WheelchairDriver

Copied from another forum.

*I found this on FB “Stand With Phil Robertson”
SOFT JIHAD AND THE DISASTEROUS CONSEQUENCES OF MIGRATION FROM SALIFIST MUSLIM COUNTRIES.

“As long as the Muslim population remains under 2% in any given country, they will for the most part, be regarded as peaceloving minority and not as a threat to other citizens. (with the exception of radical Islamic terror cells embedded within migrant/refugee population)
United States .6% Muslim ( I bet the number is higher )
Australia 1.5% Muslim
Canada 1.9% Muslim
China 1.8% Muslim
Italy 1.5% Muslim
Norway 1.8% Muslim

At 2% to 5% they begin to proselytize to other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from prisons and street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark 2% Muslim
Germany 3.7% Muslim
United Kingdom 2.7% Muslim
Spain 4% Muslim
Thailand 4.6% Muslim

From 5% on they exercise an important 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 8% Muslim
Philippines 5% Muslim
Sweden 5% Muslim
Switzerland 4.3% Muslim
Netherlands 5.5% Muslim
Trinidad and Tobago 5.8% Muslim

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 Islamist 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 condition. In Paris, they are ready seeing car burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results and uprising 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 10% Muslim
India 13.4% Muslim
Israel 16% Muslim
Kenya 10% Muslim
Russia 15% Muslim

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hairtrigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burning of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, as in:
Ethiopia 32.8% Muslim

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

About 60%, nations experience unfettered persecutions of nonbelievers of all other religions (including nonconforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of sharia law as a weapon, and jizya, the tax placed on infidels (yes, there really is such a thing) as in:
Albania 70% Muslim
Malaysia 60.4% Muslim
Qatar 77.5% Muslim

At 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 a high percent Muslim, as has been experienced in some ways is ongoing in:
Bangladesh 83% Muslim
Egypt 90% Muslim
Gaza 98.7% Muslim
Indonesia 86.1% Muslim
Iran 98% Muslim
Iraq 97% Muslim
Jordan 92% Muslim
Morocco 98.7% Muslim
Pakistan 97% Muslim
Palestine 99% Muslim
Syria 90% Muslim
Tajikistan 90% Muslim
Turkey 90% Muslim
United Arab Emirates 96% Muslim

100% will usher in the peace of Dar-es Salaam— the Islamic House of peace, here, there’s supposed to be peace, because everyone is a Muslim, the maderasses are the only schools, in the Koran is the only word, as in:
Afghanistan 100% Muslim
Saudi Arabia 100% Muslim
Somalia 100% Muslim
Yemen 100% Muslim

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

Quote: “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 in the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world; and all of us against the infidel.

It is important to understand that even in countries with well under 100% Muslim population, such as France, the minority Muslim population live in ghettos, within which there are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by sharia law. The national police do not 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 the infidel is a crime. Therefore in some areas of certain nations, Muslim imams and extremist 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 birthrate dwarfs the birthrate of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other groups. Muslims will exceed 50% of the population by the end of the century.”

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT

The only thing that looks bad is that he is saying this from a Christian religious perspective from a Christian country. Which I think is equally as deluded/crazy.

What you describe is tribal life at its worst. It's easy to find that Muslims have been in what is now the USA since the very inception of this nation. They are mentioned/described in many of the history books as the Musselmen as well as on many documents of that day.

My personal belief is Trump is a blow hard and hard to take. Yes I do believe the actual number of Muslim American citizens is far higher than the .6%. I sincerely hope this analysis of Islamic's is wrong, because that whole idea is anathema to me. However, an open society such as ours here in the USA, as well as in the UK is ripe for such a cancerous growth as described.

What you describe is one reason to protect all our Constitutional and every one of its amendments as is. You may not like some of those guarantee's, but they are all we have to protect this way of life.

All beliefs in the supernatural, mumbo jumbo / imaginary friends/gods and associated religions have always been harmful. Muslims are only playing at it when you consider the suffering and abuse that Christians caused over the history of Christianity. Same goes for every confused bunch of illogical thinking cults that think this way.

The difference between the newest problem religion is that they still believe it strongly. Most Christians say they do, but today they don't really. They just cherry pick the cuddly warm bits from the bible (or those are the only bits they hear in church/TV etc) and just ignore/shut out/stick fingers in ears if shown the nasty bits. I have tried reading them parts of their own bibles and they come up with amazing convoluted garbage to explain why it doesn't really mean what it says... Or they would do the same and be just as evil as they once were.

