Newt's attention span is a little short and quite often he backtracks when he says something a tad too conservative for the main stream media. You can successfully push back against Newt and sometimes he just gives in, like his commercials with the racist Al Sharpton and the crazed nutjob Nancy Pelosi.
Spencer takes Newt at his word, but unfortunately seems to think that Newt's proposed solution to the influx of Muslims and Sharia law might work.
The stealth jihad has a good chance to transform American society before most
Americans have any idea of what’s happening.But Gingrich knows. And he also
offered a solution: “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.”If such laws were
adopted around the country and enforced against the many Muslim
Brotherhood-linked Islamic groups in the United States (which include such
ostensibly “moderate” groups as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the
Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American Society, the Muslim
Students Association, and many others), the stealth jihad could be stopped in its tracks.
Wow, stopped in its tracks. Pretty strong words for solving the problem Newt did eloquently describe:
In some ways, it speaks of the goodness of America that we have had such
difficulty coming to grips with the challenge of radical Islamists. It is our
very commitment to religious liberty that makes us uncomfortable with defining
our enemies in a way that appears linked with religious belief.
However, America’s commitment to religious liberty has given radical Islamists a potent rhetorical weapon in their pursuit of sharia supremacy. In a deliberately
dishonest campaign exploiting our belief in religious liberty, radical Islamists
are actively engaged in a public relations campaign to try and browbeat and
guilt Americans (and other Western countries) to accept the imposition of sharia
in certain communities, no matter how deeply sharia law is in conflict with the
protections afforded by the civil law and the democratic values undergirding our
The problem of creeping sharia is most visibly on display in France and in the United Kingdom, where there are Muslim enclaves in which the police have surrendered authority and sharia reigns. However, worrisome cases are starting to emerge in the United States that show sharia is coming here. Andy McCarthy’s writings, including his new book The Grand Jihad, have been invaluable in tracking instances in which the American government and major public institutions have been unwilling to assert the protections of American law and American values over sharia’s religious code. Some examples include:
In June 2009, a New Jersey state judge rejected an allegation
that a Muslim man who punished his wife with pain for hours and then raped her
repeatedly was guilty of criminal sexual assault, citing his religious beliefs
as proof that he did not believe he was acting in a criminal matter. “This court
believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his
desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was
consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”
Thankfully, this ruling was reversed in an appellate court.
In May 2008, a disabled student at a public college being assisted by a dog was threatened by Muslim members of the student body, who were reluctant to touch the animal by the prescription of sharia. The school, St. Cloud State, chose not to engage the Muslim community, but simply gave the student credit without actually fulfilling the class hours so as to avoid conflict.
In a similar instance in November 2009, a high school senior in Owatonna, Minn., was suspended in order to protect him from the threat of violence by radical Islamists when he wrote an essay about the special privileges afforded his Somali Muslim counterparts in the school environment.
In order to accommodate sharia’s prohibition of interest payments in financial transactions, the state of Minnesota buys homes from realtors and re-sells them to Muslims at an up-front price. It is simply not the function of government to use tax money to create financial transactions that correspond to a religious code. Moreover, it is a strategy to create a precedent for legal recognition of sharia within U.S. law.
Amazingly, there are strong allegations that the United States now owns the largest
provider of sharia financing in the world: AIG.
Last month, police in Dearborn, Mich., which has a large Muslim population, arrested Christian missionaries for handing out copies of the Gospel of St. John on charges of
“disturbing the peace.” They were doing so on a public street outside an Arab
festival in a way that is completely permissible by law, but, of course,
forbidden by sharia’s rules on proselytizing. This is a clear case of freedom of
speech and the exercise of religious freedom being sacrificed in deference to
sharia’s intolerance against the preaching of religions other than Islam.
Shockingly, sharia honor killings—in which Muslim women are murdered by
their husbands, brothers or other male family members for dishonoring their
family—are also on the rise in America but do not receive national attention
because they are considered “domestic disturbances.” (A recent article in Marie Claire Magazine highlights recent cases and the efforts to bring national attention to this horrifying trend.)
Cases like this will become all the more common as radical Islamists grow more and more aggressive in the United States.
But none of the above cases were openly based on Sharia law. The New Jersey case was based on a cultural defense claim and the police in Detroit were just pandering to Muslims at best, but not using Sharia law openly. The problem will not be solved by a law preventing the use of Sharia law.
The only solution to the problem of Muslim terrorist sympathizers building mosques near Ground Zero is not letting Muslims to immigrate to the United States. It would be much more effective to get legislation prohibiting Muslim immigration by banning immigration of Saudis, Yemenis, Iraqis, Somalis, Indonesians, Malaysia, and Pakistanis who populate the radical mosques than by banning the not quite acually used Sharia law. Even better would be to prevent immigration or deport any alien who advocates religious based discrimination, violence, sex based discrimination, sedition, treason, waging war on the United States, terrorism, or the free exercise of religion. Muslims support all of those: they advocate sex discrimination, religious discrimination, oppose freedom of religion, advocate the end of a republican form of government, aid, abet, and sympathize with terrorism and waging war on the U.S. Sharia is opposed to a republican form of government and such people can and should be kept out of the U.S.
It is disapointing to see that Spencer does not get the immigration issue and thinks that a pro-forma ban on the use of Sharia based law in our courts will end the Muslim threat. Personnel is policy. Stop admitting the personnel to the U.S. and the policy of Sharia will die on the vine.