Hat Tip: Judy W.
Hat Tip: Judy W.
Hat Tip: BB
By: Jeffrey Klein
Political Buzz Examiner
The effects of Gov. Mitt Romney’s avalanche victory,, over President Barack Obama, in the first presidential debate, are now beginning to surface in most all ‘post-debate’ polls across the partisan spectrum.
Let’s rewind to James Carville’s lone pithy comeback, while part of the CNN debate coverage panel that included a totally dejected Van Jones, and a ‘couldn’t be more proud of Mitt’ Carly Fiorina; once CNN’s ‘scientific’ post-debate instant poll gave Romney a resounding 67 to 25 win–the largest since the poll began in 1984–all Carville could keep ‘barking’ in defense of Obama was:
But, what will be the payoff?
First up, the most recent Pew Poll, which has been typically Left-leaning, ‘Likely Voters’ advanced Romney to a 49 to 45 percent lead over Obama, from a 9 point in September, according to a Reuters article today.
The Pew also felt that Romney did a better job than Obama in the October 3 debate, by a margin of three to one, adding:
Romney is seen as the candidate who has new ideas and is viewed as better able than Obama to improve the jobs situation and reduce the budget deficit.
Romney also achieved gains over the past month among ‘Likely’ women voters, who are now evenly divided at 47 percent each for Obama and Romney, when last month, Obama led Romney by 18 points. And, Romney also made gains among white non-Hispanics and those younger than 50.
Then, Rasmussen Reports, which conducted the first post debate national standing poll as part of its regular, weekly ‘Presidential Tracking Poll,’ shows that Mitt Romney leaped past Barack Obama, and now leads 49 to 47, according to a FOXNews article yesterday.
And, historically the 2 percent undecided most always ‘break’ for the challenger, which in this case would propel the Governor well outside of the margin of error.
In another Rasmussen post-debate survey, Romney took the lead in both Virginia 49-48 percent, and Florida 49-47 percent, both based on poll of 500 likely voters.
In a separate Ohio poll, Obama was now barely ahead 50-49 percent, cutting a 5 point lead from just a week ago, as reported in a FOXNews article last Friday.
As for Wisconsin, Public Policy Polling’s newest survey, published October 6th, registered a big post debate bump for Mitt Romney, as just two weeks ago he trailed Barack Obama by 7 points, 52-45; now, the president’s lead has been parred to just 49-47.
In general, voters said Romney won the debate by a 61-25 margin, including a 60-19 margin with Independents, with 95% of Republicans agreeing and 50 percent of Democrats giving Obama the nod.
More importantly, the debate results revved up Republicans enthusiasm factor, as two weeks ago 65 percent of Democrats and 63 of GOP voters said they were ‘very excited’ to vote this fall; but now, Republicans have leaped to 72 percent, while the Democrats have declined to 63 percent.
This decline in enthusiasm for President Obama and with Democrats has become a national problem, according to an article today in Politico, a Left-leaning organization, which published a new POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Tracking Poll of likely voters.
Although it shows that President Obama still barely leads Gov. Romney nationally, by 49 to 48 percent, they admit that most of the phone survey was conducted before the first presidential debate last week–which, has had a distinct impact in favor of Romney.
Gov. Romney’s supporters who are “extremely likely” to vote, outnumber those of President Obama, 86 to 73 percent, while 84 percent of Republicans say they are extremely likely to vote, versus just 76 percent of Democrats.
Among those extremely likely to vote, Romney actually leads Obama 52 to 46 percent, up from a 2 point lead last week, and a complete reversal from just three weeks ago, when Obama was leading among this group, 50 to 47 percent.
But, it gets worse for Barack Obama.
Enthusiasm is falling off in key Democratic constituencies who say they are ‘extremely likely to vote,’ as only 71 percent of African-Americans, 70 percent of Latinos, and just 68 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds ‘claim’ to be so inclined; whereas, in stark contrast, 82 percent of whites (who break for Romney by a 15-point margin) are chomping at the bit to vote for Romney.
According to Politico:
The electorate is deeply divided and polarized, which makes 2012 look increasingly like a base election. Whoever runs up their vote count among their core supporters is likely to prevail, which is why these numbers are so significant.
And as such, there are several ‘driving forces’ found in that have been trending strongly and swiftly in favor of a Romney victory.
In view of the ‘Independents’ poll results above, perhaps the greatest factor is that Gov. Romney now has a very significant 16 point lead over President Obama among Independents, 51 percent to 35 percent, up from just 4 points last week.