I think that the sooner we wipe out religion of all kinds, with education and by making it illegal to brainwash children and damage their brains with this crap the better.

But back to Trump. He is only saying what most already know.

I sincerely hope this analysis of Islamic's is wrong, because that whole idea is anathema to me.

Seems pretty damned spot on from what I see.

BM, you were "pretty damned spot on" with that last post too.

I suspect that US citizens are generally having a hard time fully grasping the effects of the enormous cultural changes that are being forced on us in Europe. Hopefully men like Trump, for all his perceived faults, will succeed in preventing the US from finding out the hard way.

Here I suspect things will have to get very messy and unpleasant indeed if we are to stop the UK sliding into a cesspit such as Sweden has now become. If our "leaders" have their way, it is likely to happen. I truly worry for the next few generations.

Every time I look at the BBC IPlayer (the BBC is a government mouthpiece and very "left") all I ever see is this:

Its impossible to have any soap or comedy unless its got a huge over representation of multicultural, multi religious, and multi sexual stuff rammed in your face, in almost every program. So that we get used to it... So kids grow up accepting this as normal.

Most of the presenters, on game shows, or "stars" are gay. You never get a group of 3 people in a bar without one is a muslim or gay. Or both.

Now I personally don't give a crap about either sexuality or skin colour. But I don't like it in my faced and massively over represented all over the media. What I don't like is where we get complete areas of the country taken over by immigrants that have no interest in integrating or fitting in. And bring with them all the very things that makes their own countries bad enough to run away from in the first place. They then want to change laws, open mosques everywhere and want to harass the native British people that live there.

Watch this - Luton for eg has been taken over.
https://youtu.be/SgKMI1wV0ps?t=414

USA beware! These people are worse than Christians...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNvoImGJBnQ

These are the people that Trump wants to keep out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YWMby_z59s

"I don't want to hate you or kill you, but a book told me to so I have to."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXHg9AY6M2k

Religion, you couldnt make it up. Oh wait...

Burgerman wrote:...one is a muslim or gay. Or both.

Surely a gay Muslim is an oxymoron?

But then so is a gay Catholic, or a gay (Orthodox) Jew...

Well the whole religious thing is a massive bunch of contradiction. So they are used to it.

I guess I didn't choose my words very well. I should have said displaced persons, or something similar. However, this is basically, the same thing we in parts of the USA also see; quote; " What I don't like is where we get complete areas of the country taken over by immigrants that have no interest in integrating or fitting in. And bring with them all the very things that makes their own countries bad enough to run away from in the first place"

This is no exaggeration at all ! Why indeed? Yes many of these Mexican youths have betrayed their parents who looked for a better way of life in the USA. But instead they have brought the worst of their society and seeded that down in their adopted land. There is no golden streets here or manna falling from the heavens, There is hard work, starting at the bottom rung, and working your way up, to what ever level you consider the top. No we have already seen what comes of unregulated immigration.

In a social setting I am very liberal, I believe very much, in live and let live. Fiscally I am quite conservative, but also practical. I can hardly argue your beliefs against religion and imaginary friends etc. If there were a "GOD" would he or she allow human beings to so misinterpret their "word" as an excuse be so cruel to each other. I really do not want to go there.

In the USA we have many Mexican Gangs, this is the very thing these folks came to this country to get away from. We already see the massive immigration here numbering from 9 to 12 million people, depending on whose numbers you want to use.

Trump's rhetoric might be correct, but what are his solutions? I see no "simple" solutions that are practical and usable coming from him. He is the epitome of a demagogue, all the attributes of a blow hard. What can he accomplish within the confines of our Constitution? When I have been sworn into public office and into the Navy, there was NO mention of protecting individuals from the enemies of the USA, but I was sworn in to protect the Constitution of the USA from all enemies foreign and domestic. If Mr Trump wins and does become president of the USA, is he going to become an authoritarian dictator and ignore his obligation and oath of office, to protect the Constitution of the USA? Will he become a "Hitler" type of leader? He speaks like one. And believe me that's scary. He does have a god but that is the almighty Dollar, otherwise there is very little of substance to him.

I can't comment on the numbers in the original post - scary if true, but not totally convinced.

I live in an area that's well integrated with a higher than average proportion of both Muslims, Hindus and Jews, many of whom are 3rd or 4th generation immigrants, who all get along quite well, consider themselves 'British' and have similar family, culture and work ethics/values that do differentiate them from the 'native' English population only because the latter sadly seem to lack one or more of these ethics/values. But one thing I can comment on is:

"From 5% on they exercise an important 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."

