CAIR, part of the theo-political Islamic movement, applauds a leading cleric for supposedly opposing terrorism. This cleric OK’s girls age 10 to marry adult men and blames the West for poverty, disease and unemployment in the middle east.

American Islamic Forum for Democracy exposes CAIR as a propaganda arm for the Saudi Arabia when depicting a leading cleric as supposedly anti-terrorist. In fact, the Saudi cleric blames the West for all the ills of the middle east: poverty, unemployment, disease. This is the same cleric that thinks it fine for 10 year old girls to marry old men. CAIR is the organization that was behind the firing of Juan Williams for a comment about being nervous flying with lots of Muslims. Best to keep a sharp eye on CAIR.

Grand Mufti, Islamic cleric, a wolf in sheep's clothing, OK's marriage of 10 year old girls with adult men
CAIR, a propaganda tool for Saudi Arabia, got Juan Williams fired from National Public Radio (NPR) for a remark Juan made that flying with Muslims makes him nervous.

Now CAIR hides an Islamic supremacist wolf — Saudi cleric Sheikh Abdhl Azia Al Sheikh – in sheep’s clothing.

Supposedly this leading cleric opposes terrorism. This is the cleric that thinks it is just fine for 10 year old girls to marry old men. And this is the Islamic cleric that promotes shariah law. The following is from the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.

“Even carried yesterday’s bizarrely ‘urgent’ press release from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which praised the leading Saudi cleric, Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al Sheikh, on the most significant Muslim holiday of the year- Eid al-Adha (Holiday of the Sacrifice).

No previous single press release or statement by CAIR more clearly reveals its ideological ties and service to the Saudis, and their Wahhabi ideologues – and its willingness to use word games, deception and moral equivalence to avoid revealing its true objectives.

Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al Sheikh

First, let us look at the substance of CAIR’s release:

CAIR today welcomed an anti-terror statement by Saudi Arabia’s top religious leader made in a sermon at the peak of the Hajj, the most important event on Islam’s spiritual calendar. In his midday sermon Monday to millions of pilgrims gathered on the plain of Arafah, Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al Sheikh called for religious moderation and said Islam prohibits terrorism, extremism and injustice.

CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad said:
It is extremely significant that such a prominent Muslim leader would offer a clear statement condemning terrorism
and religious extremism during the largest Islamic gathering in the world and on the most important day on Islam’s spiritual calendar. The importance of the Grand Mufti’s statement is made even more significant given the fact that it was delivered in the same spot as the last sermon offered by the Prophet Muhammad. This statement from Islam’s spiritual capital should put to rest once and for all the false claim that Muslim leaders do not condemn terrorism.

Awad urged Muslim leaders in America and worldwide to incorporate the Grand Mufti’s statement in Eid al-Adha prayers being offered Tuesday to mark the end of Hajj.

As a devout Muslim, I find any comparison by CAIR of the leading radical Saudi cleric, Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al Sheikh, to the Prophet Muhammad to be deeply harmful to any attempt at true modern reforms. The Saudis have exploited the world’s Muslim populations with their billions in petrodollars that have given them the fuel to metastasize the cancers of their backward Wahhabi interpretations of Islam and dominate our communities. Many reformist, modern Muslims like me believe that if the Prophet was alive today, he would reject their backward, literalist interpretations for a more moral, humanitarian, modern westernized Islam. We are unable to have this debate because of the domination of the Saudi voice among Muslims in the west and globally.

The mere condemnation of terrorism in this CAIR promoted sermon means nothing – because the sermon is otherwise chock full of inflammatory Muslim supremacism (Islamism) and anti-Western hatred.CAIR’s assertion that this should “put to rest once and for all the false claim that Muslims leaders do not condemn terrorism” demonstrates, once and for all, that CAIR is part of the Saudi propaganda machine. Further, it should rather actually ‘put to rest’ any doubts that CAIR is, in fact, part of the theo-political global Islamist movement in the West and in the United States, hatched and nurtured by Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other Islamist groups from the Middle East.

Most revealingly, CAIR ignores the rest of the Grand Mufti’s sermon. The full transcript cannot yet be found online, but a number of reports discuss the other topics of this sermon. First, the Chief Sheikh did make headlines by “rejecting terrorism as a deplorable crime” but actually went on to say that “the problem is not just terrorism, but also poverty, unemployment, and diseases stemming from global crises.” True to his Islamist and Wahhabist creed, he ignores any need for Muslim reform, modernization, or separation of mosque and state. The reference to “stemming global crises” is based on the same old, tired Islamist propaganda: blame the West for all Muslims’ problems.

