In a speech last week at The American Enterprise Institute in Washington, Gingrich said, "this is not a war on terrorism … this is a struggle with radical Islamists." The problem, he said, is that too many leaders are "sleepwalking" and won't face the threat.
Ask yourself: if you wanted to infiltrate a country, wouldn't a grand strategy be to rapidly build mosques from Ground Zero in New York, to Temecula, Calif., and establish beachheads so fanatics could plan and advance their strategies under the cover of religious freedom and that great American virtue known as "tolerance," which is being used against us?
The best people to consult on such matters are those with the life experiences and knowledge to credibly comment on the subject. After all, we can't expect those who wish to destroy us to tell the truth, can we? Except that they do tell it by their words and deeds throughout much of the world. The problem isn't that they're not telling. The problem is that too many are imprisoned in denial.
One such expert is Yoram Ettinger a former Israeli diplomat and current commentator. He comments on Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and the West's feckless response through meaningless sanctions and empty rhetoric, Ettinger writes: "Western policy-makers grow increasingly reconciled to co-existence with a nuclear Iran. They assume that, notwithstanding the radical rhetoric, the Iranian leadership is pragmatic, cognizant of its limitations, unwilling to expose its people to devastating Western retaliation and considering nuclear capabilities as a tool of deterrence -- and not as an offensive weapon -- against the U.S., NATO and Israel.
"However, a nuclear Iran would constitute a clear and present danger to global security and peace, which must not be tolerated. In order to avert such peril, it is incumbent to disengage from illusions and engage with realism."
Realism is a quality clearly lacking in much of the rhetoric from this and previous administrations.
Ettinger continues: "Unlike Western leaders, the Iranian revolutionary leadership is driven by ideological and religious conviction, bolstered by ancient imperialist ethos:
"1. Jihad is the permanent state of relations between Moslems and non-Moslems, while peace and ceasefire accords are tenuous.
2. The Shihada commits every Shiite to kill and be killed, in order to advance Shiite Moslem strategy
3.The strategic goal of Shiite Islam -- which replaced illegitimate Judaism and Christianity -- is to convert humanity to Islam."
That seems pretty straightforward. Is there anyone who can credibly doubt these stated goals? If not, why are we pretending radical Islamists don't mean it when they repeatedly prove they do?
Some of the zeal directed toward illegal aliens crossing our southern border might better be focused on securing America from radical Islamists. Instead, they build their mosques with minimal opposition from the squishy politicians and elites who could stand against them if they had any backbone. And so those radical Islamists who would dominate America move forward with plans to subjugate us all to their religion and way of life. If the Nazis or Soviets had been this good at infiltration and neutralizing criticism, we, not they, would be on "the ash heap of history."
If at that critical moment in our history, Paul Revere had not devised the plan to light signal lanterns in the belfry of Old North Church for fear of being called an "Anglophobe," Queen Elizabeth's picture might be on our money today.
Radical Islamists are here. Who else besides Newt Gingrich and too few others will sound the call? Who else has the power to do something while they still can?
No comments:
Post a Comment