In my personal experience this is baloney... all the major supermarkets round here have both Halal and Kosher sections (which are surprisingly similar) - not because of pressure or threats but because its good for business. None do Halal or Kosher meat products because the laws around those relating to time between slaughter and consumption don't work for supermarkets and in any case there are plenty of Halal and Kosher butchers, some side by side and often supplied from the same farms/abattoirs because the upbringing and traceability requirements are essentially the same and have been in place (at least for Kosher butchers) for over a 150 years or more (yet some of these requirements only became mandated by the food standards agency for all meat supply since the horsemeat scandal not that long ago). And there are many Halal and Kosher restaurants in the area.

Sully wrote:... He does have a god but that is the almighty Dollar, otherwise there is very little of substance to him.

Comment in The Times: If Trump had put the $40m he inherited from his father into a S&P500 investment and left it alone, today it would be worth something over $3b. He's currently valued at something less than $2.8b. So much for his financial acumen.

I don't know anything about him. But for his hair! And the muslim thing. But there at least he is correct.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2015.htm

Thi is an incomplete list of muslim attacks and deaths etc from this year alone...

I can find no argument against your statistics, most are rarely heard of here in the US. We have many nefarious people here as well, most without any connection to Islam.

In all his speeches he does not offer or indicate many if any legal, or in fact practical solutions to the problems at hand. He is full of stale air. He does remind me of Hitler with his rhetoric, during his speeches. Is this what we all want in a leader of one of the largest nations in the free world? Does his rhetoric make you comfortable enough to vote for him? I think I can compare him to crossing a busy street with a proper green light even though you can see a speeding car coming at you ! You will be in the "right" but dead right !

Sully, Latinos come from Papist cultures - a pre-Reformation version of Christianity.

That garbage held Europe back for centuries - war and slaughter on a massive scale. I bear them no ill will but I cannot help but think that it's going to cause problems.

LC

LC I have no argument with what you said. So much was done and is being done in the name of religion is simply evil people doing what evil people do. Trump is a demagogue, a form of evil in its own right. He says what ever he thinks you (the majority) want to hear, with no personal convictions of his own. He is like a puff of smoke, you can see it but you cannot capture it as the smoke it is.

Sully wrote:LC I have no argument with what you said. So much was done and is being done in the name of religion is simply evil people doing what evil people do. Trump is a demagogue, a form of evil in its own right. He says what ever he thinks you (the majority) want to hear, with no personal convictions of his own. He is like a puff of smoke, you can see it but you cannot capture it as the smoke it is.

Which is why he is dangerous. He gets the popular vote but there's no substance behind it which leaves room for all sorts of crazies to hang on to his shirt-tail and ride his wave... lets hope the US electorate see's sense before its too late!

Forbes, which hates Trump, estimates his fortune at $4.5 billion - he claims it was $9 billion when he disclosed his financials and is probably now in excess of $10 billion.
He certainly seems shrewd enough on the Apprentice.

The media hate him because he's not part of the establishment - he has some very anti-establishment supporters including Limbaugh and Coulter.

Would he be good President?

It would depend on his advisors - if he picks good advisors he will be OK if not there could be problems but either way he does not have control of Congress nor the Senate nor the Supreme Court. The US is hardly a dictatorship.

What's most interesting is the shrillness of his opponents - they seem united by an extreme form of hatred.

I would love to see their faces if Trump became President.

All my American friends despise Washington!

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-is-shocking-vulgar-and-right-213572?o=1

