The NWO begins with an Islamic Caliphate

Many people have been mislead about the true intentions of the global elites, for lack of a better term and a phrase we are all familiar with "The New World Order" which means one world government. The concept itself is not American, nor are many of it's backers and handlers. The idea is one that has been written about in the Bible and describes a world where all nations are ruled over by one ruler in the middle east with an Iron fist.

While many suggest that the US and Israel is the backbone of the NWO it is simply not the case, though there are some within the US Government that will be instrumental in the rise of the New World Order through infiltration and slowly taking away freedoms of Americans, while taking baby steps to nullify and eventually overthrow the Constitution of the United States, which is the backbone of free market economy capitalism and the Constitutional Republic of the United States. This has been going on for hundreds of years, but most notably it began with the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913 in which many Americans were deceived to give their physical gold in exchange for a paper currency, for the Federal Reserve to hold. The group that has been hard at work here, we will call progressives. But their political party platform is mostly democrat, but they exist in the Republican party as well. Many of their policies and ideas spawned from foreign interests, backers and handlers. This is not the first time something like this has happened however, there are many different examples of this happening throughout world history.

en.wikipedia.org...

In the election of 1912, the Democratic Party won control of the White House and both chambers of Congress. The party's platform stated strong opposition "to the so called Aldrich bill for the establishment of a central bank." However, the platform also called for a systematic revision of banking laws in ways that would provide relief from financial panics, unemployment and business depression, and would protect the public from the "domination by what is known as the Money Trust."[6]
[edit]
Legislative history
The banking and currency reform plan advocated by President Wilson in 1913 was sponsored by the chairmen of the House and Senate Banking and Currency committees, Representative Carter Glass, a Democrat of Virginia and Senator Robert Latham Owen, a Democrat of Oklahoma. According to the House committee report accompanying the Currency bill (H.R. 7837) or the Glass-Owen bill, as it was often called during the time, the legislation was drafted from ideas taken from various proposals, including the Aldrich bill.[6] However, unlike the Aldrich plan, which gave controlling interest to private bankers with only a small public presence, the new plan gave an important role to a public entity, the Federal Reserve Board, while establishing a substantial measure of autonomy for the (regional) Reserve Banks which, at that time, were allowed to set their own discount rates. Also, instead of the proposed currency being an obligation of the private banks, the new Federal Reserve note was to be an obligation of the U.S. Treasury. In addition, unlike the Aldrich plan, membership by nationally chartered banks was mandatory, not optional. The changes were significant enough that the earlier opposition to the proposed reserve system from Progressive Democrats was largely assuaged; instead, opposition to the bill came largely from the more business-friendly Republicans instead of from the Democrats.[1]

What is a Caliphate?

The term caliphate, "dominion of a caliph ('successor')" (from the Arabic خلافة or khilāfa, Turkish: Hilafet), refers to the first system of government established in Islam and represented the leader's unity of the Muslim Ummah (community)[clarification needed]. In theory, it is a wiener aristocratic–constitutional republic[1] (the Constitution being the Constitution of Medina), which means that the head of state, the Caliph, and other officials are representatives of the people and of Islam and must govern according to constitutional and religious law, or Sharia. In its early days, it resembled elements of direct democracy (see shura) and an elective monarchy.

A caliphate operates under Sharia Law

Sharia (Arabic: شريعة‎ šarīʿah, IPA: [ʃaˈriːʕa], "legislation"; sp. shariah, sharīʿah;[1] also قانون إسلامي qānūn ʾIslāmī) is the moral code and religious law of Islam. Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics, and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting. Though interpretations of sharia vary between cultures, in its strictest definition it is considered the infallible law of God—as opposed to the human interpretation of the laws (fiqh).
There are two primary sources of sharia law: the precepts set forth in the Quran, and the example set by the Islamic prophet Muhammad in the Sunnah. Where it has official status, sharia is interpreted by Islamic judges (qadis) with varying responsibilities for the religious leaders (imams). For questions not directly addressed in the primary sources, the application of sharia is extended through consensus of the religious scholars (ulama) thought to embody the consensus of the Muslim Community (ijma). Islamic jurisprudence will also sometimes incorporate analogies from the Quran and Sunnah through qiyas, though Shia jurists prefer reasoning ('aql) to analogy.
The reintroduction of sharia is a longstanding goal for Islamist movements in Muslim countries, but attempts to impose sharia have been accompanied by controversy, violence, and even warfare such as the Second Sudanese Civil War. Some in Israel and other countries in Asia have maintained institutional recognition of sharia, and use it to adjudicate their personal and community affairs. In western countries where Islamic immigration is more recent, Muslim minorities have introduced sharia family law for use in their own disputes, such as Britain's Muslim Arbitration Tribunal.