When viewing that factor, along with the enthusiasm level of the GOP base, as also identified above, in the context of the
The next most important factor is the August 2012 breakdown of political affiliation results in the September 1st edition of Rasmussen Reports, where in this ‘self-identifying survey’ Republicans represent 37.6 percent of the electorate–the highest level ever achieved since the survey began in November 2002, and a even higher than prior high water mark of 37.3 percent in September 2004–right before incumbent President George W. Bush defeated Democrat challenger John Kerry.
During the same time, Democrats have fallen to 33.3 percent, while Independents–who decide elections–came in at 29.1 percent.
As a modeling indicator, using just the data above, Gov. Mitt Romney is set to clinch the 84 percent of the ‘extremely likely to vote’ portion, of the 37.6 percent of Republican voters, along with 51 percent of the 29.1 percent of Independent voters–yielding a 46.42 percent ‘vote foundation.’
Accordingly, President Obama is set to pick up 76 percent of the ‘extremely likely to vote’ portion of the 33.3 percent of Democrats, as well as 35 percent of the 29.1 percent of Independent voters–yielding a 35.5 percent vote foundation.
Clearly, the mathematics reveal a distinct underlying 31 percent advantage favoring Governor Mitt Romney, which is why President Barack Obama and his ‘Chicago Gang’ are petrified with fear.
By: Col. Tom Snodgrass (Ret.)
Right Side News
In the ten plus years since Islamic jihadists, acting in the name of their god, Allah, murdered almost 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01, daily life in the United States has been tremendously altered by such security measures as waiting in long lines to pass through magnetometers at professional sporting events and submitting to invasive body searches before taking airline flights. In view of these remarkable changes in the way we go about our everyday activities, it is amazing that the following question is not asked, discussed, or analyzed at length in public forums: What exactly has caused such far-reaching and heretofore unusual infringements on the personal freedoms of Americans?
Of course, the answer is not some nondescript or nebulously “radical” terrorism as is commonly and inaccurately reported in the media and misleadingly alleged by the US Government; instead it is purposeful jihad by Shari’a-allegiant Muslims to subjugate non-Islamic believers under Islamic Shari’a law. Recognition of this fact may be politically incorrect and socially discomforting, but it is undeniable.
The logical follow-on question then should be: What does this Islamic jihad mean to Americans? First and foremost it does not mean that we are necessarily at war with worldwide Islam. But it does means that, whether we admit it or not, Shari’a-allegiant Muslims throughout the world are at war with non-Islamic civilization, specifically including America and Israel, based on mandates in the Muslims’ sacred scripture, the Qur’an, and in Islamic law, the Shari’a as recorded in the classic manual of Reliance of the Traveller. Shari’a is the legal gloss on Islamic scripture that turns a theology into a legal-political-military doctrine and system, which demands of its adherents political action and jihad, not merely prayer and ritual.
Qur’an Sura 9:5 – “And when the sacred months [four periods during the year when tribal warfare was forbidden by mutual tribal agreement on the Arabian peninsula in Muhammad’s time] are passed, kill those who join other gods with Allah wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God is Gracious, Merciful.” [Kill those who do not receive Islam as their faith, but spare those who convert to Islam.]
Qur’an Sura 5:51 – “O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them for friendship is of them. This is because Allah does not guide an unjust people.” [Such “ecumenical” friendship makes any Muslim an enemy of their coreligionists and deserving of the same fate as the Jew or Christian. Allah explicitly states that Jews and Christians are enemies of Muslims and any Muslim who befriends them is deserving of the punishment of such Jewish and Christian infidels, which may be death.]
Shari’a o9.0: JIHAD
O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion.
The scriptural basis for jihad… is such Qur’anic verses as:
(1) Fighting is prescribed for you (Qur’an 2:216);
(2) Slay them wherever you find them (Qur’an 4:89);
(3) Fight the idolaters [non-Muslims] utterly (Qur’an 9:36);
and such hadiths [collections of traditions containing sayings of the prophet Muhammad] as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:
I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat [zakat are alms for poor Muslims that are considered to be a religious duty, and the payment is expected to be made by all practicing Muslims who have the financial means; furthermore, zakat is charity to only be dispensed to fellow Muslims, and funding jihad is also considered to be a proper use of zakat]. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah.
As these core Islamic theological pronouncements make clear, the central organizing principle of Islam is to impose the religion on all non-Muslims through the imposition of the Islamic Shari’a law by violence and/or non-violent political action (AKA: “stealth jihad”). Shari’a encourages, but does not compel, non-Muslims to (1) convert, while their other Qur’an-Shari’a dictated choices are (2) to not convert but to submit to Islamic rule by accepting second-class citizen status [dhimmitude] and paying protection blood money to spare the dhimmi’s life, which is called a yearly “poll tax” [jizya], or (3) to fight to the death – convert, surrender, or die.