During this sermon, the Grand Mufti also “condemned Western occupation of foreign lands,” and went on to say:

Islam forbids the occupation of a country, and the unlawful shedding of civilian blood, and the destruction of crops and cattle…the rights of people in Third World nations is not as it is in other countries, and it is unacceptable that nations occupy these lands and rape them of their riches.

To a genuine American Muslim, this sounds more like a testimony toward radicalization and militancy, rather than any supposedly clear promotion of moderation and condemnation of terrorism, as CAIR would have us believe. Therein, lies a major indicator that the Grand Mufti is anything but moderate. CAIR not only voices no disagreement with this toxic anti-western narrative, but they use this sermon’s few lines condemning terrorism as a statement to “put to rest the claim that Muslims do not condemn terrorism.” Any wonder we are making no headway against radical Islam with these kind of vacuous Islamist condemnations of the tactic of terrorism couched in an anti-western, anti-American narrative?

On the subject of violence, his duplicity is also revealed in another statement the Grand Mufti made in the sermon:

Violence cannot be cured with violence and neither can terrorism be cured with force, but by lifting injustices levied on oppressed peoples.

This is again hardly a morally-clear condemnation of terrorism. Rather, it is a demagogic moral equivalency of barbaric acts committed by Al Qaeda, Hamas, and other radical Islamists, which this radical sheikh insinuates are understandable by the acts of America and the West.

According to Geo News, the Grand Mufti also said in his sermon:

“God sent the last and final Prophet with the complete code of conduct (Shariah), which, is in complete harmony with human nature, owing to the fact that it caters to all natural and material needs.” He also added that, “the human inner being (nafs) drives man to do evil.”

CAIR voices no disagreement on their part with the Mufti, about his interpretation of shariah here or anywhere. In fact, CAIR is now also suing the state of Oklahoma to protect their fellow Islamists’ “right” to use that same shariah, without interference from the state. To the contrary, Oklahoma voters by 70 percent voted last week to prohibit shariah law from taking precedence over state or federal law. That would seem quite prescient, in light of an organization like CAIR that, this week, uses the Grand Mufti’s sermon – which elevates the most extreme, repressive form of shariah – which dictates all aspects of life and society – as an exemplar for moderation.

For example, CAIR apparently thought that Americans are unaware of, or would not remember that less than two years ago, this “moderate” Grand Mufti expressed his grand approval of marriage of adult men to 10 year old girls. In a lecture at the mosque of Imam Mohamed bin Saud Islamic University in Riyadh, he stated:

A girl becomes ready for marriage at 10 or 12 according to Islam and stressed that Islamic law is not by any means oppressive to women…Our mothers and grandmothers got married when they were barely 12. Good upbringing makes a girl ready to perform all marital duties at that age. (Al-Arabiya)

A girl aged 10 or 12 can be married. Those who think she’s too young are wrong and they are being unfair to her.” (CNN)

This “moderate” Grand Mufti also disgracefully rebuked women for attending a conference without a veil stating, “I severely condemn this matter and warn of grave consequences,” and told Muslims at the Green Lane (U.K.) mosque that, “Muslim children should be hit if they don’t pray: ‘When he is seven, tell him to go and pray, and start hitting them when they are 10.’”

The Grand Mufti is one of the leading Wahhabi purveyors of Muslim supremacism (Islamism) around the world. Whether or not he condemns violence and the tactic of terrorism is of little consequence. Clearly, he believes in the Islamic state, and the domination of shariah law in governments where Muslims are a majority. As Alex Alexiev has noted, “the Saudi funding program is the largest worldwide propaganda campaign ever mounted-dwarfing the Soviets’ propaganda efforts at the height of the cold War.”

In fact, the Saudi’s own so-called “de-radicalization campaign” (Al-Sakeenah) has been prominently critiqued. For example Col. Jonathan Figuel writes:

It seems that the Sakeenah campaign is convenient to be presented by the Saudis as an external non-governmental independent initiative, rather than a governmental led operation. From past experience and analysis of the Saudi’s double game policy and conduct, one can assume that the Saudis on one hand use the campaign for propaganda purposes encouraging its existence for internal real threats, while on the other hand the campaign can be presented to the international political and the public opinion for political benefits without any formal or direct responsibility to the global aspects of the their radicalization influence and actions…The Saudi de radicalization campaign to “dry out the sources of terrorism thoughts” as declared by the minister of Islamic Affairs, corroborates the fact that the campaign is totally aimed to deal with domestic security threats on Islamic Wahhabi doctrine.

We must not be fooled by the “condemnation” of terrorism by the Saudi Wahhabi clerics and their tribal protectors in the Saudi royals. In reality, this further reveals the dangerous synergy and propaganda role of American Islamist groups like CAIR for Saudi Wahhabi fundamentalists like the Grand Mufti. Their ‘double game’ is manifested from their pulpits at the Grand Mosque in Mecca and from the press releases of their advocates like CAIR in the United States.

