75 % of the Worlds population reject outright, the teachings of the worlds most infamous Paedophile, Mohammad, so just why is it so important for Hussein Obama that 75 % of the worlds population “respect Islam” and why does he bow (curtsy) to it?

 

1 in 4 people in world are Muslim

News.com.au
October 09, 2009 7:33AM

THE global Muslim population stands at 1.57 billion, meaning that nearly 1 in 4 people in the world practise Islam, a landmark study has claimed.

The Pew Forum report also revealed that Germany has more Muslims than Lebanon - or North and South America combined.

It claimed that about five per cent of Europe's population practises Islam - and that there are more Muslims living in Asia than in the Middle East.

Until now, experts have largely been guessing at the precise number of Muslims in the world, with estimates from one billion to 1.8 billion.

But the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life report, released today, finally pinpoints the number of those practising the world's second largest religion, behind Christianity.

The three-year-long project also provided some surprising statistics. For instance, Germany has more Muslims than Lebanon, China has more Muslims than Syria, Russia has more Muslims than Jordan and Libya combined, and Ethiopia has nearly as many Muslims as Afghanistan.

'This whole idea that Muslims are Arabs and Arabs are Muslims is really just obliterated by this report,' said Amaney Jamal, an assistant professor of politics at Princeton University who reviewed an advance copy.

The report provides further evidence that while the heart of Islam might beat in the Middle

East, its greatest numbers lie in Asia: More than 60 per cent of the world's Muslims live in Asia.

About 20 per cent live in the Middle East and North Africa, 15 per cent live in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2.4 per cent are in Europe and 0.3 per cent are in the Americas.

While the Middle East and North Africa have fewer Muslims overall than Asia, the region easily claims the most Muslim-majority countries.

While those population trends are well established, the large numbers of Muslims who live as minorities in countries aren't as scrutinized.

The report identified about 317 million Muslims - or one-fifth of the world's Muslim population - living in countries where Islam is not the majority religion.

About three-quarters of Muslims living as minorities are concentrated in five countries: India (161 million), Ethiopia (28 million), China (22 million), Russia (16 million) and Tanzania (13 million).

In several of these countries - from India to Nigeria and China to France - divisions featuring a volatile mix of religion, class and politics have contributed to tension and bloodshed among groups.

The immense size of majority-Hindu India is underscored by the fact that it boasts the third-largest Muslim population of any nation - yet Muslims account for just 13 per cent of India's population.

'Most people think of the Muslim world being Muslims living mostly in Muslim-majority countries,' Grim said. 'But with India ... that sort of turns that on its head a bit.'

The report also revealed that:

Europe is home to about 38 million Muslims, or about five per cent of its population. Germany appears to have more than 4 million Muslims - almost as many as North and South America combined.

In France, where tensions have run high over an influx of Muslim immigrant laborers, the overall numbers were lower but a larger percentage of the population is Muslim.

Two-thirds of all Muslims live in 10 countries. Six are in Asia (Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Iran and Turkey), three are in North Africa (Egypt, Algeria and Morocco) and one is in sub-Saharan Africa (Nigeria).

Indonesia, which has a tradition of a more tolerant Islam, has the world's largest Muslim population (203 million, or 13 per cent of the world's total). Religious extremists have been involved in several high-profile bombings there in recent years.

In China, the highest concentrations of Muslims were in western provinces. The country experienced its worst outbreak of ethnic violence in decades when rioting broke out this summer between minority Muslim Uighurs and majority Han Chinese.

Of roughly 4.6 million Muslims in the Americas, more than half live in the United States although they only make up 0.8 percent of the population there. About 700,000 people in Canada are Muslim, or about two percent of the total population.

Whilst these statistics are probably legit, I feel it would have been prudent for the authors to note the number of Islamic countries where it is not possible to deny been a Muslim,a believer in the Koran.

A believer in the syphilis induced ranting’s of the Paedophile Pirate and slave trader, Mohammed, the “Religion of Peace” is compulsory under threat of DEATH, according to the Islamic Terror Manual,the Koran,so the 25% claimed to follow the teachings of the said Paedophile, Mohammed are greatly embellished to say the least.

Like Communism (Socialism) Nazism,the victims of Islamism have no choice but to claim they are supporters of the Godless despots that rule their lives lest they are killed. 

Why do western Judeo Christian democratic leaders, Australia, America, Canada, England,  kneel to this demonic minority cabal of confused and befuddled of mind,misfits and criminals?

