Red Oak MosqueBy John Ruberry

It’s easy to dismiss Arsalan Iftikhar, an American Muslim human rights lawyer of Pakistani descent who uses the TheMuslimGuy handle on Twitter as something you’ll find under a rock, but the reality is far worse–the self-appointed expert who rails about Islamophobia is an eel living off of sewage.

The apologist for radical Islam, following up on Newt Gingrich’s comments that belief in Muslim law, known as Sharia, should be cause for deportation from America, eloquently but dishonestly tells readers on Time.com that there is nothing to fear about Sharia. In this defense, Iftikhar cites a New York Times Magazine article written by a Harvard professor, and a Yale professor opining in the Times proper.

Wow. I’m so not impressed.

In that Time piece about Sharia, Iftikhar doesn’t mention amputation as a punishment for thieves. But you’ll find it in Sura 5:38 in the Quran:

[As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they committed as a deterrent [punishment] from Allah. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.

If you are a Muslim, what do you believe more–what is written in the Quran or the New York Times?

Wife-beating was left out of Iftikhar the Eel’s treatise, but it can be found in Sura 4:34 of the Quran:

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance – [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

That’s right, strike them.

John "Lee" Ruberry of the Magnificent Seven
John “Lee” Ruberry of the Magnificent Seven

I could go on and on, but I’ve made my point. But I do want to mention Taqiyya, an Islamic concept that permits believers to lie to infidels in order to advance the greater cause, which of course is the advance of Islam.

To be fair, many Muslims leave the Middle East to escape Sharia and its 7th century legal codes.

What about them, Iftikhar?

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Latvian camp, Three  Rivers, Michigan
Latvian camp, Three Rivers, Michigan

By John Ruberry

Mrs. Marathon Pundit and I will be attending at party tonight in Chicago’s northwestern suburbs–a birthday celebration for one of her closest friends. Like my wife, her friend is an immigrant from Latvia. Both are in the country legally, Mrs. MP is a US citizen.

I imagine there will be about 50 guests there, of those, about a dozen of them are in the United States illegally. Most of them have shadow-jobs–caring for the elderly, for children, or cleaning homes and offices.

They’ve come here to work and if their hopes are realized, live here as Americans.  Even if a million more Latvians arrived in America. they would not dramatically change the national character. The same can be said of most other Eastern Europeans–or Koreans or Chinese.

That’s because these ethnic groups aren’t demanding bilingual education, nor are there institutionalized civil rights groups demanding it on their behalf. While these nationalities often seek to keep ties to the culture of the old country–my daughter used to attend Latvian school every Saturday–they usually immerse themselves in American way of life.

Last week President Obama issued an executive order that will prevent deportations of five million illegals–those  dozen guests at the party I’ll be socializing with tonight will likely be covered by that decree.

Obama eloquently spoke in his speech announcing the order about the travails of what he and his fellow liberals call “undocumented” Americans. But he left out two items that most Americans have always expected of immigrants–that they learn English and they accept American culture. It’s what Newt Gingrich calls “patriotic immigration.”

That’s what this nation needs.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

My thoughts on the debate, I think the strategic move for Romney people in crowd to be nice to Newt was cute. Newt proved that when he is not attacked he makes good points. Paul remains the same and I think gains in every debate because of the way he portrays himself, I think Santourm didn’t have good visuals but gave complete answers. He does better on substance than Style. Romney was crisp and remains so. The question remains if people actually believe him.

10:00 p.m. Am I the only guy who noticed the weird (How to identify a Mason via Monty Python) handshake. between Paul and Santorum?

9:51 p.m. I like the last question.

9:37 p.m. “As long as your an enemy of the US you are safe” Gingrich nails it.

9:34 p.m. Santorum states Syria is a puppet state of Iran, it’s absolutely true. Strangely enough Paul was right about the declaration of war bit, not about Iran in general

9:30 p.m. “Find the Biden position and do the opposite and you’ll be right 100% of the time.” Santorum mentions the green revolution.

9:22 p.m. I never thought I’d hear Ron Paul quote the “just war” theory of the church.

9:05 p.m. I must admit that Santorum’s answer on Arlen is something that never occurred to me. A much better answer than I had.

8:55 p.m. Government control of services lead to tyranny. Next having a good night.

8:50 p.m. The GOP candidates are hitting the “contraception” question out of the park, Newt and Mitt on Religious Freedom, Paul on immorality, and Rick on the ills of pre-marital sex.

8:45 p.m. Coming up faith and immigration, they’ll get to fast and furious sometime after a discussion of subsidies for Unicorn breeding.

8:41 p.m. Paul having a good debate.