To summarize, according to Islamic thinking, the ultimate goal of Islam is to establish Islamic Shari’a legal authority throughout the world, since Islam is not just a religion, it is a theocratic dictatorship government as well. Consequently, in addition to being superior to and superseding all other religions, it also supersedes any form of secular government or belief system (democracy, monarchy, socialism, communism, etc.) because no other type of national governing authority is permissible or acceptable to Islam as man-made constitutions and laws contradict the Allah-given Shari’a, and hence are heretical blasphemy. Again, recognition of these facts about Islam by Americans may be politically incorrect and socially discomforting, but these truths are undeniable based upon Muslim writings the religion considers sacred.
The next logical question should be: Do all Muslims really believe all of the above? To answer that question, it is necessary to classify Muslims into three different categories.
First are the secular Muslims, or “cafeteria Muslims,” that accept the cultural trappings of Islam, but do not personally heed the call to jihad. Many media commentators and Muslim apologists assert that the majority of the world’s Muslims belong to this category, and therefore, Islam does not constitute a serious threat to the U.S. or Western Civilization. However, this benign assumption is examined in more detail later in this essay.
Second are two different variations of traditional Muslims.
Qur’an Sura 9:88 – “The Messenger and those who believe him, strive hard and fight jihad with their wealth and lives (in Allah’s Cause)”
Qur’an Sura 9:91 – “There is no blame on those who are old, weak, ill, or who find no resources to spend (on Jihad, holy fighting), if they are sincere (in duty) to Allah and His Messenger.”
Tabari IX:49 – “Muhammad urged the Muslims by way of a meeting to help cover the expenses of Jihad in Allah’s Cause. The men provided mounts in anticipation of Allah’s reward.”
Third are fundamentalist Muslims (i.e., Sunni Muslim Brothers ((al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen)), Salafists, and Wahhabists and Shia Khomeinists) who literally believe the Qur’an and Shari’a passages quoted above (and much, much more) and are completely committed to carrying out violent jihad. These Muslims are Shari’a-allegiant jihadists. While the number of Shari’a-allegiant jihadists is considerably less than the total Muslim population worldwide, given more than one billion Muslims around the world, even as small as ten percent dedicated to imposing Shari’a on non-Muslims would put the number of active jihadists at about one hundred million, which is unquestionably a substantial threat to Western civilization by any rational analysis (by comparison, there were about eighty million total Germans of which only five to six million were Nazis at the beginning of World War II).
It is the third group of fundamentalist Muslims that are prone to violent jihad and that we must actively contend with to counter their war on us, but the problem is how do we differentiate the first two secular and traditional groups from the fundamentalist third, especially within the United States? Or for that matter, anywhere that Americans are in close proximity to Muslims, as in Afghanistan?
Now to return to the assumption that Islam does not constitute a serious threat because the majority of the world’s Muslims are secular, and hence, non-violent. The important point that must never be discounted is that the core jihad concept of spreading Islamic Shari’a is naturally preached in the mosques around the world; therefore, every Muslim – secular, traditional, and fundamentalist – hears about jihad throughout their life and religious practice. The obvious problem for Western law enforcement and counterintelligence is that Muslims may be non-violent secular and/or traditional Muslims one day, but be converted to violent fundamentalist Muslim jihadists the next. In matters of religious faith, the predictability of the individual intensity of religious devotion, fervor, and activism at any given time is an unknown. Discerning the “violent fundamentalist Islamic jihadist versus the non-violent secular/traditional Muslim” is a problem that hinges on being able to detect personal religious motivation and emotional commitment to belief and allegiance. Consequently, the threat posed by secular and traditional Muslims can never be completely dismissed, especially in regard to carrying out stealth jihad activities like fundraising, secretly aiding and abetting jihadist recruiting, training, and equipping, and sabotaging the U.S. from within by infiltrating the law enforcement, military, and government policy-influencing positions. During the long Cold War it was proven time and again that “double agents” could successfully conceal their beliefs and allegiances from detection. The same is obviously true for “stealth jihadists.”