Technorati Tags: 75% Reject Islam,Islam rejected by 75%

How Lebanese Muslims colonized Australia

 

Immigration Mistakes Return to Haunt Us

31st October 2006

The Sydney Institute

WHATEVER its rights or wrongs, unlawful migration to Australia over the past three decades has not had a deleterious outcome. Most unauthorised entrants who have attained visas have settled relatively well. This includes the Indochinese and Chinese intakes in the late 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s, and the Afghans and Iraqis. When immigration has led to poor social outcomes, this has resulted from the decisions of government - of both political persuasions.

The Liberal leader Malcolm Fraser became prime minister in late 1975, around the time of the outbreak of the Lebanese civil war between left-leaning Muslims and right-leaning Maronite Christians. Initially Fraser and his immigration and ethnic affairs minister, Michael MacKellar, were approached by Maronite Australians to allow some Lebanese Christians, who had close relatives in Australia, to settle here.

Fraser agreed. However, it was not long before the process got out of hand. As it turned out, very few Christians wanted to, or were able to, come to Australia at the time. Department officials sent to Lebanon to administer the program began granting visas mainly to Muslims - often on the flimsiest evidence they had close relatives or, indeed, any relative in Australia.

The program soon became known as "the Lebanese concession". The concession involved was that the Lebanese concerned would be admitted to Australia under the refugee intake, despite the fact that strictly speaking, they were not refugees. They were not fleeing persecution but rather, the impact of a civil war.

In her book Muslims in Australia, the Perth academic Nahid Kabir writes that the Lebanese were sometimes referred to as "quasi-refugees".

For a long time, Christian Lebanese have been successful migrants. Their descendants include the NSW Governor, Dr Marie Bashir, and the Victorian Premier, Steve Bracks. The unintended consequence of the Fraser government's decision was to allow, for the first time, numerous Lebanese Muslims to enter Australia. They were from rural areas, had little education and minimal English language skills.

As Kabir documents, the numbers grew. There were about 3500 Lebanese Muslims in Australia in 1971. Just two decades later, the number had increased to more than 25,000. The number grew quickly, due primarily to Australia's then family reunion policy. Most Muslim Lebanese migrants settled in south-western Sydney. The Shia gathered around the Arncliffe mosque and the Sunnis at the Lakemba mosque.

At the time some Maronite leaders warned the Fraser government, at the highest levels, that the decision to allow large numbers of poorly educated Lebanese Muslims into Australia would have unexpected and unwanted policy outcomes. They were dismissed with the "you-would-say-that-wouldn't-you?" refrain, meaning the Lebanese Christians opposed the Muslims simply on account of religion.

This was inaccurate and unfair. The Turks were the first large group of Muslims to settle here, arriving in the late 1960s when a Coalition government was headed by John Gorton and William McMahon. Despite the usual initial difficulties, the Turks settled well and soon found employment. The problem with Lebanese Muslims was that they were ill equipped to enter the workforce. Also, a number were fundamentalist Islamists. In time, some Shias became supporters of Hezbollah while some Sunnis became admirers of Osama bin Laden. The fundamentalists gave other Muslims a bad name, many of whom have had no connection with Lebanon or the Middle East or, indeed, Islamism.

When I recently spoke to Fraser about this, he said he had no memory of the Lebanese concession but added it was the sort of policy he might have supported. There is no mention of the Lebanese concession in biographies of Fraser. Some Coalition ministers and backbenchers at the time have a clearer recall than Fraser.

In 1982, during the final years of the Fraser government, the Egyptian-born Sheik Taj el-Din al Hilaly entered Australia on a tourist visa. He overstayed his visa and soon became prominent at the Lakemba mosque. In 1988 he told a Sydney University meeting that "the Jews try to control the world through sex, then sexual perversion, then the promotion of espionage, treason and economic hoarding".

Al Hilaly's language has not changed much in 20 years. In the past week The Australian has quoted the sheik making outrageous claims about women and supporting jihad in Iraq and Afghanistan, where Australian troops are supporting the UN-sanctioned and Muslim-led governments in Baghdad and Kabul.

In The Adelaide Review in January 2003, Chris Hurford, the immigration minister from 1984 to 1987, said the decision to give al Hilaly permanent residence was done for political reasons: to appease some Australian Muslims. His view has not been challenged by al Hilaly's main Labor Party supporters at the time, including Paul Keating and Leo McLeay.

As Denis MacShane (the former British union official and Blair Government minister) said in London's Daily Telegraph last week, the 10,000 Muslims in his constituency "can only benefit from removing the dead hand of ideological Islamism - allowing their faith to be respected and their children to flourish".