8:39 p.m. good exchange on bailouts, Gingrich has better debates when Romney isn’t targeting him.

8:34 p.m. good question on auto bailout

8:31 p.m. Santorum refuses to pander on earmarks

8:22 p.m. The Catholic church is pulled out of adoption in Massachusetts, is Mitt really claiming social conservatism in Massachusetts? Please.

8:16 p.m. Gotta love Paul’s answer to the “fake” question.

8:09 p.m. Opening question on debt, good!

8:07 p.m. Good opening by Romney best of the 4

That means I’m putting in entries when the mood strikes me.

The second in my series of the GOP candidates for president

Newt Gingrich Former Congressman from Georgia, Former Speaker of the House

The Case for:

1. Leadership: Newt Gingrich is a leader, he presents a dynamic image of leading from the front to take the county where it should be.

2. Conservative History: Newt Gingrich was the leader of the GOP when they successfully took the house after over 40 years in the wilderness, at a time when the very concept of a Republican house was a joke to people.

3. Congressional Success: Gingrich has two decades in congress and two terms as Speaker of the House under his belt. He is intimately familiar with how bills get passed and how the congress works. This is mighty handy when you want to get your agenda passed and moreover he has an actual record of success on Welfare reform and Budget issues that this administration can’t match.

4. Passion/Endurance: Newt Gingrich is a fighter, there is no question that he is not intimidated by either the media or the left and would be willing to fight back against any attack as he demonstrated against Nancy Pelosi just last month.

5. Knowledge: Gingrich has encyclopedic knowledge about so many issues it’s hard to keep up with him. He can not only articulate issues, but the history and the philosophy behind them.

6. Base appeal: Gingrich has established a connection with the base of the party (see 1-4). He has managed to be outside of the party apparatus long enough to be able to reject the status quo that the establishment is defending. An important issue with Tea Party voters. His hits on the media excites and motivates the activists needed in a general election

7. Ideas: Newt Gingrich is an creative ideas machine at a time when creative ideas are necessary to solve huge problems.

8. Blunt Speech: Newt Gingrich’s willingness to say certain things aloud that everybody knows but nobody wants to say on subjects like Israel is not only refreshing, but there is a strength in such things (See Ronald Reagan “Evil Empire”).

The Case Against:

1. Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac: No matter how you slice it or name it, Fannie and Freddie was buying Gingrich’s clout there is no credible way to argue otherwise.

2. Flip Flops: Here is something you don’t hear on Gingrich as much but Newt has been on a lot of different sides on issues. From Climate Change to the mandates for Obamacare Newt has been on the wrong side of a lot of issues including the Hoffman vs Dede race in NY.

3. Personal Issues Gingrich’s multiple affairs, divorces and marriages play very poorly with the religious, and speaks to character. Ironically the media that still celebrates Bill Clinton will not give him a pass on this. His explanations and apologies have been inarticulate.

4. PITA: People who have worked with Newt simply don’t like him, and we’ve not talking about the people who were on the other side, we are talking about the people on his own side. When your own side forces him out of leadership, that tells you something. When so few people who know him support him that tells you more.

5. Temperament: Gingrich has proven himself easily distracted if rubbed the wrong way. Gingrich charged like a bull at a red cloth when baited by the Romney campaign going all negative and off message not once but twice. There is no reason to believe that this would not be repeated in a general election.

6. Ethics Probe/scandals: Gingrich was the subject for a long ethics probe and in the end did pay a fine. The media in a general election will go long on those charges and fines.

7. Organization: Gingrich while begin generously funded by a superpac has not managed to build a strong organization nationwide to compete.

8. Polarizing figure: Gingrich is in many ways a “larger than life” figure. In many down the ticket races you will see Democrats running against Gingrich allowing them a distraction from their own attachment to Obama.

Exculpatory evidence: The record shows the ethics probe was pretty weak (even CNN declared it so in the end). Strong effective leaders often ruffle feathers. The personal issues of his marriage are old news and he has expressed contrition for them and as a former GOP leader it is natural he would support any party member no matter how liberal.

Conclusion: Newt Gingrich has his risks but he is a high reward choice. When he is on nobody does it better. He is one of the most persuasive people on the stump or in a debate. He is tough enough and nimble enough and spontaneous enough with a phrase (Food stamp president) to devastate Obama. Newt can be high maintenance. His personal life and baggage will hurt but that stuff is old and will have to be reintroduced to voters in the Obama age. Any election that is about the record of Barack Obama is a loser not only for the administration but down ticket, the strategy will be to turn the larger than life Gingrich into the issue and hope to distract the voters from Obama, and Newt from his message. That is their best card since Newt’s strong successful record on economy and budget combined with his ability to articulate it should be devastating contrast to Obama and the left in 2012.

