew plaudits from like-minded conservatives, with Andrew C. McCarthy writing in the National Review that Gingrich had “crystallized the essence of our national security challenge” by making the question of “where do you stand on sharia?” paramount. 

Further exemplifying his anti-Muslim sentiments, In an interview last week, Gingrich explained that the Palestinians are an “invented people” a statement effectively denying the right of Palestinians to a state. Such a position would end U.S. support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and rejects the policy positions of the Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama administrations.

Newt called the Palestinians “terrorists.”

Not one to backpedal his statements, even when it is considered politically incorrect, in a recent GOP debate, Newt not only didn’t back down, he doubled down on his positions on the Israel-Palestinian conflict saying,Somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth. These people are terrorists. They teach terrorism in their schools. They have textbooks that say, if there are 13 Jews and nine Jews are killed, how many Jews are left? We pay for those textbooks through our aid money.”

Newt Gingrich has said the Arab Spring and the Muslim campaign against Catholic University are symptoms of a growing anti-Christian climate, and pledged to defend  religious freedom around the globe.

Christian Post  Gingrich criticized the Obama administration’s involvement in the Arab Spring – the Middle East grassroots uprising that has overthrown longstanding authoritarian leaders such as Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak – arguing that such involvement is creating an atmosphere of hatred towards Christians.

The former House Speaker also took issue with the recent complaint by Muslim students against Catholic University of America. The complaint filed with the D.C. Office of Human Rights charged that the school rooms used for Islamic prayer have religious material such crosses and images of Jesus, and that the private Catholic university would not sponsor a Muslim student association.

Gingrich responded to the complaint by asking, “Are you prepared to sponsor a Christian missionary in Mecca? Because if you’re not prepared to sponsor religious liberty in Saudi Arabia, don’t come and nag us with some hypocritical baloney. So I think we need to be prepared to stand firm for genuine religious liberty, not for something that’s anti-Christian.”

Gingrich also compared the Ground Zero Victory Mosque project to building a Nazi monument outside the Holocaust Museum.

And perhaps, best of all, as President, Newt Gingrich would prosecute the anti-American CAIR, ISNA, NAIT, ICNA, and all other Muslim Brotherhood affiliates operating in the U.S.