Newt Gingrich › 2.0: The Blogmocracy

Posts Tagged ‘Newt Gingrich’

GOP Debate- Tampa Florida

by Kafir ( 328 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2012, Open thread, Politics, Republican Party at January 23rd, 2012 - 9:00 pm

NBC News/Tampa Bay Times GOP debate tonight on NBC

All four remaining GOP candidates have been confirmed for tonight’s debate sponsored by NBC News, the Tampa Bay Times, The National Journal and the Florida Council of 100. The debate will take place at the University of South Florida in Tampa. This will be the first of 2 debates this week focusing on the Florida GOP primary on Tuesday, January 31st. Note the air times on the east and west coast.

…

Live Streams: (airing 9pm ET) NBCPolitics.com, National Journal, and TampaBay.com

Participants: Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Paul

Tags: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul
Posted in Elections 2012, Open thread, Politics, Republican Party | 328 Comments »

What The Newt Gingrich Victory In South Carolina Really Means!

by Flyovercountry ( 108 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2012, Politics, Republican Party at January 23rd, 2012 - 6:00 pm

After being told ad nauseam how Mitt Romney was inevitable as our nominee, we saw in the first 2 of 3 Primaries, that the voters who make up the base of the Republican voting block, are clearly not happy with having that choice thrust upon us. We were told after New Hampshire, the only state won by Romney, and a state by the way that sits in his back yard, that it was now time for the Republican voters to give up this silly dream of having this be the year that the Party actually gave us a Conservative and just get behind Mitt already. We silly voters after all have no business actually thinking for ourselves, the establishment will tell us what to do, and who to vote for. A funny thing happened though on the way to the polls in South Carolina.

I have read a plethora of analyses on this very occurrence since Saturday evening. There was so much spin being put out there, I even changed my subject for today’s essay from the crazy that is Ron Paul to address this latest silliness. The theme of the spin, it boils down to this: Newt can’t win in the General Election, he’s too mean, he’s two volatile, he’s not really a conservative, it’ll cost us the House and the Senate, women won’t vote for him, he really represents the establishment after all, his attacks on the media are ultimately self destructive, his appeal is only temporary, we conservative voters are actually dumb and do not know what’s good for us. If I missed one or two sorry, but the spin has been so heavy, and by the way full of it, that honestly it’s tough to remember it all.

So, as a public service, here is what the vote in South Carolina really meant. The Republican Voters in that state would rather see a President Gingrich than a President Romney, or a President Paul, or a President Santorum. That was the message. Part of the problem with listening to these professional spin doctors who masquerade as thoughtful analysts, is that we all of us lose IQ points by just laying eyes upon them. We do not need someone wearing a magicians hat wielding a wand to tell us what the meaning of a vote truly is. There was no nuanced message sent by the voters of South Carolina. There was only this message delivered very clearly, they do not want Mitt Romney, they want Newt Gingrich to represent their ideals in the General Election in November. According to all of the latest polls, Floridians who happen to be Republican Voters feel the same way.

Here is a little clip from the Sunday talk shows which will illustrate why.

It is not the fact that Newt is taking it to the media that we find so appealing, it is the fact that he is not allowing the asinine premise being put to him as the starting point for any discussion. In a nut shell, we want someone to run who will actually fight for those principles that we believe in. Newt is that person. When the GOP swept to a victory in 2010 that ranks in historical terms, we were told that it meant the the voters wished to see congress work in more harmonious concert with the President. We were told this despite the fact that it was his own party which had been summarily thrown out, and replaced by a grass roots movement known as the Tea Party. We were told this despite the fact that each of us possesses an adult memory, and knew precisely why we voted the way we did. We did not want harmony, we wanted the Obama Agenda stopped, and stopped dead in its tracks.

We still want liberalism stopped. That is the key. We don’t want it slowed down to a more palatable pace. We don’t want our freedoms taken from us more slowly, as is the promise of the Republican establishment. We want the Constitution of this country to become relevant once again. There in lies another problem for the Republican Party. The folks running the party are not in agreement with the people who make up its voting base. We can say what we want about the Democrats, but the leadership of Marxists at least somewhat represents the base of Socialists. Since 1964, and the Goldwater landslide at the disastrous hands of the Great Society, the Republican Establishment has been telling us that we need to nominate the moderates, and the liberal Republicans. While some of these folks have managed to win elections here and there, only one Republican President has distinguished himself as great, and he was no liberal. Newt Gingrich is the only guy running from the Reagan wing of the party this year, and the reason why he has done better in the polls of late is that he is delivering the conservative message, and is doing so in an unapologetic manner. He is not beating up on the poor news reporters, he is simply refusing to tolerate their template of a racist, bigoted, homophobic, knuckle dragging, Conservative. That is a template we are all sick and tired of.

