Saturday, September 27, 2014

Islam in a Nutshell: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat

USA DOT COM  verne strickland  September 27, 2014

 via Andrew Koeppel   
 Islam in a Nutshell
In light of the advances of the murderous thugs calling themselves ISIS, with the King of Saudi Arabia saying ISIS would be in Great Britain within a month and in America within two months, this email becomes more relevant than ever.
Islam, not the Chinese nor the Russians, represent, the greatest threat to the world and might be the fulfillment of the book of Revelation in the Holy Bible. This is very disturbing for a Christian to read, but read it and be educated.

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.
Here's how it works:
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law.  The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions.
In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in:

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and is on-going in:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

'Before I was nine, I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today 's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates are higher than the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.

Well, boys and girls, today we are letting the fox guard the henhouse.
The wolves will be herding the sheep!

NOTE : Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified as adevout Catholic ,  a devout Jew or a devout Protestant...? Just wondering.

Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions?  Doesn't this make you feel safer already??

That should make the United States much safer, huh!!
Was it not  "Devout Muslim men " that flew planes into U.S. buildings only 10 years ago?
We must never forget this..
Was it not a  Devout Muslim man who killed 13 at Fort Hood ? (He killed "From within" -don't forget that).

Also: This is very interesting and we all need to read it from start to finish.Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities. Can a good Muslim be a good American? This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply:

Theologically - no . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia

Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)

Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.

Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews..

Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.

Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran  4:34 )

Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression.. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist.   Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no. Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore, after much study and deliberation. ... Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. - - - They obviously cannot be both 'good' Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish, it's still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.

Can a Muslim be a good soldier???

Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire at Ft. Hood and Killed 13. He is a good Muslim!!!

Posted by at No comments:

Friday, September 26, 2014

Liberal Democrat Kay Hagan pouts about GOP putting up ads critical of her -- but she's the "Smear Queen" of untruthful ads about Thom Tillis.



 
Dems whine 'poor little me,' but they're outspending GOP on negative ads
By |

Topics: Editorial Democratic Party Campaign Finance 2014 Elections Campaigns Kay Hagan Magazine Bruce Braley
“Democrats are being outspent by Republicans and their allies in Iowa,” says a press release this week from the Senate campaign of Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley.
Braley, whose Senate race is a dead heat, also complained to small-dollar donors on his email list Thursday that “the Koch brothers have special interest spend-and-attack strategy to try and buy a victory in Iowa” for his Republican opponent.
Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., sends emails to supporters like this nearly every day, complaining that Republican interests such as those aligned with Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers “have now spent more than $27 million against me.” She adds, “[W]e’re up against more Koch, Rove, outside attacks than ever before.”
Given such complaints, you might think Democrats like Braley and Hagan are being overwhelmed by outside spending. You'd be wrong — they're doing just fine.
In the 11 Senate races where independent expenditures by outside groups are a significant factor, Democrats have spent about $18 million more on aggregate than the Republicans. When it comes to negative ads, the kind Democratic candidates complain about so often, their advantage is even larger. Left-leaning groups have spent about 70 percent more on negative ads than their GOP counterparts.
According to the latest totals from the FEC, compiled at OpenSecrets.org, Braley has enjoyed a $200,000 advantage from independent expenditures by outside groups in his Iowa Senate race so far. Democratic outside groups have spent $9.5 million just on negative ads trashing his opponent, Republican state Sen. Joni Ernst.
Hagan has it even better. Left wing outside groups have run more than $15 million solely in negative ads to beat up her opponent, Republican state House Speaker Thom Tillis. That makes him the most vilified Senate candidate in America. The runner-up for that distinction is also a Republican, Rep. Cory Gardner, who is running for Senate in Colorado. He now leads in the most recent polls, even though outside Democratic groups have spent $12.9 million trashing him, which is more than double the amount outside groups have spent attacking his incumbent opponent, Sen. Mark Udall.
Only two Republicans in major Senate races this year have the advantage in terms of independent expenditures, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and David Perdue of Georgia.
Democrats will protest that independent expenditure totals don't tell the whole story. Millions are also spent in these races on issue ads by groups that don't have to disclose their numbers yet. But an analysis by Wesleyan University shows that they aren't quite as big or overwhelming as Democrats suggest. Even the largest such group, Americans for Prosperity, had spent only $16.7 million on airtime as of September 4, a significant amount of which was dedicated to House and gubernatorial instead of Senate races.
The bottom line is that Democratic candidates for Senate don't lack outside money, and would still be doing just fine if they stopped whining about it.
 Share this article on Facebook or Twitter
Posted by at No comments:

Unbiased television coverage of Tillis - Hagan battle hard to come by. But news time has to be filled. Doesn't it?