My Biggest fear: Gingrich’s lack of discipline combined with his huge paper trail both in office and writing, makes it really easy to set a trap for him and a compliant media would certainly do their best to set that trap and exploit it. If Newt takes the bait it could turn the campaign in a weekend.

My Hunch: I suspect in a general election Newt has the best shot. He can not only match Obama in hope and change but can point to an actual record to pull it off. He is also the best positioned to take advantage of the “do nothing congress” strategy by pointing to his record during the Clinton years. As long as Romney keep baiting him away from that message it’s moot.

My advice to the Gingrich Campaign: Positive, positive, positive. The trick is to be explicitly positive while hitting Romney implicitly. Make your case on your record, on your ideas, make sure any attack is on Obama, don’t even mention Mitt. Close with something like: “This is the case for Conservatism and against Obamaism, It’s the winning case I will be happy to make to the American people and its a case that my opponents in the race can’t effectively make. It not only skewers Romney on his inability to connect it highlights your presentation advantage over both Santorum and Paul.

Stacy McCain just called me from Page Field in Ft. Myers from a Gingrich event, here is a quick liveblog as I’m transcribing from his cell phone:

Here is a quick transcribing of what I’m hearing over Stacy’s Phone:

Herman Cain speaking 350 people

Warming up

On energy independence , rebuilding our military Newt and I are on the same page

We need bold fearless leadership in Washington DC

Look past the gutter politics and negativity and the side shows and look where newt Gingrich stands on solid stuff

We need a serious communicator and Newt Gingrich has demonstrated it

—–

Michael Reagan in introduced:

If newt Gingrich is not a Reagan republican I wonder if they would thing Ronald Reagan was a Reagan republican

Have we been losing our freedoms every day every month and every year since Obama took the white house.

Reagan introduces Gingrich to cries of “Newt”

We have a lot to do in the next few hours,

Poll out showing closing within five, one two hours ago saying it’s now tied.

I don’t see how a Massachusetts liberal will do better than the moderates we nominated in 1996 and 2008

(Romney) Outspent us 4-1 and has this whole thing about if I’m really a Reaganite but he was voting for Paul Tsongas in 1992.

No clue what Reagan stood for or was fighting for in Washington.

Can’t do better than Herman Cain for grass roots conservatism. delighted for Michael Reagan to be here.

(Romney campaign is) 3 1/2 million dollars of ads per hour, the only way we can do this is to destroy Newt.

What a pathetic situation to run for president with nothing positive to say about yourself, that’s not my model.

I have an enormous advantage… I actually study these things I’m not a manager I’m a leader. We don’t’ need somebody to manage the decay, we need somebody to change the city

Quotes Soros saying Obama or Romney is fine, Newt would change things

Goldman Sacks is very uncomfortable with me

Those ads are your money recycled to attack me.

No American president has put more Americans on food stamps than Barack Obama

New high water mark with Keystone Pipeline

Imagine an American president cancelling a pipeline that would have put people to work for 30-40 years.

Cancels it to appease his San Francisco people

On the first day I become president I will issue an executive order so every Canadian will know it’s OK to build the (Keystone) pipeline.

Victory requires all of us to do all we can to turn the vote out

Biggest election of our lifetime

I don’t see how a Massachusetts liberal will do better than the moderates we nominated in 1996 and 2008

Update…
Newt Gingrich continues….

We want to run a team campaign this fall

I will ask the house and senate to come in on Jan 3rd and stay to
1.. repeal obamacare
2. to repeal Dodd Frank
3. Repeal Sarbains Oxly

We will liberate the American economy so that all three can be passed and be on my desk the day I’m sworn in.

Executive order all White House Czars go

Ex order to move embassy to Jerusalem.

Ex order blocking all support for agenda 21
Comments on Obama’s attack on Catholic church and pastoral letter of this Sunday.

One of the executive orders I will sign will repeal every anti religious act the Obama administration has passed. By the time the president has landed in Chicago we will have repealed about 40% of what he’s done.

I don’t think it is legit for the current establishment to preside over decay, we deserve to know the truth and what happened over the last 4 years.

Talk face to face and twitter with people to get the word out….

Stacy tells me this is pretty much a Newt crowed and this is a get the base out there and working speech. Seems pretty effective. Stacy will be up with a more detailed post once he gets to McDonalds the local Ray Kroc Memorial Media center Ft. Myers branch.

Update 2: Stacy’s base story is here. He doesn’t buy those new polls.

