On December 21, the New York Times? published an article by reporter Scott Shane titled “In Islamic Law, Gingrich Sees Mortal Threat to U.S.” The article tried to subtlety discredit Gingrich and others talking about the Islamist agenda in the U.S., twice stating that “many scholars” feel the threat is being overblown and it is “roundly rejected” by most experts.
The Times opens up with some of Gingrich’s quotes, such as when he called Sharia a “mortal threat.”
“Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence. 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 Shariah,” Gingrich says.
Gingrich’s warning is then characterized as a “much-disputed thesis in vogue with some conservative thinkers but roundly rejected by many American Muslims, scholars of Islam and counterterrorism officials.” Those warning about the Islamist threat within the U.S. are thus depicted as being part of a political fringe without credibility.
The article does quote anti-Islamist Muslim activist Dr. Zuhdi Jasser of the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy, who says he appreciates Gingrich’s stance, but this is the minimal level of balance required to stop the piece from turning into an op-ed. The rest of the quotes downplay the threat and ridicule Gingrich for making it an issue. There is no mention of the Muslim Brotherhood? or any of the reasons why the issue of Islamism has gained traction.
“[It] takes your breath away, it’s so absurd,” Akbar Ahmed, chairman of Islamic studies at American University is quoted as saying. It ends with a quote from a former supporter of Gingrich’s, an advisor to the Department of Homeland Security?, Mohamed Elibiary. Elibiary is at the center of a scandal. He is suspected of trying to leak sensitive law enforcement documents to the media to try to expose the so-called “Islamophobia” of Rick Perry. He calls Gingrich’s rhetoric “anti-Islam” and “propaganda for jihadists.”
The fact that many opponents of the Islamist agenda do not equate it with Islam or Muslims as a whole is not mentioned. Neither is the fact that the issue at hand is Sharia-based governance and not the non-threatening practice of Sharia in Muslims’ private lives.
Scott Shane was previously confronted by Robert Spencer, a scholar of Islam and director of JihadWatch.org, over his reporting on the July 2011 massacre in Norway by Anders Breivik. Shane placed a heavy focus on Breivik’s use of Spencer’s material, implying that it inspired him into acts of violence. Spencer noted that Breivik was planning violence long before he even began writing about Islam.
In that article, titled “Killings in Norway Spotlight Anti-Muslim Thought in U.S.,” there were no quotes defending Spencer and the other critics of Islam. The title immediately framed them as having an agenda against Muslims, instead of being critics of the state of their religion. The statement that was the closest to defending Spencer was from Marc Sageman, but even his quote attributed some responsibility to the anti-Islamists for Breikvik’s actions, saying that “they and their writings are the infrastructure from which Breivik emerged. This rhetoric is not cost-free.” The article sparked a back-and-forth between Shane and Spencer via email.
On September 2, the New York Times published an opinion piece titled “Don’t Fear Islamic Law in America.” Its main argument was that the fight against Sharia Law is the modern-day manifestation of anti-Semitism and is fundamentally un-American, bigoted and dangerous. A pattern can be seen in the pages of the New York Times where the case against the Islamist agenda is misrepresented and vilified.
The evidence substantiating the anti-Islamists’ worries is plentiful, yet unmentioned in these articles. The trial of the Holy Land Foundation proved that the Muslim Brotherhood operates in the U.S. through powerful front organizations. The Brotherhood’s stated goal is to “wage a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.” A 2009 court ruling confirmed the links between Hamas and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust, the lattermost of which owns at least one-quarter of the mosques in the U.S.
Organizations like these exercise enormous political power, wo0ing politicians and government officials from both parties, including those involved in counterterrorism and foreign policy. Islamist groups in Europe, Canada and the U.S. are hard at work creating private enclaves where extremist indoctrination and even paramilitary training takes place.
The New York Times article against Gingrich accurately states that “many American-Muslims” oppose Sharia-based governance, but doesn’t mention the many American-Muslims who favor it. Right here in FrontPage, the influential Islamic Center of Cedar Rapids’ advocacy of a global Islamic state and other extremist teachings was exposed. A recent study found that of 100 mosques, only 19% had no texts advocating violent jihad.
