Video: Did Sarah Palin Endorse Newt?

Todd Palin endorsed Newt Gingrich last week, which gives people even more reason to think Sarah Palin did the same thing while appearing on Hannity's television show last night. So, did she endorse Newt?

Not really. If you listen to what she's saying here, it has more to do with wanting to keep Romney from pulling away than it does supporting Gingrich. Pundits far and wide are making the claim that if Romney wins in South Carolina, the nomination is his. If that's true, he can start tacking toward the left, which is where he's most comfortable.

What Palin is saying here is that South Carolinians who are undecided should vote for Gingrich, not because he's necessarily the best candidate but because it will buy the nation more time to shop.

There are a couple of things we CAN glean from Palin's comments here, though. First, I think it's safe to say that she's not much of a Romney fan. Second, she probably sees Newt as being more electable than Santorum. Then again, Newt is polling ahead of Santorum in South Carolina, so her motives may be 100% tactical in nature - keep the primaries going.

If you extrapolate this strategy to Virginia, where Paul and Romney will be the only two on the ballot, supporters of Gingrich and Santorum would be best served by voting for Paul in that state. It would keep Romney in check while keeping the not-Romney candidates in the race.

There are three factions in the Republican race right now - the establishment candidate (Romney), the libertarian candidate (Paul), and the anti-establishment candidate (Gingrich, Santorum, Perry).

Palin actually makes a good argument for South Carolinians who support Santorum or Perry to vote for Gingrich. If Romney wins this Saturday's primary, all three men could essentially be gone. If Gingrich wins, Santorum may still be alive (Perry will likely exit on Sunday either way).

Via Daily Caller:

Is 'Gradualism' the Biggest Islamic Threat to the West?

Call it the Islamic version of progressivism, incremental nudges that change a culture and society until the point of no return is reached. Yet another example that shows the left has much in common with Islam. Consider the tactics of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and those of al-Qaeda. Both are essentially Muslim Brotherhood groups who share the same goal - an Islamic caliphate. However, CAIR has been far more effective because it works within the framework of a political system while al-Qaeda uses bombings and terrorism.

Via Ryan Mauro at FSM:

One of the mistakes that the West makes is that it doesn’t listen to what the Islamists are saying. If only we listened, we could hear their strategy. On November 20, Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, the top Muslim Brotherhood theologian and arguably the most influential Sunni cleric in the world, called on Muslims to embrace “gradualism.”

The doctrine of gradualism is successful because we fail to appreciate the ability of the Islamists to be skillful political strategists. Gradualism is an intelligent form of jihad based on pragmatism, patience, long-term planning and self-evaluation. The Islamists evaluate their performance and recalibrate their strategy accordingly. The West misinterprets this as being “moderate,” when in reality, not all Islamists are as reckless as Al-Qaeda.

“Gradualism in applying the Sharia is a wise requirement to follow,” Qaradawi declared, stating that Mohammed followed it. 

The Islamists, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, have always worked in stages. In December, the Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide, Mohamed Badi, outlined six phases: Sharia over the individual; Sharia over the family; Sharia over the society; Sharia over the government; the resurrection of the Caliphate and finally, “mastership of the world.” The Muslim Brotherhood is in the process of completing the fourth phase in Egypt.

When will we wake up?

h/t Free Republic

Newt's Best Line came BEFORE the Debate

Make no mistake. Barack Obama does NOT want to face Newt Gingrich in the fall. He wants Romney. The actions of the 'in-the-tank-for-Obama-media' will tell you that. Anyone with a modicum of logic can see that the liberal media is doing all it can to help Romney become the nominee. Why would they do that? For the same reason they wanted McCain in 2008; he is the least viable.

While at a Tea Party Convention hours before the South Carolina debate, Newt delivered perhaps the line of the campaign by encapsulating exactly why nominating Romney is a very dumb idea.

Via National Journal:

“Why would you want to nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama?” Gingrich asked a lively crowd at the Rioz Brazilian Steakhouse, referring to Romney’s loss to eventual nominee John McCain in the 2008 primaries. He said the GOP establishment “can't argue his record in Massachusetts because he's too liberal,” so they are making the electability case.

A better question cannot be asked and it can only be honestly answered by looking at the agenda of a liberal media that wants to be portrayed as objective.

Obama wants Romney. Period.

h/t Weasel Zippers