If you asked me even a couple of weeks ago whether the Republican Party could heal from the wounds of this election cycle in time to unite against Obama, I would have said ”Yes.”

I’m not so sure anymore.

Bill Jacobson: Romney is winning his battles, but losing our war Legal Insurrection

Its been 9 days since Barbara Espinosa and Dan Riehl went at it on DaTechGuy on DaRadio over what’s wrong with Newt vs what’s wrong with Mitt.

Both sites have been unrelenting in their attacks on their respective targets but in between throwing rights at Newt Barbara put up one of the most important posts on what this next election means.

GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF THE LEFT, Extensive List of +1,000 Groups and How You Pay for Them…

This is a remarkable site with an extensive database of groups, people, categories, and their sources of income which we pay for. It is a searchable site also. Highly recommend you save this most informative source on your hard drive or bookmark for ready reference.

Take a look at a single example from the list:

National Council of La Raza

• In 2009, their total assets were $54,380,430

• From October 2006 to September 2009, La Raza received $11,948,205 in federal grants.
(http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42237)

The spreadsheet is more detailed, with nearly 1000 entries such as these winners:

Berkeley Organizing Congregations for Action ……………..$13,796
ACORN …………………………………………………………$571,409
Gay Men of African Descent ………………………………$1,004,568
Arab Com Center for Economic & Social Services …..$14,142,776
Planned Parenthood (including all affiliates)…………. $363,200,000

And each of those numbers and the 900+ other entries are all SINGLE YEAR NUMBERS.

The list in word format is here and the full spreadsheet is here

This is primary time and I expect supporters for each candidate to fight hard for their choice, but when the convention is over and a nominee is chosen if you feel tempted to sit this election out because your choice was not selected or disrespected, take a good look at this list and remind yourselves what 4 more years of Obama will mean.

Remember we always get the government we deserve and if you choose to give Obama four more years out of petulance, it’s on you.

For a Santorum supporter I haven’t put out too many huge blatant “Vote Santorum” posts but after last night debate how can one not see that Santorum is the guy?

Santorum handed it to Romney on Obamacare and Romney care:

And the CNN Panel figured it out.

He made the right argument on the Moonbase (can’t afford it) and most importantly on the question of “church and state” gave the classic answer that’s worth repeating:

Santorum noted that if rights come from the State, then the state can take them away, if rights come from God then the state can’t take them away.

And finally when is the last time somebody called the administration on its policy in central America:

Who is going to bring lay this on Obama? Romney? please. Paul? He’s on Obama’s side on this, Gingrich? Maybe, but why go with “maybe” when you can have the real thing?

Yeah, every one of these guys is better than Obama, but the best contrast AND the best candidate to get rid of Barack Obama is Rick Santorum.

You know I am really getting upset at the reaction to Newt Gingrich’s moonbase idea.

I would argue that we have to get our economy in order before we consider such a thing but for whatever reason this has all become a joke. On morning Joe they are laughing, on John Stewart they are laughing.

It’s an amazing thing to see for me. From the airplane to the Moon Landing to the PC Americans have a tradition of doing thing that people considered simply impossible just a few generations ago.

The idea of a moon base and the science behind it is a much smaller leap than the idea of going to the Moon in the first place, or the idea of maned flight, or the idea of organ transplants.

Does anyone remember the 6 million dollar man? Take a look at the artificial limbs that are out there today. They would have been the stuff of fantasy when I was a kid.

And consider this, when a country dreams big dreams it’s citizens do as well, in fact in these times people NEED to believe that they can achieve and do better for themselves.

A country and a people unwilling to dream big dreams or achieve big things, will not do either.

This morning I talked about this video

It is a great example of fighting back and Candidate Mark Oxner in Fl 27 deserves a lot of credit for realizing you take ground by going on offense.

In the space of under 24 hours we’ve seen an excellent example of this on the presidential scale.

First we had Nancy Pelosi playing the “I know something you don’t know.” game:

Pelosi: “He’s not going to be President of the United States. That’s not going to happen. Let me just make my prediction and stand by it, it isn’t going to happen.”

King: “Why are you so sure?”

Pelosi: “There is something I know. The Republicans, if they choose to nominate him that’s their prerogative. I don’t even think that’s going to happen.”

Perhaps Nancy figured this CNN report that Byron York dug up was in the memory hole somewhere:

Newt Being Newt went went straight at em:

“There’s almost a level of hysteria about the prospect of somebody who really wants to change Washington,” said Mr. Gingrich to host John McCaslin.