The article uses a quote from Mitt Romney saying, “We’re not going to have Shariah law applied in U.S. courts. That’s never going to happen,” but doesn’t mention the study that found 50 cases in 23 states where “Muslim-Americans had their cases decided by Sharia Law against their will” in appellate courts. Nor is it mentioned that Sharia courts have come to Europe.
In its reporting on this issue, the New York Times tries to appear balanced by quoting both sides, but it only establishes the credibility of the experts it agrees with. The other side is seen by readers as having no concrete foundation. Luckily, the Muslim Brotherhood?’s own files spell it out for all Americans with a computer to see it.
Paul claims to be Libertarian but what is a Libertarian as defined differently from say a conservative? Libertarian societies lack values. They proclaim freedom to be their value, but freedom is the absence of restraints, while values are restraints. Therefore the more freedom the less restraints and restrictions resulting in not true Libertarianism, (which doe not exist) but a form of Nihilism.
Libertarian societies abrogate values, and then abandon responsibility. They become quasi-socialist welfare states. One sees many of the wealthy in society seem to hold libertarian values because they have a self interest in protecting and maximizing their own wealth. They do not oppose most societal non violent deviant behavior. The result is the deviants of society, encountering little or no resistance gradually take over society.
Freedom is the opposite of values.
Alexis: Sun Tzu said “All war is based on deception.” I suspect all politics is also based on deception. Chuck Baldwin is a Christian Pastor formerly of Florida who ran as a third party candidate for President in the past. Last year he and his whole family moved to Kalispel, Montana because they felt it would be safer there and they didn’t like the harsh police tactics they saw in the U.S. I mention him because I think he may have a lot of influence in the conservative U.S. Christian community. I wrote to Chuck Baldwin last week asking where he stood on Ron Paul’s views about Israel and stated that no true Christian could vote for an antisemite or anyone who was against Israel. I don’t know that people with as much visibility as Baldwin ever answer email. However, two days later he published the article below and came out in favor of Ron Paul — Ron Paul Is The Only Presidential Candidate Who Gets It — and I believe is using the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) as a scare tactic to influence voters to vote for Ron Paul. Excerpt:
Both Baldwin and Ron Paul may be Freemasons (Luciferians) promoting the Beast System run by the RCC and therefore deceivers. It does not seem possible to convince anyone of anything any more. Hot issues such as Alberto Rivera do cause people to take a position and G-d will judge them because of it and expose those who take the wrong side or are appeasers. Remember the Curse of Meroz. I consider Chuck Baldwin false because of his position above and G-d will view him as toast. Look to your own Jewish leaders as well for signs of betrayal like this.
Shy Guy: from your mouth to the Lord’s ear!
I also don’t think he’ll make the nomination. But he’s a lot farther ahead than I ever would have imagined. And I’m seeing his name defended and even praised by a number of people I would have expected to know better.
It would be a disaster if the sane conservative vote was divided among the other 5 candidates, leaving only the Paulies united, behind their idiot.
Well, I’m offended by his comments. He sounds like he crawled out of a white sheet. The bigger question is How much has the American voter been brainwashed by the globalist propaganda and how many will vote for Ron Paul and split the vote so Obama can win.
Here’s another, I think. Please forgive me if it’s the same one again.
See it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=87_-l5cOYYQ
Yes, that’s the one. Good job! I never was able to copy the link.
Could he have gotten more offensive than his comparison of Gaza with a concentration camp?
Thank you, Teshuvah. In the meantime I’ve tried to copy it again–maybe this will do it. I haven’t yet looked at your link.
Alexis. I think this may be the link. Ron Paul does interview with Iranian state TV, bashes Israel, defends Hamas
If reason prevailed, this should lose him votes. Unfortunately, reason regularly does not prevail.
Here’s a headline and youtube for Bland Oatmeal, if the link comes through. Just a little heads-up about your friend Ron Paul.
Ron Paul does interview with Iranian state TV, bashes Israel, defends Hamas
On Jan 5 2009 Ron Paul conducted an interview with Iranian state owned English language propaganda channel, Press TV, where he urges ending support of Israel, defends Hamas and tactics of suicide bombing, states that Hamas is innocent and the Israeli state is the aggressor.
YouTube video – 2:59 minutes
I would not vote in principle for either of them. But I don’t think that Paul is actually going to make the nomination.