This week-end coverage from WTCD/11 in Durham purports to give an "all things equal" report on the pitched battle between conservative NC GOP candidate Thom Tillis and Democrat incumbent Kay Hagan. But don't buy that. Anchor Larry Stoger, a perennial liberal Democrat booster, has always seems troubled by the need to deliver unbiased coverage. I don't know if he has ever succeeded. No matter. In this report Hagan seems have a Teflon coating, as it is noted that she is ahead in fund-raising (read "buying the election") and bringing liberal "stars" like Bill Clinton to speak for her, and activating up to 10,000 ground troops to stifle the GOP vote. But how many are outside agitators? Hagan seems to project power. But make no mistake -- it is by sheer circumstance that she attracted critical mass. She seems to have no mind of her own and is directed like a puppet by liberal Democrat fat cats. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Their goal is to re-shape North Carolina into a socialist/Islamic super stew. Do not eat of it. 
North Carolina US Senate race tight, but not equal
 
It's hard to turn on the TV for long these days without seeing an ad for Sen. Kay Hagan, or her challenger, House Speaker Thom Tillis.
news.yahoo.com
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Democrats won’t be laughing on Election Day -- John Davis Political Report


Verne Strickland: This is an exhaustive and wide-ranging overview of the campaign for the U.S. Senate seat in North Carolina between GOP candidate Thom Tillis and incumbent Democrat Kay Hagan. I am grateful to Ms. Susan Tillis, wife of Speaker Tillis, for providing it.


 DEMOCRATS WON'T BE LAUGHING ON ELECTION DAY

John Davis is a political  analyst, writer and consultant who has followed North Carolina politics for 26 years. He is editor of the weekly John Davis Political Report, and is widely recognized as one of the state’s leading authorities on evaluating candidates and predicting the outcome of political races.

North Carolina's U.S. Senate Race: Numbers Say Republican Thom Tillis is Likely to Upset Kay Hagan

 September 25, 2014 Vol. VII, No. 24 3:13 pm

This is an update of my January 10, 2014 report titled, North Carolina's U.S. Senate Race: Numbers Say Republican Thom Tillis is Likely to Upset Kay Hagan.