continued...

Also not that one of the first stages that leads towards sharia law is called Direct Democracy

Direct democracy[1] is a form of democracy in which people vote on policy initiatives directly, as opposed to a representative democracy in which people vote for representatives who then vote on policy initiatives.[2] Depending on the particular system in use, it might entail passing executive decisions, making laws, directly electing or dismissing officials and conducting trials. Two leading forms of direct democracy are participatory democracy and deliberative democracy.

I am aware many are familiar with the term Direct Democracy. It sounds good in theory right? But sometimes people do not represent themselves well or not understand the political spectrum, which can have profound implications.

Direct democracy was very much opposed by the framers of the United States Constitution and some signatories of the Declaration of Independence. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities. As a result, they advocated a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional republic over a direct democracy. For example, James Madison, in Federalist No. 10 advocates a constitutional republic over direct democracy precisely to protect the individual from the will of the majority. He says, "A pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."[9] John Witherspoon, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, said "Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." Alexander Hamilton said, "That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity."[10]

There are now a total of 24 U.S. states with constitutionally-defined, citizen-initiated, direct democracy governance components (Zimmerman, December 1999). In the United States, for the most part only one-time majorities are required (simple majority of those voting) to approve any of these components.[citation needed]
In addition, many localities around the U.S. also provide for some or all of these direct democracy governance components, and in specific classes of initiatives (like those for raising taxes), there is a supermajority voting threshold requirement. Even in states where direct democracy components are scant or nonexistent at the state level, there often exists local options for deciding specific issues, such as whether a county should be "wet" or "dry" in terms of whether alcohol sales are allowed.[citation needed]
In the U.S. region of New England, many municipalities (styled towns in contrast to cities) practice a very limited form of home rule, and decide local affairs through the direct democratic process of the town meeting.[1]

Ok, so that leads us back to where we started. Please note that Direct Democracy leads us right back to where we started with the progressive party and the creation of the Federal Reserve. At the time in 1909 Progressive Theodore Roosevelt was president and followed by Woodrow Wilson also a progressive.

...continued...

en.wikipedia.org...

The Progressive Era in the United States was a period of social activism and political reform that flourished from the 1890s to the 1920s.[1] One main goal of the Progressive movement was purification of government, as Progressives tried to eliminate corruption by exposing and undercutting political machines and bosses. Many (but not all) Progressives supported prohibition in order to destroy the political power of local bosses based in saloons.[2] At the same time, women's suffrage was promoted to bring a "purer" female vote into the arena.[3] A second theme was achieving efficiency in every sector by identifying old ways that needed modernizing, and emphasizing scientific, medical and engineering solutions.
Many people led efforts to reform local government, public education, medicine, finance, insurance, industry, railroads, churches, and many other areas. Progressives transformed, professionalized and made "scientific" the social sciences, especially history,[4] economics,[5] and political science.[6] In academic fields the day of the amateur author gave way to the research professor who published in the new scholarly journals and presses. The national political leaders included Theodore Roosevelt, Robert M. La Follette, Sr., Charles Evans Hughes and Herbert Hoover on the Republican side, and William Jennings Bryan, Woodrow Wilson and Al Smith on the Democratic side.
Initially the movement operated chiefly at local levels; later it expanded to state and national levels. Progressives drew support from the middle class, and supporters included many lawyers, teachers, physicians, ministers and business people.[7] The Progressives strongly supported scientific methods as applied to economics, government, industry, finance, medicine, schooling, theology, education, and even the family. They closely followed advances underway at the time in Western Europe[8] and adopted numerous policies, such as the banking laws which became the Federal Reserve System in 1914. They felt that old-fashioned ways meant waste and inefficiency, and eagerly sought out the "one best system"

So you see, it is largely progressive policies that are pushing America off the cliff towards armageddon.