As a scholar of Islam, I will speak the obvious (obvious, at least, to most readers on here): what Newt says about the dangers of shari’ah is, of course, eminently true.
As for Ron Paul the Delusional and Dangerous: he is the only contender whose name on a ballot (Heaven forbid!) would make me unwilling to cast my vote against the abominable Barack.
It makes no difference who you all select to be the President of the USA. That individual will throw Israel “under the bus” at the first opportunity. Everyone supports Israel and America’s Jews. But that is all poppycock said to gain your vote.
Ron Paul makes the most sense out of all of these politicians.
It’s not a question about Ron Paul, Miriam. You’ve been suckered by the super-PACs, along with the rest here — even Yamit, who usually escapes this sort of trap. Unless the PACs have someone else in mind, Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee. All this “Ron Paul” hysteria, as well as the “Flavor of the Month” craziness of the Tea Party crowd has only one object: To divide the Republican Party. Rest assured, that if there is any unity left in the conservative movement by election time, some carefully-aimed “anti-Mormon” darts will do the trick.
Gingrigh is toast. HE WEPT. Presidential candidates are forgiven homosexuality, adultery, and every other vice; but “weeping” is a death knell.
completely
You can have Ron Paul. He’s an anti Semite and not worth my breath. Gingrich is far from perfect, but if he were, he wouldn’t be a politician. The New York Slimes is completely discredited in my estimation, so what they say does not have an iota of importance.
Thank you for this video. The commentator is seeking the slaughter of the jews, he is an existential enemy to all jews. He illustrates the probability for another holocaust and it is likely that saudi money will continue to increase and fund such propaganda. I see the likely acceptance of these arguments and that the US is similar to pre war germany. Jews will have to be ready to support and escape to Israel and Israel must develop a real scenario, both doomsday and otherwise. What is Israel, and the Jews, plan for a world that facilitates a new holocaust, are they willing to die and leave the world alive? Israel must prepare for all possible scenarios. There are ways in which the world can be held at bay. North Korea has only scratched the surface of those possibilities.
BO wrote:
This is how the Golden Rule works. Simply stated, the Golden Rule says “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” It is based on Matt 7:12. Google that if you don’t know it. It is not a suggestion. It is a command. The Judgment part works like this: In the same manner that you do unto others, for good or bad, righteous or unrighteous, you are sowing and G-d will see that you reap what you sowed, multiplied, shaken together and overflowing. So as you continue with your Name Calling and your hatefest, you will reap exactly that back from someone else, multiplied. The Bible, left side and right side repeatedly says G-d judges each man according to his works. No one gets away with anything.
Pr 24:12 … and shall not he render to every man according to his works?
THE NEXT FLAVOR OF THE MONTH
I’m getting tired of this.
Hi, Scott
I hope the Republican Party holds together long enough to select a candidate. If it does, we will probably be voting for Mitt Romney; so I hope folks here can get used to that. The following will probably be his
VICE PRESIDENT
I’m not incredibly thrilled by this team, but I think we could do worse.
BO wrote:
Others have but I haven’t called you names because it is not my style and because Name Calling is a propaganda tool and the poorest of debating techniques. I regard a person who does that to be a propagandist or someone who has a small vocabulary and/or a biker mentality. That person should read more. There are many posters on this board who write very well, know history and do not call names. If you practice Name Calling you will meet resistance to your ideas, even if they have merit. Why you try to promote Ron Paul on a Jewish board is really odd and again I question your motives.
Next November I will vote foor the Republican – no matter who it is. I even registered as a democrat last time to voe for Billary. Anyone but Ovomit. I vote in a primary in March, so I’ll see who’s still around when I cast my vote then. However, I cannot cast a vote fpr Ron Paul in the primary though I like his views on the Fed – thats all I can say that I like about him.
Teshuvah,
Since the AntiPaulistas on Israpundit have dismissed me as a “Ron Paul Zombie”, and my son as a “parasite”, I do not feel qualified to respond to your complaint about ad-hominem attacks, you hopeless Gingrichian yokel.
Part 2. Link only. No excerpt: Ron Paul: No Pro-Lifer, December 29th, 2011 at 2:26 pm by Eli Lehrer. Nice fresh article.