From the January 10 report:
• No North Carolina Democrat has won a second term in the U.S. Senate since 1968
• Midterm elections do not favor the party in the White House, Democrats
• The NC Democratic Party is in shambles; the GOP has power and strong leaders
• Both candidates are equally smart, competitive and capable of raising money
• Polls show the race virtually tied with Hagan at 44% and Tillis at 42%
• For every “extreme right” attack ad that Hagan or her super PACs run against Tillis, he and his super PACs can counter with equally damaging “extreme left” attack ads
• Hagan will be on the defense throughout 2014 for telling PolitiFact’s 2013 Lie of the Year, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it."
On Monday, September 22, 2014, the latest statewide poll of likely voters, released by High Point University, showed the race where it was in January, virtually tied with Hagan at 42% and Tillis at 40% (6% for Libertarian Sean Haugh; 12% Undecided or won’t say).
Key Question: So why is Kay Hagan struggling to seize a commanding lead in the race with Tillis despite a year-long fundraising and spending advantage? Because by an overwhelming margin, likely North Carolina voters disapprove of the job she and President Obama are doing.
• President Barack Obama’s Job Approval is 38%; Disapprove 57%
• Senator Kay Hagan’s Job Approval is 39%; Disapprove 50%
Historically, midterm elections are a referendum on the White House. With North Carolina voters having such low regard for the White House, ads saying “Hagan votes with the President 95% of the time” are keeping her disapproval numbers high and her potential for victory low.
Ultimately, this race will end in a tie with turnout operations determining the winner.
Reasons Why Turnout Likely to Favor a Tillis Upset Win
I am persuaded that this fall Republicans will neutralize the historic digital voter contact and turnout advantage that Democrats established in 2008 and refined in 2012. That development, along with new election laws and midterm election year trends, favors a Tillis upset win.
MIDTERM TURNOUT: Since 1992, the average midterm election year turnout is about 22 points lower than presidential election years. In 2008, statewide turnout in the North Carolina General Election was 70%. In 2010, statewide General Election turnout was 43.8%.
As pointed out in the January 10 report, turnout in midterm elections drops most significantly among Democratic constituencies like African Americans, single women, and young people.
EARLY VOTING TURNOUT: When you take a look at the early voting turnout in 2008, the presidential election year in which Hagan won, as compared to the 2010 midterm election year, you can readily see that Hagan’s biggest challenge is yet to come.
• In 2008, when Hagan won, 48% of all registered Democrats voted early; 52% of all registered African-American voters voted early
• In 2010, a midterm election year, only 16.1% of all registered Democrats voted early; only 14.9% of all registered African-Americans voted early
STRAIGHT PARTY VOTERS: You see a similar shift in the partisan advantage of straight party voters from presidential election years to midterm election years.
• In 2008, 1,283,486. Democrats voted straight party; 59% of all straight party voters
• In 2010, 599,985, Democrats voted straight party; 51% of all straight party voters
NEW ELECTION LAWS: The elimination of straight party voting is one of the new election laws passed by the Republican General Assembly scheduled to take effect this Fall. Today, September 25, 2014, a three-judge federal panel is convening in Charlotte to hear arguments on whether enforcement of the new election laws should be delayed.
If the three-judge panel rules next week that the new election laws can stand, Democrats will face an even tougher turnout challenge. Under the new rules, early voting days are reduced from 17 to 10. There will be no same-day registrations and no straight party voting.
TURNOUT OPERATIONS: In 2012, the Obama camp in Chicago invested $100 million during the 18 months before Election Day in a digital voter contact and turnout operation called Narwhal. They defied the odds and turned out African-Americans and young voters in key swing states in numbers even higher than their historic 2008 accomplishments. That’s why Obama won.
Meanwhile, in Boston, the Romney camp invested an inadequate amount of resources in a digital voter contact and turnout operation called Orca. Orca crashed on Election Day.
Following the loss of the presidential race of 2012, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus directed a self-assessment that became a scathing critique titled the Growth & Opportunity Project. Republicans were their own worst critics on matters like communications with minorities and women and mobilizing voters through digital communications. They were determined to improve.
Democrats laughed at Republicans for admitting their weaknesses in their communication with women and minorities. If my January 10 conclusions are on target, and if Republicans do neutralize the Democrats’ digital voter turnout advantage, then Democrats won’t be laughing on Election Day.


Thank You for Reading the John Davis Political Report!

John N. Davis, Editor
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

COMMUNIST CHINA -- UNCHALLENGED "BIG FOOT" OF WORLD'S CARBON POLLUTION










By Verne Strickland  September  24, 2014

CHINA: "BIG FOOT" OF CARBON CARBON OUTPUT . . .
What? Of course the Communist Chinese are snubbing Obama's nose over "climate change" policies! Communist China -- or "Big Foot" -- has the world's largest carbon footprint -- and they swear they ain't backing up. Meanwhile our Terminator in Chief has drawn another red line in the sand -- to defend the UN's most indefensible position -- penalize the U.S. and other industrial nations for a phony theory about man-made global warming. But Obama loves the UN, and I'm convinced he likes his own country! Hell, throw some more coal on the fire, Michelle.

Climate change? Communist China rebuts Obama


OBAMAun2.jpg

US President Barack Obama, left, is greeted by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, right, before speaking at the Climate Summit 2014 at the UN General Assembly Hall, Tuesday, Sept. 23, 2014. Obama is in New York for three days of talks with foreign leaders at the annual United Nations General Assembly. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