The unfortunate fact is that in Australia and Britain, the best intentions of conservative and social democrat governments alike have resulted in bad policy.

Technorati Tags: Dr Marie Bashir,Victorian Premier,Steve Bracks,family reunion policy,south-western Sydney,Shia Arncliffe mosque,Sunnis Lakemba mosque,Maronite,Egyptian-born Sheik Taj el-Din al Hilaly,Paul Keating and Leo McLeay,Denis MacShane,Osama bin Laden,Hezbollah

The UN’s Copenhagen plot

Beware the UN’s Copenhagen plot

Janet Albrechtsen
The Australian
October 28, 2009

SHAME on us all: on us in the media and on our politicians. Despite thousands of news reports, interviews, analyses, critiques and commentaries from journalists, what has the inquiring, intellectually sceptical media told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty? And despite countless speeches, addresses, interviews, doorstops, moralising sermons from government ministers, pleas from Canberra for an outcome at Copenhagen, opposition criticism of government policy, what have our elected representatives told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty?

With just over 40 days until more than 15,000 officials, advisers, diplomats, activists and journalists from more than 190 countries attend the UN climate change conference in

Copenhagen, we know nothing. Nothing about a climate change treaty that the Rudd government is keen to sign and one that will bind this country for years to come.

Of course, there is no final treaty as yet. That is what they are hoping to finalise in Copenhagen. But there are 181 pages that make up the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change dated September 15, 2009: a rough draft of what could be signed in Copenhagen. And yet, not one member of the media or political class has bothered to inform us about its contents as an important clue to what may happen in Copenhagen. The shame of that state of affairs started to trickle in last week.

Emails started arriving telling me about a speech given by Christopher Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, at Bethel University in St Paul, Minnesota, on October 14.

Monckton talked about something that no one has talked about in the lead-up to Copenhagen: the text of the draft Copenhagen treaty.

Even after Monckton’s speech, most of the media has duly ignored the substance of what he said. You don’t need me to find his St Paul address on YouTube. Interviewed on Monday morning by Alan Jones on Sydney radio station 2GB, Monckton warned that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty was to set up a transnational government on a scale the world has never before seen. Listening to the interview, my teenage daughters asked me whether this was true.

So I read the draft treaty. The word government appears on page 18. Monckton says: “This is the first time I’ve ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a government. But it’s the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening.”

Monckton became aware of the extraordinary powers to be vested in this new world government only when a friend of his found an obscure UN website and hacked his way through several layers of complications before coming across a document that isn’t even called the draft treaty. It’s called a “note by the secretariat”. The moment he saw it, he went public and said: “Look, this is an outrage ... they have kept the sheer scope of this treaty quiet.”

Monckton says the aim of this new government is to have power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.

In a sense, countries that sign international treaties always cede powers to a UN body responsible for implementing the treaty obligations. But the difference is that we usually understand the details of the obligations and the power ceded.

Now read the 181-page draft treaty. It is impossible to fully understand the convoluted UN verbiage. Yet even those incomprehensible clauses point to some nasty surprises that no politician has told us about. For example, Monckton says the drafters want this new world government to have control over once free markets: the financial and trading markets of nation-states. “The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start; that’s even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do,” he says.

The reason for that power grab is clear enough from the draft treaty. Clause after complicated clause sets out the requirement that developed countries such as Australia pay their “adaptation debt” to developing countries. Clause 33 on page 39 says that by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be at least $US67 billion ($73bn), or in the range of $US70bn to $US140bn a year.

How developed countries will pay is far from clear. The draft text sets out various alternatives, including Option 7 on page 135, which provides for “a (global) levy of 2 per cent on international financial market (monetary) transactions to Annex I Parties”. This means industrialised countries such as Australia, if we sign.

Monckton’s warning to Americans that “in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your President will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever” is colourful. But no more colourful than the language used by those who preach about the perils of climate change and the virtues of a hard-hitting Copenhagen treaty.

Put aside Monckton’s comments. Ask yourself this: why has our government failed to explain the possible text of a treaty it wants Australia to sign? There has been no address from any

Rudd minister to explain the draft treaty. No 3000-word essay from the thoughtful PM. No speech in parliament. No interview. No press release. Nothing.