Wether you love him or hate him, Glen Beck was right.
ic.pics.livejournal.com...
static8.businessinsider.com...
static5.businessinsider.com...

Now take a look here for a deeper look.
bonfiresblog.wordpress.com...
bonfiresblog.files.wordpress.com...

...continued...

In contrast to the Christianity version of the Antichrist, Islam believes in the 12 Imam who will unite the world under Islam and bring fourth Sharia law to the world.

The Twelve Imams are the spiritual and political successors to Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, in the Twelver or Ithna-‘ashariyyah branch of Shī‘ah Islam.[1] According to the theology of Twelvers, the successor of Muhammad is an infallible human individual who not only rules over the community with justice, but also is able to keep and interpret the Divine Law and its esoteric meaning. The Prophet and Imams' words and deeds are a guide and model for the community to follow; as a result, they must be free from error and sin, and must be chosen by divine decree, or nass, through the Prophet.[2][3] It is believed by Twelver Shi'a Muslims that the Twelve Imams were foretold in the Hadith of the Twelve Successors.
It is believed in Twelver and Ismaili Shī‘ah Islam that ‘aql, divine wisdom, was the source of the souls of the Prophets and Imams and gave them esoteric knowledge called ḥikmah and that their sufferings were a means of divine grace to their devotees.[1][4][5] Although the Imam was not the recipient of a divine revelation, he had a close relationship with God, through which God guides him, and the Imam in turn guides the people. The Imam was also guided by secret texts in his possession, such as al-Jafr and al-Jamia. Imamate, or belief in the divine guide is a fundamental belief in the Twelver and Ismaili Shī‘ī branches and is based on the concept that God would not leave humanity without access to divine guidance.[6]
According to Twelvers, there is always an Imam of the Age, who is the divinely appointed authority on all matters of faith and law in the Muslim community. ‘Alī was the first Imam of this line, and in the Twelvers' view, the rightful successor to the Prophet of Islam, followed by male descendants of Muhammad through his daughter Fatimah Zahra. Each Imam was the son of the previous Imam, with the exception of Husayn ibn Ali, who was the brother of Hasan ibn Ali.[1] The twelfth and final Imam is Muhammad al-Mahdi, who is believed by the Twelvers to be currently alive, and hidden until he returns to bring justice to the world.[6]

So back to the present day. We have a proxy war and growing crisis in Syria which has a large christian population. We have President Obama who has done an apology tour around the middle east and the rest of the world. He is soft on foreign policy. He backs off and delays allowing Iran to develop a nuclear arsenal. Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made many speeches on the 12 Imam and bringing him about at the UN. Public statements from Iran denying the holocaust and both him and the new leader of Egypt member of the muslim brotherhood Mohamed Morsi who have both threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Statement from Muslim Brotherhood also suggest sacking Jerusalem and declaring it as the new capital of Egypt and when that happens, you will know that the New World Order is underway.

You cannot even get your order of Presidents correct. Wilson did not come after Roosevelt.

reply to post by steppenwolf86


Thanks for pointing that out, yes Taft served for 4 years in between the two.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


Sharia for me ends with the "No Booze" clause.

How dare they!

It is also one of the five pillars of Islam. Some Shaman telling me how to live my life? Not going to happen.

It is a fact that Islam is a major influential religion and it is deeply rooted in the region,and if someone is looking to have any order in the ME they know that is only possible through Islam and noting else...So obviously elites have no choice than to help Islam to grow and gain power...Israel and America too should be looking for an alternative to the status quo.As well as most of europeans....It is a wild wild world we are living in....Good luck to everybody because we all need it.

reply to post by TDawgRex


Its also worth noting that while the socialists promote LGBTQ and equal rights for women, under sharia law LGBTQ can be sentenced with the death penalty. Women also dont have the same rights as men. They also support slavery.