EXCLUSIVE: While President Obama challenged China at the United Nations to follow the U.S. lead in pushing for drastic reductions in national carbon emissions to save the planet from “climate change,” it appears that China has dramatically different ideas. As in: no.
According to a document deposited at the Geneva-based U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in advance of a planned meeting next month, China -- now the world’s largest source of greenhouse gases -- insists that the U.S. and other developed countries endure most of the economic pain of carbon emission cutbacks, and need to make significantly more sacrifices in the months ahead.
Carbon emission cutbacks by China and other developing countries, the document says, will be “dependent on the adequate finance and technology support provided by developed country parties” to any new climate accord.
In other words, only if Western nations pay for it.
More specifically, only if Western taxpayers ante up.  Among other things, the Chinese communist regime insists that the incentive payments it demands must come from “new, additional, adequate, predictable and sustained public funds" -- rather than mostly private financing, as the U.S. hopes.
In addition, the Chinese state:
-- A promised $100 billion in annual climate financing that Western nations have already pledged  to developing countries for carbon emission control and other actions by 2020 is only  the "starting point" for additional Western financial commitments that must be laid out in a "clear road map," which includes "specific targets, timelines and identified sources;"
--In the longer run, developed countries should be committing “at least 1 percent” of their Gross Domestic Product — much more than they spend on easing global poverty” into a U.N.-administered Green Carbon Fund to pay for the developing country changes;
--In the meantime, the $100 billion pledge to the same fund should be reached by $10 billion increments, starting from a $40 billion floor this year;
--Western countries also need to remove “obstacles such as IPRs [intellectual property rights]” to “promote, facilitate and finance the transfer” of “technologies and know-how” to developing countries in advance of any future climate deal;
CLICK HERE FOR THE PAPER
The Chinese submission is part of the paperwork submitted by a variety of nations in advance of negotiations on a new global climate treaty, which is slated to be unveiled at a grand climate summit meeting in Paris at the end of 2015. This week’s ballyhooed climate summit in New York City was intended to kick-start the diplomatic process that will wend toward the Paris finale.
The Paris 2015 treaty is supposed to replace the tattered Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2020, and which the U.S. never ratified — in large measure because huge greenhouse emitters like China and India were given a pass from most of its strictures.
Since then, countries like Canada and Russia have left the protocol, and others, like Japan, have declined to tighten the screws further on carbon emissions in a time of faltering economic growth.
But while President Obama was telling the summit attendees in New York that “nobody can stand on the sidelines on this issue,” and advising world leaders that he had told China’s top delegate at their meeting that “we have a special responsibility to lead,” China has staked out its much tougher position  in a nine-page position paper drearily titled, “Submission on the Work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Durban Platform for Enhanced Action.”
The working group, part of the UNFCCC process, is pulling together international positions to develop a consensus starting point for the Paris treaty negotiations, which will supposedly be unveiled at a meeting in Lima, Peru, in December. The Chinese paper, however, went to an earlier preparatory meeting slated to begin in Bonn on October 25.
According to the Chinese, all of the additional Western action is necessary because developing countries have already done their part at greenhouse gas cutbacks—or, as the position paper has it, in typical U.N. climate-speak, “have already communicated and implemented ambitious nationally appropriate mitigation actions.”
Indeed, the paper continues, “Their contribution to global mitigation efforts is far greater than that by developed countries.”
That conclusion appears to largely draw on the fact that China believes that Western countries are “responsible for the current and future concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere because of their historical, current and future emissions,” while “developing countries have the right to equitable development opportunities and sustainable development.”
That was largely the logic behind the faltering Kyoto Protocol, in which China pledged only to reduce the “carbon intensity”—the relative greenhouse gas efficiency-- of its industrialization, without any effort at actual cutbacks.
Optimists now believe that China will move in the new round of climate negotiations toward an actual trajectory of cutbacks, but there is no sign of that ambition in the current position paper.
In fact, the paper argues that any new agreement should “be based and built” on the structures of the old Kyoto deal, with “developed country Parties taking the lead in greenhouse gas emission reduction.”
There is perhaps one major exception: “Commitments by developed country Parties [to the new treaty] on providing finance, technology and capacity-building support to developing country Parties shall be of the same legal bindingness as their mitigation commitments.”
In other words:  pay-as-you-go on “climate change”  means that so far as China is concerned, the U.S. and other advanced countries should do all the paying, and most of the going.
George Russell is editor-at-large of Fox News and can be found on Twitter: @GeorgeRussell or on Facebook.com/George Russell
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, September 22, 2014

VERNE STRICKLAND IS GETTING HOT WITH HIS TWEETS! HERE'S A COLLECTION OF OVER 20 OUTRAGEOUS SAMPLES.

 ·  22h
This is a great multi-media piece by Ashe Schow of the Washington Examiner. It answers the Hagan ad where she...
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)