Where does this leave us as a society? While the First Amendment right to practice religion in this country technically applies to Islam, we must be keenly aware that the so-called Islamic sacred books, the Qur’an and Shari’a, mandate the spread and imposition of the Islamic religious law through violent jihad and stealth jihad. This exhortation to jihad is Islam’s deeply imbedded message in its religious texts that has been documented as often being conveyed in mosques in America (Shari’a and Violence in American Mosques); consequently, individuals who are secular or traditional Muslims may metastasize into fundamentalist, Shari’a-allegiant Muslims with no apparent warning. Therefore, prudence would indicate that we, as a society, be aware, as the “Shari’a and Violence in American Mosques” study proves, that Muslims are currently using the First Amendment freedom of religion provision as a subterfuge to camouflage jihadist activities intended to undermine the U.S. Constitution in their crusade to impose the Shari’a on non-Muslims.
A Rational U.S. National Security Posture
So, how should we handle this delicate situation involving America’s basic First Amendment freedoms of religion and speech? Obviously, the very first thing we need to do as a nation is to recognize and discard the stultifying, self-censoring, politically-correct-speech-code-limitations in conducting a national dialogue about the nature and danger of Shari’a-allegiant Islamic jihad. The self-censoring, political correctness limitation that classifies as “Islamophobic hate speech” the verbatim quoting of Islamic theo-political jihadist supremacy doctrine and the Qur’an and Shari’a is illogical, foolish, and self-defeating in the extreme. The situation requires open minds and open debate. The president and congress, as nationally elected representatives of the people, must take the lead in such a mind-opening national security dialogue. Any honest, empirical examination of the Qur’an and Shari’a cannot but lead to the conclusion that the organizing principle of Islam is a perpetual jihadist war of domination against all non-Muslim political and religious beliefs. When America was faced with a similar ideological, existential threat from communists, Trotskyites, and fascists in 1940, the U.S. congress responded by enacting the Alien Registration Act of 1940 (Smith Act) that set criminal penalties for advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government, which is exactly what the Shari’a does in the following Shari’a quotes:
Shari’a V: ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER
v1.9 HIS ACTS
v1.9 – The obligation of men and jinn [genie or supernatural being] to perform acts of obedience is established by His [Allah’s] having informed them of it upon the tongues of the prophets (upon whom be peace) and not by unaided human reason [that is, instead aided by Allah]. He [Allah] sent the prophets and manifested the truth of their messages by unmistakable, inimitable miracles. They [the prophets] have communicated His [Allah’s] commands, prohibitions, promises, and warnings, and it is obligatory for mankind and jinn to believe in what they have conveyed.
v2.0 HIS MESSENGER
v2.1 – Allah Most High sent Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace), the Qurayshite [of Muhammad’s Meccan Quraysh tribe] unlettered prophet, to deliver His inspired message to the entire world, Arabs and non-Arabs, jinn and mankind, superseding and abrogating all previous religious systems with the Prophet’s Sacred Law [Shariah] ….He [Allah] has obligated men and jinn to believe everything the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) has informed us concerning this world and the next….
These two Shari’a passages state unequivocally that, according to Islamic belief, the Shari’a preempts and invalidates all other non-Islamic belief systems for mankind. So, according to the Shari’a, the U.S. Constitution is null and void. Therefore, any Muslim who advocates the supremacy of and allegiance to the Islamic Shari’a is advocating the subversion of the U.S. Constitution, legal system, and government. This governmental overthrow objective was exactly the same as was pursued by Cold War communists. The American people, president, and congress recognized the existential threat posed by communism to the U.S. and reacted by passing the Communist Control Act of 1954. What the Communist Control Act did was to outlaw the pursuit of communist subversive aims, even by peaceful means.
Clearly, twice in U.S. history the American people and government have recognized the existential dangers posed by foreign, subversive ideologies and enacted laws to safeguard the U.S. Constitution from insurrectionary, violent and non-violent attempts to supplant and replace the very ideological basis of America. Since legal measures have been enacted to protect the Constitution from violent and non-violent threats from within when the situations demanded it in the past, shouldn’t we do it again by legally designating Islamic Shari’a law as a foreign, subversive, theo-political doctrine, thereby making advocacy of Islamic Shari’a illegal? If Islam is practiced without Shari’a, so be it, that is, the religion falls under the legal umbrella of the First Amendment. However, the practice of Islam should be monitored, since spreading the domination of Shari’a law is the foundational reason for Islam’s existence, and the religion makes little sense without the Shari’a-supremacy component.
Col. Thomas Snodgrass, USAF (retired), was stationed in Peshawar, Pakistan, where he worked daily with Pakistani military personnel for more than a year and had many subsequent dealings with Muslims as an intelligence officer during a thirty year military career.