Washington Really Is Corrupt
Everyone beats up on Washington, but most of the people I know who live here love it. Of course they do. It’s beautiful, the people are friendly, we’ve got good restaurants, not to mention full employment and construction cranes on virtually every corner. If you work on Capitol Hill or downtown, it’s hard to walk back from lunch without seeing someone you know. It’s a warm bath. Nobody wants to leave.
But let’s pretend for a second this isn’t Washington. Let’s imagine it’s the capital of an African country, say Burkina Faso, and we are doing a study on corruption. Probably the first question we’d ask: How many government officials have close relatives who make a living by influencing government spending? A huge percentage of them? OK. Case closed. Ouagadougou is obviously a very corrupt city.
That’s how the rest of the country views D.C. Washington is probably the richest city in America because the people who live there have the closest proximity to power. That seems obvious to most voters. It’s less obvious to us, because everyone here is so cheerful and familiar, and we’re too close to it. Chairman so-and-so’s son-in-law lobbies the committee? That doesn’t seem corrupt. He’s such a good guy.
All of which explains why almost nobody in Washington caught the significance of Trump’s finest moment in the first debate. One of the moderators asked, in effect: if you’re so opposed to Hillary Clinton, why did she come to your last wedding? It seemed like a revealing, even devastating question.
Trump’s response, delivered without pause or embarrassment: Because I paid her to be there. As if she was the wedding singer, or in charge of the catering.
Even then, I’ll confess, I didn’t get it. (Why would you pay someone to come to your wedding?) But the audience did. Trump is the ideal candidate to fight Washington corruption not simply because he opposes it, but because he has personally participated in it. He’s not just a reformer; like most effective populists, he’s a whistleblower, a traitor to his class. Before he became the most ferocious enemy American business had ever known, Teddy Roosevelt was a rich guy. His privilege wasn't incidental; it was key to his appeal. Anyone can peer through the window in envy. It takes a real man to throw furniture through it from the inside.
If Trump is leading a populist movement, many of his Republican critics have joined an elitist one. Deriding Trump is an act of class solidarity, visible evidence of refinement and proof that you live nowhere near a Wal-Mart. Early last summer, in a piece that greeted Trump when he entered the race, National Review described the candidate as “a ridiculous buffoon with the worst taste since Caligula.” Virtually every other critique of Trump from the right has voiced similar aesthetic concerns.
Why is the Party of Ideas suddenly so fixated on fashion and hair? Maybe all dying institutions devolve this way, from an insistence on intellectual rigor to a flabby preoccupation with appearances. It happened in the Episcopal Church, once renowned for its liturgy, now a stop on architectural and garden tours. Only tourists go there anymore.
He Could Win
Of all the dumb things that have been said about Trump by people who were too slow to get finance jobs and therefore wound up in journalism, perhaps the stupidest of all is the one you hear most: He’ll get killed in the general! This is a godsend for Democrats! Forty-state wipeout! And so it goes mindlessly on.
Actually — and this is no endorsement of Trump, just an interjection of reality — that’s a crock. Of the Republicans now running, Trump likely has the best chance to beat Hillary Clinton, for two reasons:
First, he’s the only Republican who can meaningfully expand the pie. Polls show a surprisingly large number of Democrats open to Trump. In one January survey by the polling form Mercury Analytics , almost 20 percent said they’d consider crossing over to him from Hillary. Even if that’s double the actual number, it’s still stunning. Could Ted Cruz expect to draw that many Democrats? Could Jeb?
It’s an article of faith in Washington that Trump would tank the party’s prospects with minority voters. Sounds logical, especially if you’re a sensitive white liberal who considers the suggestion of a border wall a form of hate speech, but consider the baseline. In the last election, Romney got 6 percent of the black vote, and 27 percent of Hispanics. Trump, who’s energetic, witty and successful, will do worse? I wouldn’t bet on it.
But the main reason Trump could win is because he’s the only candidate hard enough to call Hillary’s bluff. Republicans will say almost anything about Hillary, but almost none challenge her basic competence. She may be evil, but she’s tough and accomplished. This we know, all of us.
But do we? Or is this understanding of Hillary just another piety we repeat out of unthinking habit, the political equivalent of, “you can be whatever you want to be,” or “breakfast is the most important meal of the day”? Trump doesn’t think Hillary is impressive and strong. He sees her as brittle and afraid.
He may be right, based on his exchange with her just before Christmas. During a speech in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Trump said Hillary had been “schlonged” by Obama in the 2008 race. In response, the Clinton campaign called Trump a sexist. It’s a charge Hillary has leveled against virtually every opponent she’s faced, but Trump responded differently. Instead of scrambling to donate to breast cancer research, he pointed out that Hillary spent years attacking the alleged victims of her husband’s sexual assaults. That ended the conversation almost immediately.
It was the most effective possible response, though more obvious than brilliant. Why was Trump the only Republican to use it?
Republican primary voters may be wondering the same thing. Or maybe they already know. They seem to know a lot about Trump, more than the people who run their party. They know that he isn’t a conventional ideological conservative. They seem relieved. They can see that he’s emotionally incontinent. They find it exciting.
Washington Republicans look on at this in horror, their suspicions confirmed. Beneath the thin topsoil of rural conservatism, they see the seeds of proto-fascism beginning to sprout. But that’s not quite right. Republicans in the states aren’t dangerous. They’ve just evaluated the alternatives and decided those are worse.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/267300-trump-boycott-isnt-about-kelly-its-about-fox-being

Donald Trump is the first alpha male to run for president since L.B.J., but his opponents think it's clever to claim that he's "scared" of Fox News Channel's Megyn Kelly because he's said he's skipping this week's Republican debate. This is like attacking 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney for being a libertine — or President Bill Clinton for being boring.