Originally posted by shapur
It is a fact that Islam is a major influential religion and it is deeply rooted in the region,and if someone is looking to have any order in the ME they know that is only possible through Islam and noting else..

Islam is a house divided. Shia/Sunni, More blood has been spilled between the two than both sides care to admit.

Fix that then we'll talk about the 12th Imam and bringing WW-3 or a global government. I'll give you two clues.

1.) The West wont go for a single Religious based Government.

2.) China sure as hell wont either.


Add up those two blocks and where does that put this hypothetical scenario?

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

Its also worth noting that while the socialists promote LGBTQ and equal rights for women, under sharia law LGBTQ can be sentenced with the death penalty. Women also dont have the same rights as men. They also support slavery.

Which makes me wonder why Liberals are always so quick to defend them.

A death wish perhaps, or maybe a yearn to return to the old days, back at the plantation.

And lo and behold....there's one below this post.

reply to post by thehoneycomb

TERRIBLE premise.

Completely false and a poor attempt to try and tie it all together.

No doubt that there are Moslems who are part of the CFR, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group, but the NWO is a Jewish, Christian, Western, Anglo Saxon establishment. Full stop.

The Rothschilds are the puppet masters and everyone else falls into place somewhere underneath.

Originally posted by shapur
It is a fact that Islam is a major influential religion and it is deeply rooted in the region,and if someone is looking to have any order in the ME they know that is only possible through Islam and noting else.

Order? In the Middle East?

How has that been working out...oh, since written history?

reply to post by thehoneycomb


Ok I just finished reading this thread and honestly I'm kind of confused.

What does progressive ideology and Islam have in common?

Islam is a conservative culture, they by in large don't believe in becoming a progressive society as it goes against the Quran.

The majority religions want to rule the world, and most of them have dogma which specifically indicates that at some point in the future they will.

I also don't see how direct democracy is the first step to Sharia law, as Sharia law exists because of the suspension of democracy. Who in this country would vote to have Sharia, besides the very very very small percentage of fundamentalist Muslims?

reply to post by Openeye


If a large enough group say 51% are Muslims and are in favor of putting in place a certain type of Religious based Government then in a Direct Democracy they can crush and silence the other 49% who are/were apposed.

Shake and bake and we have a theocracy

reply to post by TDawgRex


Well believe it or not there was a time when Islam was a tolerant, progressive, and influential culture.

The Islamic Golden Age

This was a time of extreme progress, and scientific discovery.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Well of course in a direct democracy or any populist system the majority comes out on top, my point was that it is an unrealistic premise to suggest that this could happen in the US because...

1. We do not have a direct democracy and never have.

2. Even if we had such a system, the population of Muslims is to small to make an impact.

Direct democracy is never a good thing, hell if we had it here in the US we would become a Christian dominion.

"Direct democracy was very much opposed by the framers of the United States Constitution and some signatories of the Declaration of Independence. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities."

that's the most absurd statement i have ever heard.

they saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities. wtf?

isn't that the whole point of democracy, voting on issues and the majority of the votes decides its.

now america has a minority (435 congressmen, 100 senators, 9 justices and 1 president) imposing their will on the majority, just like the framers intended.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Openeye

 

If a large enough group say 51% are Muslims and are in favor of putting in place a certain type of Religious based Government then in a Direct Democracy they can crush and silence the other 49% who are/were apposed.

Shake and bake and we have a theocracy

At that point...I take up arms.

There, I said it. And stand by it.

Originally posted by randomname
that's the most absurd statement i have ever heard.

they saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities. wtf?

isn't that the whole point of democracy, voting on issues and the majority of the votes decides its.

now america has a minority (435 congressmen, 100 senators, 9 justices and 1 president) imposing their will on the majority, just like the framers intended.

The minority has power as well. Their voice cannot be crushed by votes or numbers and are protected by law and yes, sometimes the minority can force an issue. This is exactly why the US is a Representative Republic and not a true Democracy.


There is a very important difference