In the aftermath of the South Carolina ass whopping Speaker Gingrich administered to Mitt Romney, One such pundit, and one I read regularly, Ann Coulter, posited the belief that Newt Gingrich is the least conservative person running in the GOP Primary. So, let’s set the record straight on Newt. Speaker Gingrich formed the Conservative Opportunity Society in the House of Representatives in 1979. At that time, the Conservative Opportunity Society consisted of Newt Gingrich alone, delivering speeches in the well of the House, after Tip O’Neill had dismissed the other members for the day. Other members from the Republican Party, began to join him in 1983, and Cspan began to cover the speeches and then televise them. Speaker Gingrich began to recruit and help raise funds for conservatives to run for the House. In 1994, he engineered the Republican takeover of the House, and led a congress which forced a socialist President to adopt the Contract with America. By the end of those first two years, the Socialist President was using for his campaign the fact the he signed legislation which shrunk entitlements, and for the first time since the Teddy Roosevelt Administration, balanced our federal budget. He forced Washington to reform, and even the Marxist in charge declared that the era of Big Government was now over. Those are Newt Gingrich’s Conservative credentials, and I would stack them up against anybody alive today.

The GOP got mad at Newt Gingrich over the forced government shutdown of 1995 and 1996. The fact remains that if they had followed Speaker Gingrich’s lead at that time, the United States would be in much better shape today than it is. The Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party had had enough of fighting, and decided to cave in. Such is their nature, even today. For his sins of insisting that the fight be fought, and that the march towards Socialism and diminished freedom not be merely slowed down, but actually reversed and constitutional principles restored, Newt Gingrich was run out of town. What perplexes me most, is the establishment types spending a fortune to convince us that the man that they ran out of town on a rail is somehow the true representative of that establishment.

Newt was right in 1995, and he is right today. Hate him if you want, call him a meanie, an unfaithful husband, and what ever else, but recognize that his path is the one which will be the best direction for our nation. This is the reason why I am supporting Speaker Gingrich, and the reason that I will vote for him is no more nuanced than this.

Cross Posted at Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Tags: Newt Gingrich
Posted in Elections 2012, Politics, Republican Party | 108 Comments »

Gingrich Makes CAIR SEETHE!

by coldwarrior ( 75 Comments › )
Filed under CAIR, Elections 2012, Islam, Open thread, Politics, Republican Party, Sharia (Islamic Law), Terrorism at January 21st, 2012 - 11:30 am

SEETHE!!! Islamic Rage Boy in 3…2…1…

It is indeed good to see at least one of the frontrunners be brave enough, and believe in the Western Tradition enough to point out that Islam is a threat to the West.

Islam is a barbaric, violent, oppressive 7th century political ideology masquerading as a religion.

These are strong words from a man who understands Islam

Group blasts Gingrich for limiting hires to Muslims who renounce Shariah law

By Joy Lin

Published January 18, 2012

| FoxNews.com

The largest Muslim civil liberties group in the United States on Wednesday condemned Newt Gingrich for saying he would only hire Muslims to his administration if they renounced the use of Islam’s Shariah law as a tool for U.S. government.

Calling Gingrich “one of the nation’s worst promoters of anti-Muslim bigotry,” the Council of American Islamic Relations suggested the Republican presidential candidate is a segregationist.

“Newt Gingrich’s vision of America segregates our citizens by faith. His outdated political ideas look backward to a time when Catholics and Jews were vilified and their faiths called a threat,” said CAIR Legislative Director Corey Sayolor in a statement.

“The time for bias in American politics has passed and Newt Gingrich looks like a relic of an ugly era,” Sayolor said.

CAIR said the release was prompted by the candidate’s remarks Tuesday in Columbia when, asked if he would ever endorse a Muslim running for president.

“It would depend entirely on whether they would commit in public to give up Shariah,” Gingrich said.

“A truly modern person who happened to worship Allah would not be a threat, a person who belonged to any kind of belief in Shariah, any effort to impose it on the rest of us, would be a mortal threat,” Gingrich told the crowd, adding that he’s “totally opposed” to Shariah law being applied in American courts and favors a federal law that “preempts” its use.

This month, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down an Oklahoma ban on the application of “Sharia law” and “international law” in courts.

Pointing to the religious freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, CAIR defends Shariah law as a set of beliefs that “teaches marital fidelity, generous charity and a thirst for knowledge,” and mandates that Muslims respect the law of the land in which they live.

Gingrich had a different interpretation of Shariah law, pointing to the, “rising Islamization of Turkey has been accompanied by a 1,400 percent increase in women being killed.”