In addition to being the only candidate who will build a wall and deport illegals, apparently Trump is the only candidate who knows how to land a punch.

Whenever you hear someone say Trump is boycotting the debate because of Kelly, remember that he didn't pull out until Fox issued a juvenile press release, saying it had heard from "a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly" and "a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers."
Wow — where did Trump ever get the idea that Fox was treating him badly?

Fox has made a habit of insulting Trump — provided he's not there to respond. After the first debate — which, incidentally, all the polls say Trump won — Fox let it be known that the moderators had been prepared to forcibly remove Trump from the debate if he failed to follow the rules. Brett Baier even revealed their cute little speech before they would escort him to the elevator: "We don't want to have to escort you to the elevator outside this boardroom. But we're locked and loaded."

Trump has gotten along well enough with bankers, unions, mafia dons and New York City bureaucrats to make himself a billionaire. Why him? Why not Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)? And why leak it after it was obviously not necessary?

It's true that Trump has focused his complaints about Fox News's coverage of him on the network's star anchor, Kelly. I assume he's using Kelly as a cat's paw for an attack against the entire Rupert Murdoch enterprise, which is implacably pro-open borders, pro-amnesty and, consequently, anti-Trump.

No one thinks Kelly was up in her office alone, furiously scribbling her questions for Trump. Before that first debate, there were stories all over about the whole Fox News team working on the debate questions.

But most people don't know who Murdoch is. Kelly is a star. By attacking her, Trump anathematizes the entire, pro-amnesty network.

One of the biggest problems facing the nation is that viewers think of Fox as the "conservative" network. If NBC or ABC were this spiteful to Trump, everyone would see it for what it is: political bias. Your enemies can never hurt you; only your "friends" can.

Fox News's bias is more insidious. The hosts avoid stridently attacking Trump. You simply never hear from any pro-Trump guests — unless they're completely ineffective. Immigration-opponents have been aggressively shut out — just as they were when Mr. Amnesty John McCain was running for president in 2008; when the Senate was debating Sen. Marco Rubio's (R-Fla.) amnesty bill in 2013; and when congressional Republicans were trying to defund President Obama's executive amnesty last year.

Are you seeing the pattern? When it comes to immigration, Fox News is indistinguishable from George Soros.

After each of the six debates, Fox News commentators, hosts, analysts, focus groups and body language experts all crapped on Trump and proclaimed pro-amnesty Rubio "the winner." (By the fourth debate, I began playing "Carnac the Magnificent" on Twitter, predicting "Marco Rubio" to the question, "Who will Fox News claim won the debate?")

Then all the polls would come out showing Trump the resounding winner.

But with every other news outlet screaming that Fox News is the extreme right-wing network, most Fox viewers are completely clueless. Surely, Fox News is giving us the best anti-immigration case you're going to find anywhere, since Fox News is "our" network.

For the "conservative" network to be pro-open borders is like secretly switching a diabetic's insulin with sugar. The false labeling is lethal. Millions of people watch Fox News and think they're getting the conservative antidote, when in fact the open borders corporatists have found a new way to package their open borders poison.

One of the hardest things to notice is what you're not being told. Immigration is the issue shaking up this entire election and driving Trump to the top of the polls. But at Fox News, immigration is Issue No. 22 — after Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Russia, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Benghazi, Hillary Clinton's emails, ISIS, ISIS, ISIS, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Export-Import Bank, entitlements reform, ISIS and everything else.

This week, we found out that Fox News plans to have "YouTube stars" at this week's debate asking regular, ordinary man-on-the-street questions that are on the mind of every Republican primary voter. One of the "YouTube stars" is an illegal alien. Another is an anti-Trump Muslim.

You won't read about Fox News's open-borders philosophy in National Review. You won't hear about it on almost any "conservative" webpages, magazines, radio shows, Twitter feeds or blogs. Fox News is the only game in town for conservative commentators and politicians. That's why no other candidate would dare cross Fox.

It took the first alpha male running for president in half a century to stand up to the Fox cartel on "conservative" opinion. Viewers beware: The only "conservative" opinion allowed on Fox News involves dissolving the nation's borders.