Part 2: BO wrote:
Wrong again.
Trying again…in parts. Part 1: BO wrote:
I am going to momentarily resist telling you what you can do to yourself and will instead refer you to Ted’s previous post in which he said he will not tolerate ad hominem attacks as you have just done. He banned American Eagle for that and as I’m sure you know Name Calling is a principle propaganda technique.
I am none of the things you falsely accuse me of and neither are Laura and Bill. We are Realists, a concept that has escaped you. How can you possibly miss Paul’s hateful agenda against Israel and against life itself? Islam is an insane death cult and Paul wants Israel to “give back” G-d given Israeli land to Palestinian monsters of iniquity. What is your true agenda in vigorously promoting that wretched anti-Israel antisemite Ron Paul. Are you on Paul’s payroll? These are the days of the internet and fortunately your comments are easily refuted with true facts. I have stated earlier that I don’t believe any of the candidates are going to save America. All are Globalists and corruptible men. Newt and Ron Paul are Masons, Romney is a Mormon and a Druid and Freemasons started Mormonism and behind them is the Roman Catholic Church (“RCC”) beast system which chooses the candidates. You are screwed no matter who you vote for.
Get a life. You worship Ron Paul — he’s become everything to you. As for me, I’ve got other things I’m interested in.
Ron Pauls published economic plan Here
I think anyone who supports Paul is not only nuts but genetically impaired in their cerebellum.
Typical Newt Gingrich supporter:
I’d rather keep company with an obstetrician any day. I’ve seen the web plaistered with remarks about Ron’s SUPPORTERS, because attacks against the man don’t stick. What has gotten into you Gingies anyway? Can’t you sleep at night without attacking Ron Paul? You’ve all gone nuts!
Typical Ron Paul supporter Israel Fears New Holocaust All of America’s problems is the fault of the Jews.
Read more
BO: My reply disappeared. Perhaps Ted will restore it.
BO wrote:
I am going to momentarily resist telling you what you can do to yourself and will instead refer you to Ted’s previous post in which he said he will not tolerate ad hominem attacks as you have just done. He banned American Eagle for that and as I’m sure you know Name Calling is a principle propaganda technique.
I am none of the things you falsely accuse me of and neither are Laura and Bill. We are Realists, a concept that has escaped you. How can you possibly miss Paul’s hateful agenda against Israel and against life itself? Islam is an insane death cult and Paul wants Israel to “give back” G-d given Israeli land to Palestinian monsters of iniquity. What is your true agenda in vigorously promoting that wretched anti-Israel antisemite Ron Paul. Are you on Paul’s payroll? These are the days of the internet and fortunately your comments are easily refuted with true facts. I have stated earlier that I don’t believe any of the candidates are going to save America. All are Globalists and corruptible men. Newt and Ron Paul are Masons, Romney is a Mormon and a Druid and Freemasons started Mormonism and behind them is the Roman Catholic Church (“RCC”) beast system which chooses the candidates. You are screwed no matter who you vote for.
Teshuvah,
When tobacco-spitting, shotgun-toting, beer-belching rednecks like you, Laura and Levinson froth at the mouth over Ron Paul, please stick to the truth. Paul is pro-life:
Nominating Newt Gingrich will doom any chances of defeating Obama this coming election; and honestly, I prefer Obama to the redneck fanaticism I see pouring out of the Gingrich camp. I don’t give a damn how much pro-Jewish flattery pours out of his mouth: The man is a dishonest, unfaithful jerk and a lackey of Freddie Mac and Big Money. Put that in your pickup truck and drive off with it.
Newt Gingrich: “I’m Deeply Worried” uploaded Dec 6, 2007.
I saved this a long time ago as evidence to present to leftists and assorted other liberals. They aren’t getting it. They have read and believed the NY Slimes, a Goebbels-like media source not fit to line my birdcage or cat box. Watch the above video.
I may appear to be against all the candidates and can indeed find a lot wrong with most of them. Even the conservatives are just one side of the Hegelian Dialectic and Ron Paul the Anti-Israel, Pro-Abortion, Pro-Gay Marriage “deliverer” is doing his damnedest to get Obama reelected. In the media slime though, Newt says the right things.