“When you look at the application of Shariah in places like Iran, when you look at churches being burned in Nigeria and Egypt, and that the decline of Christians in Iraq from a million, 200 thousand when the Americans arrived to about 500,000 today, I think it depends entirely on the person,” he said.

“If they are a modern person integrated in the modern world and they are prepared to recognize all religions, that’s one thing. On the other hand, if they’re Saudis, who demand that we respect them while they refuse to allow Christians to worship in Saudi Arabia, that’s something different,” he continued.

Later in the day during a question and answer session in Aiken, S.C., Gingrich also called the Ground Zero mosque “a deliberate and willful insult to the people of the United States who suffered an attack by people who are motivated by the same thing.”

“I think the time has come for us to have an honest conversation about Islamic radicalism. I don’t think we should be intimidated by our political elites, and I don’t think we should be intimidated by universities who have been accepting money from the Saudis and who, therefore, now have people who are apologists for the very people who want to kill us,” he said.

January 20, 2012 2:00 P.M.

Newt Was Right The presidency is incompatible with adherence to sharia. By Andrew C. McCarthy

Newt Gingrich’s ardent admiration for Franklin Delano Roosevelt owes more to the latter’s unflinching wartime leadership than his welfare-state policy prescriptions. This week, though, the former Speaker is also undoubtedly in accord with FDR’s aphorism, “I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.” To his great credit, Newt has made an enemy of CAIR.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, that is. The nation’s best known cheerleader for radical Islam — or, as Fox News compliantly puts it, “the largest Muslim civil liberties group in the United States” — has issued a blistering press release that labels Gingrich “one of the nation’s worst promoters of anti-Muslim bigotry.” The occasion for this outburst is the imminent Republican primary in South Carolina.

Asked at a campaign appearance whether he’d ever consider endorsing a Muslim for president, Gingrich sensibly answered that he would not rule it out — “it would depend on whether [the hypothetical Muslim candidate] would commit in public to give up sharia.” Naturally, the usual suspects are in full fury, with CAIR the loudest among them. They’ve trotted out the rote response, dutifully echoed by Fox, that sharia, Islam’s legal code, is simply a set of spiritual guidelines — one that, in CAIR’s portrayal, “teaches marital fidelity, generous charity, and a thirst for knowledge.”

Actually, it teaches polygamy, the underwriting of jihadist violence through ostensible charity, and the Islamization of knowledge. Don’t take my word for it. I refer you instead to a CAIR favorite, the International Institute of Islamic Thought.

CAIR and IIIT are both Muslim Brotherhood affiliates long active in our country. Founded in the early Eighties, IIIT is a Virginia-based think tank dedicated to what it calls the “Islamization of knowledge,” which is a “euphemism,” as the Hudson Institute’s Zeyno Baran puts it, “for the rewriting of history to support Islamist narratives” — such as the claim that Spain is actually the rightful property of Muslims, to be renamed “al-Andalus,” as it was known under jihadist conquest. CAIR, strategically based in Washington, was shrewdly designed to be an Islamist public-relations arm — the Brotherhood realizing that the American media and government were suckers for agitators who style themselves as “civil rights” advocates. This was back in the mid-Nineties, when new criminal laws against supporting terrorists complicated the Brotherhood’s overt championing of Hamas.

Both CAIR and IIIT were identified as Brotherhood satellites in the internal Brotherhood memoranda that proved critical in the Justice Department’s successful Holy Land Foundation prosecution — a case involving millions of dollars funneled to Hamas, and a case in which CAIR was cited as an unindicted co-conspirator.

CAIR and the IIIT are so inter-bred that CAIR’s advisory board has included Sayyid Syeed, a founder of, and director of “academic outreach” for, IIIT — in addition to being a founder of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA, another unindicted coconspirator in the HLF case) and a former president of the Muslim Students Association (MSA), the first building block of the Brotherhood’s American infrastructure. And late last year, just weeks before blasting Gingrich, CAIR presented a lifetime achievement award to Iqbal Unus, a top IIIT official, who was also a prime mover in the development of MSA and ISNA.

CAIR’s reverence for the IIIT is relevant because the Islamization think-tank is prominent among the endorsers of Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law. In fact, IIIT’s endorsement report is included in Reliance, vouching that this English translation of Umdat al-Salik — an authoritative compendium of sharia composed by a renowned 14th-century Islamic jurist — is accurate, faithful to Muslim doctrine, and highly successful in “its aim to imbue the consciousness of the non-Arabic-speaking Muslim with a sound understanding of Sacred Law.” Thus, IIIT opined, “there is no doubt that this translation is a valuable and important work, whether as a textbook for teaching Islamic jurisprudence to English speakers, or as a legal reference for use by scholars, educated laymen, and students in this [English] language.”