Presumably the hard-working Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has read the 181-page draft text. Presumably our central control and command PM has been briefed about the draft text. In Germany a few months ago, Kevin Rudd complained about the lack of “detailed programmatic specificity” going into the Copenhagen talks. Yet the draft text provides much detailed specificity about obligations on developed nations to transfer millions of dollars to developing countries under formulas to be set down by an unelected body. So why the silence? Are they hiding the details of this deal from us because most of the polls now suggest that action on climate change is becoming politically unpalatable?

And what explains the media’s failure to report and analyse the only source document that offers any idea of what may happen in Copenhagen? Ignorance? Laziness? Stubborn adherence to the orthodox government line that a deal in Copenhagen is critical? An obsession with the politics of climate change rather than policy?

At least we have heard from Monckton. He told Jones there had already been a million hits on the link to his St Paul address. “So the message in America is now out ... Now you know about it and you need to spread the word.”

Perhaps now our PM and our Climate Change Minister can spare a few moments to tell us about the details they know about but have so far chosen not to tell us about.

Technorati Tags: UN’s Copenhagen plot

Leftists starting to understand the reality of their ideology

 

Uncontrolled Muslim influx a threat

Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor 
The Australian
October 29, 2009

A FEW weeks ago in London, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband told me that 75 per cent of the terrorist plots aimed at Britain originated in the federally administered tribal areas of Pakistan. Some 800,000 Pakistanis live in Britain.

The vast majority, it goes without saying, are law-abiding citizens. But there is a link between uncontrolled Muslim immigration and terrorism.

The real historic significance of the illegal immigration crisis in our northern waters is that this could, if things go wrong, be the moment Australia loses control of our immigration program, and that would be a disaster.

It is extremely difficult to talk honestly about Muslim immigration. All generalisations about it are subject to countless exceptions. Muslims are very different from each other. Most are reasonably successful.

But a much bigger minority end up with social, political, extremist or other problems resulting from a lack of integration than is the case with any other cohort of immigrants in Western societies. A lack of honest discussion about this results in bad policy.

The most enlightening book you could possibly read on this is by US

journalist Christopher Caldwell, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West. It is by far the best book on public policy of any kind I have read for a long time. It is wittily written but attempts to be neither provocative nor politically correct. It is dense with data but its greatest strength lies in laying bare the intellectual, political and social dynamics that have led to the mess in Europe. The way the Australian debate is reprising what were profoundly destructive and misguided European debates, dominated by moral sanctimony and a failure to grasp reality, is eerie.

Caldwell is enlightening on the way asylum assessment processes are so easily scammed, and the sophisticated, intense exchange of information that means the slightest change in attitude by a receiving country is instantly relayed throughout illegal immigrant networks. He writes:

"An easily game-able system was in place that made admissions automatic to prospective immigrants who understood it. Various immigrant advocacy NGOs in Europe made sure they understood it... migrants knew the best countries to claim to come from. They also knew the best countries to go to ... (There was an) incredible sensitivity of prospective migrants to shifts in immigration law, and to countries' moods towards immigrants."

Caldwell also shows that once an illegal immigrant route is established as reliable it becomes immensely popular. This is what the struggle in the waters to Australia's north now is really all about. He further demonstrates how completely subjective and plastic the asylum-seeker assessment procedures are. In 2001 Denmark approved a majority of asylum applicants. By 2004, when the mood had changed, it approved only one in 10, though of course in Europe rejected applicants basically don't go home.

At times Caldwell seems to be arguing against immigration in principle, although all the problems he adduces relate specifically to Muslim immigration, and he acknowledges the success of other immigrants in Europe.

He frequently acknowledges the success of immigration in Canada, the US and Australia. In Canada and Australia, the governments choose the immigrants. In the US, most illegal immigrants come from Latin America and don't have the Muslim problems.

But in so far as he makes a general case against immigration, I strongly disagree with Caldwell.

What he is really concerned with is uncontrolled Muslim immigration. The facts he produces are very disturbing. No European majority ever wanted this to happen. There are 20million Muslims in western Europe and this number will double by 2025.

How did this mass immigration of people with few relevant job or language skills, and a culture deeply alien to Europe, come about? Caldwell argues that the post-World War II period saw a radical disjuncture in European attitudes. Europe had just been wrecked by an enemy, the Nazis, who were avowedly racist. The unimaginable disaster of the Holocaust haunted every discussion of morality or policy. Europe was in the throes of decolonisation and felt guilty about its relations with non-white people.

This made an ideology of anti-racism - which itself became extreme and distorted, detached from reality and in many cases downright intolerant - the more or less official state religion of Europe. This had little to do with really combating racism.