“I have a simple challenge for Speaker Pelosi…you know, put up or shut up. I mean, I have no idea what she’s talking about. I don’t think she has any idea what she’s talking about, but bring it on,”

And under 12 hours later viola

Later the same day, Pelosi’s office said that Pelosi was referring to the likelihood that Gingrich would win the Republican presidential nomination and beat President Obama in the 2012 general election, as well as the entire Ethics Committee’s findings on Gingrich.

“The ‘something’ Leader Pelosi knows is that Newt Gingrich will not be President of the United States. She made that clear last night,” Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said in a statement. “Leader Pelosi previously made a reference to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record, including the comprehensive committee report with which the public may not be fully aware.”

As Weasel Zippers put it:

“Nancy folds like a cheap suit.”

Meanwhile while Newt was hitting back against Pelosi, contrast this to Mitt:

CARLSON: Mr. Romney, what does Nancy Pelosi know if it would be such a bombshell as to why Newt Gingrich couldn’t be president?

ROMNEY: I wish I knew what that was [laughter]. I’d tell people what it is right now.

But that’s one of the reasons why I’m saying that all of the records that were part of the ethics investigation, all of the transcripts, all of the records have to be made public.

Apparently he thought the CNN piece was in a memory hole too, Never mind that William Jacobson knew the score on Nancy:

Would Nancy Pelosi lie for political gain? You betcha. She accused the CIA of lying to Congress about waterboarding, even though the records showed she was briefed and her prior public statements contradicted her. She also is a malicious person who led the charge to demean the Tea Party movement as un-American.

That didn’t matter. Romney’s increasingly desperate campaign raced toward the charge like a man in a desert running toward a mirage…

with the same result.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s office on Wednesday said the minority leader doesn’t have any dirt on Newt Gingrich.

So bottom line, while the MSM tells us that Newt is unelectable, the GOP is heading toward defeat and Obama’s SOTU speech will cement election 2012 that same Newt, in less that a full news cycle, Turned the Pelosi attack pushed by the MSM into an embarrassing defeat for Pelosi AND Romney.

How can this be? Simple. It’s because like candidate Oxner in FL-27, Gingrich refused to empower the MSM narrative and instead fought back on his own terms exposing the weakness and irrelevance of the MSM and Pelosi.

In other words…


He Rode Right Through them, ’cause they’re demoralized as Hell!

It’s that simple.

Update: The fact that Newt fights doesn’t mean he fights according to Hoyle

So now Newt’s defenders will have to explain to us once more why Gingrich is a trustworthy conservative, after his campaign aired Spanish-language radio advertisements accusing Mitt Romney of being “anti-immigrant”:

and it looks like the he is subject to the same rules of attack and retreat:

“We respect Senator Rubio tremendously and will remove the ad from the rotation. We will replace it with a positive message that will continue to focus on drawing contrast between our clear vision on the issues important to the hispanic community and our oponnents lack thereof,” Gingrich’s Florida campaign chairman, Jose Mallea, said.

Exit question: Why is the GOP establishment less shy about counter-attacking when the target is a member of the GOP than it is about attacking democrats? Inquiring minds want to know!

Just watched yet another GOP debate and was totally unamazed by the lack of questions on fast and furious and BS questions such as: “Why did the Bush Tax Cuts fail?”. I think political types are sick of questions from people who want the GOP to fail.

I have a solution:

I suggest Hotair send an invitation to each candidate for a 2 hour debate moderated by Ed Morrissey.

The panel can be 4 bloggers the rule being each blogger has to be a known supporter of a different candidate (for example Bill Jacobson for Gingrich, Powerline for Romney, Stacy McCain for Santorum and a Ron Paul blogger for Ron Paul (Tom Woods?) )

I would suggest prospective bloggers could submit requests to be on the panel and the Hot Air Staff would vote. (That might be bad news for Stacy, oh well.)

I think Ed Morrissey should contact each campaign and see if they are willing. I guarantee it would be more interesting that what we’ve seen already.

Go for it Ed!

Update: Instalanche, thanks Glenn. I’d dead serious about this. The new media should demonstrate that it knows how to run a credible and substantive debate.

Update 2: Ed’s willing and we already know he is able.

Well, never let it be said that I would disappoint my friends. I hereby offer an invitation to the remaining four major Republican candidates to hold an on-line debate sponsored and webcast by Hot Air/Townhall, moderated by myself and a small panel of conservative and center-right bloggers. The most convenient place to conduct this would be at or around CPAC, which takes place in two weeks or so, and fortunately hits around the middle of a four-week lull in media debates. I believe all four candidates will be appearing at CPAC, which should make this convenient for them as well. However, I’m certain that we could schedule this at any other time and place where we could have all four on stage at the same time.

The candidates would be wise to jump on board.