Judging by Donald Trump's astonishing rise in the polls, any cable network that took America's side on immigration would end the Fox News monopoly — and make America great again.

You do understand that Faux News is Rupert Murdoch don't you? Need we say anything more? You booted him from GB and Australia said good riddance to him as well, so he Applied and got US Citizenship on the fast track and now owns many news, sports and entertainment outlets (News Papers, magazines, computer and TV communications networks. He has even bought the National Geographic magazine.

He and Trump are just like tornado's they wreak their havoc and disappear until they strike again.

See the woman on the left Huma Abedin - her family are members of the Muslim Brotherhood whose constitution calls for the destruction of the USA.

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…”
“[W]e must possess a mastery of the art of ‘coalitions’, the art of ‘absorption’ and the principles of ‘cooperation.’”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/01/foxs-rupert-murdoch/

So, as BM said, Trump is right.

LC

I completely agree.

The problem however is not muslims.
Its ALL irrational thinking and subsequent imaginary freinds.

I find all of them weird. If you ask them if they believe in bigfoot, fairies, elves, etc they laugh. They want *evidence* before they would even consider the claim. Yet as soon as it comes to their specific gods they change the rules! Suddenly that specific god is perfectly credible. Yet theres is *exactly* the same amount of evidence for all.

All the violence and problems, and abused children and all the rest all stem from a mix of "magical" thinking, and the inability to think in a rational logical way.

At least in this country its all basically ignored, the majority of people under say 60 are all sane rational athiests. Apart from the imigrants.

Quote; "Al-Resalah TV’s stated goal is to “present true Islam” If in fact what the Islamist's are presenting to the world is not true Islam, then what is true Islam? Is that being hidden behind some mythical door? No Mr Al-Resalah what we see is "TRUE" Islam presented by true Islamist's. What I have to hope is following the intent of my Nation and its sympathetic response that we either can defeat the scourge of this "True" Islam without eliminating the individuals who practice a "live and let live" philosophy, while still believing in their faith. This is the challenge of every nation on earth.

we either can defeat the scourge of this "True" Islam without eliminating the individuals who practice a "live and let live" philosophy, while still believing in their faith. This is the challenge of every nation on earth.

Therin lies the problem of ALL religion.

IF they actually BELIEVE their book, and do as it says, (like all religions and their evil books) then we have all the death and destruction and guilt we see for centuries, slavery, cutting up genitals, wars, conquests, abuse of women, stoning your children to death, hatred and slavery, murder of homosexuals, giving your youngest daughter to your male guiests regardless of age, and the abuse of disabled and destruction and guilt over sex etc etc. Much as we saw for centuries.

Or they DONT really believe it or read it all as metaphors and bulshit themselves and are the "live and let live" ones you refer to. But then they no longer believe their book/and so what "faith" is left? If their book is all full of bullshit to be ignored then thats it. So "live and let live" philosophy, while still believing in their faith is an oxymoron - it simply makes no sense. They have to throw out all the bits they dont like, and just believe cuddly bits of it and cherry pick at it, turn it and twist it to mean something else, and then their only "proof" of their god is now in tatters.

So as I said. Rational thinking, and so no "beliefs" at all are then possioble. Because once taught how to use loigic and reason it wouldnt be possible to believe in any of this garbage. And so no more problems.


EG... 1 tiny example.
"Though shalt not suffer a witch to live". That alone killed thousands of innocent people all over europe for 800 years... Until they stopped believing so strongly and chose to ignore that nasty bit... Some education made them realise it was bollocks.

Right now in Africa, the desperate are "helped" by christian missionaries who push their crap on them. So now we have a problem with (other than wars between muslims and xstians and massive torture) ignorant black people literally banging nails into littler girls heads while chained to trees to "drive out" witches... And worse. We wont mention condoms, and aids. Or child molestation. Or any of the other garbage. And thats because they are not ignoring the majority of the xstian bible. They are being "good" true xstians as taught.

Starbucks bans women. More pandering to religion. Shrill feminists oddly silent. Go figure.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261722/starbucks-bans-women-store-saudi-arabia-daniel-greenfield#.VrO8vbQPx-c.facebook

LC

Under the listings of StarBuck's I say; "Who Cares"? I bought one cup of that swill once, took one sip and dumped it ! Dishwater has to taste better.

I dont drink coffee. But I still think religion should not have the right to dictate what sane people do.

Keep Sunday special!

LC