In one of history's countless ironies, Muslim immigrants benefited from the legacy of the Jewish Holocaust. The determination initially to extirpate anti-Semitism didn't help many European Jews because they were almost all gone, but it offered a template for Muslim immigrants to find and exploit an ethnic victim status. This set up profoundly destructive dynamics and, in another irony, reintroduced serious anti-Semitism to Europe, carried with the Muslim arrivals.

Caldwell suggests a welfare state makes a bad marriage with mass, unskilled immigration.

Welfare rather than opportunity becomes the attraction. More importantly, welfare becomes a lethal poverty trap.

At the same time, satellite television, the internet and mass immigration from a few countries means the old culture is always on hand for Muslim migrants. They don't need to integrate if they don't want to or find it difficult. In many cases Caldwell cites, the second-generation of Muslim immigrants is less integrated than the first, and the third less than the second.

The demographic figures he cites are familiar but still shocking. Native Europeans won't have babies at anything like replacement level while the fertility of Muslim immigrants does not decline through time, as is the case with other immigrants.

Religion is the strongest predictor of fertility in Europe.

By mid-century Islam will be the majority religion of Austrians under the age of 15. In Brussels, most births are to Muslims and have been since 2006. In France, one in 10 people are Muslims, but they are one in three of those entering their child-bearing years, and Muslims have three times as many children as other French.

Caldwell writes: "Europe finds itself in a contest with Islam for the allegiance of its newcomers.

For now, Islam is the stronger party in that contest ... when an insecure, malleable, relativistic culture meets a culture that is anchored, confident and strengthened by common doctrines, it is generally the former that changes to suit the latter."

Uncontrolled Muslim immigration is a change to Europe so great it makes all the treaties and bureaucratic falderol of the EU look footling and transitory by comparison.

Technorati Tags: Islam,Muslim breeding,Muslim Colonilisation,Europe

Rudd & Labor doing the best they can to ensure their Islamist pals get the advantage over Australian Troops.

Defective body armour risk to Diggers

EXCLUSIVE by Ian McPhedran
From: The Daily Telegraph
October 29, 2009

DEFENCE chiefs were told more than a year ago about serious safety concerns with combat body armour worn by Diggers in Afghanistan.

Federal Government documents obtained by The Daily Telegraph confirm troops were issued with armour with "known defects".

The documents also show that top brass knew in April this year that troops were forced to use split pins and nails to prevent quick release catches on the armour from failing.

The military ordered 14,688 sets of the suspect armour under a $24 million project and by May this year more than 8400 had been delivered.

Despite two years of field testing by the army, the body armour, known as the modular combat armour system (MCBAS), will now be replaced by a lightweight system called American Eagle that is worn by special forces troops.

The documents show serious failures in the original armour were identified in September 2008 and in February and April this year.

Amid concerns about the impact of weight and a dodgy quick-release mechanism, the armour put soldiers at risk as they attempted to drag the body of Corporal Mathew Hopkins to safety during an ambush in Afghanistan in March this year.

An official report said the armour "did contribute to the difficulty in recovering Cpl Hopkins from an exposed position and evacuating him" to a medical post. According to one document dated September 23, 2008, the armour's quick-release system had opened "without the wearer's intent" when "simulated" casualties were dragged by the shoulder straps by two personnel.

However, despite the numerous documented complaints, Defence Materiel Organisation official Brigadier Bill Horrocks told a Senate inquiry in June "the feedback we have . . . is that they are very happy with what we delivered to them; however, it is certainly heavy".

Another Defence document dated April 6, 2009 said that one inspection had found that 15 sets of the armour had failed.

"Some MCBAS issued to units and members has shoulder straps with single loop brown plastic buckle. These buckles are a known defect," the document said.

Another report dated February 17, 2009 said quick release could not be operated by a single hand pull if the armour was wet or submerged.

Troops in Afghanistan patrol through channels and streams.

So whats the big deal ? is there anyone out there who actually thought that Comrade Rudd and his Government would have ensured that the armaments Australian troops had access to would have given them some advantage over their pontential killers?

Have you forgotten the Australian Labor Party and their betrayal of Australian troops in the Vietnam war already? hwy its business as usual…. Labor and their bankers,the Australian Council of Trade Unions, ACTU,doing what they do best, ensuring that as many Australian Soldiers get killed or injured  as possible whenever they are able to do so, by white anting Australian Troops or directly aiding their enemy.

Technorati Tags: Afghanistan War,Australian Troops,Faulty vests,Kevin Rudd's Australia 2009,Australian Labor Party,Islamic terrorists,Islamic Sociopaths Inc.