CAIR’s rush to highlight the radical Saudi cleric’s “condemnation” of terrorism was clearly based on its expectation, not without merit, that most Americans would not research how immoderate this cleric really is. A brief review of that sermon – in context, and in view of the Grand Mufti’s ‘other’ prominent radical ideas – reveals a dangerous, influential Islamist who uses Wahhabi interpretations of Islam and shariah to impose misogyny, child marriage, child abuse, Muslim supremacy, and spread hate-filled anti-American propaganda.

Shamefully, CAIR chose Islam’s holiest day of the year to spread this type of propaganda. We, modern reform-minded American Muslims and non-Muslims alike, must unite and speak with one voice against it.

It’s time to cut 90,000 govt earmarks and save $16 billion …? Yes!

How to immediately cut 16+ BILLION dollars from the federal government? The new, Republican controlled Congress passes a bill that cuts out all pork — no more “ear marks”. Time to permanently stop the exchange of favors, the wink and the nod, the backroom deals.

Many people would like to win the lottery. The winner gets 1-12 million dollars. A million dollars is a lot of money to most people. How many millions does it take to make one billion?

From my perspective saving ONE billion dollars would be terrific. Cutting out pork will save 16 billion dollars.

The double whammy to no more pork is that the 16+ BILLION not spent on pork stays home in local communities. We the People decide – not the government making decisions for us.

The growth of pork has been enormous and it’s time to stop all pork. In 1987 President Reagen vetoed a spending bill because there were 121 earmarks in the bill. Last year there were 90,000 earmarks passed by Congress.

Earmark Myths and Realities
November 10, 2010
By Sen. Tom Coburn

As Senate Republicans prepare to vote on an earmark moratorium, I would encourage my colleagues to consider four myths and four realities of the debate.

Myths of the earmark debate:

1. Eliminating earmarks does not actually save any money

This argument has serious logical inconsistencies. The fact is earmarks do spend real money. If they didn’t spend money, why defend them? Stopping an activity that spends money does result in less spending. It’s that simple. For instance, Congress spent $16.1 billion on pork in Fiscal Year 2010. If Congress does not do earmarks in 2011, we could save $16.1 billion. In no way is Congress locked into to shifting that $16.1 billion to other programs unless it wants to.

2. Earmarks represent a very tiny portion of the federal budget and eliminating them would do little to reduce the deficit

It’s true that earmarks themselves represent a tiny portion of the budget, but a small rudder can help steer a big ship, which is why I’ve long described earmarks as the gateway drug to spending addiction in Washington. No one can deny that earmarks like the Cornhusker Kickback have been used to push through extremely costly and onerous bills. Plus, senators know that as the number of earmarks has exploded so has overall spending. In the past decade, the size of government has doubled while Congress approved more than 90,000 earmarks.

Earmarks were rare until recently. In 1987, President Reagan vetoed a spending bill because it contained 121 earmarks. Eliminating earmarks will not balance the budget overnight, but it is an important step toward getting spending under control.

3. Earmarking is about whose discretion it is to make spending decisions. Do elected members of Congress decide how taxes are spent, or do unelected bureaucrats and Obama administration officials?

It’s true that this is a debate about discretion, but some in Congress are confused about discretion among whom. This is not a struggle between the executive branch and Congress but between the American people and Washington. Do the American people have the right to spend their own money and keep local decisions at the local level or does the federal government know best? Earmarks are a Washington-knows-best solution. An earmark ban would tell the American people that Congress gets it. After all, it’s their money, not ours.

An earmark moratorium would not result in Congress giving up one iota of its spending power. In any event, Republicans should be fighting over how to cut government spending, not how to divide it up.

4. The Constitution gives Congress the responsibility and authority to earmark

Nowhere does the Constitution give Congress the authority to do earmarks. The concept of earmarking appears nowhere in the enumerated powers or anywhere else in the Constitution. The so-called “constitutional” argument earmarks is from the same school of constitutional interpretation that led Elena Kagan to admit that Congress had the authority to tell the American people to eat their fruits and vegetables every day. That school, which says Congress can do whatever it wants, gave us an expansive Commerce Clause, Obamacare, and a widespread belief among members of Congress that the “power of the purse” is the power to pork.

Earmark defenders are fond of quoting Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution which says, “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” They also refer to James Madison’s power of the purse commentary in Federalist 58. Madison said the “power of the purse may, in fact, be the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people.”

Yet, earmark proponents ignore the rest of the Constitution and our founders’ clear intent to limit the power of Congress. If the founders wanted Congress to earmark funds to specific recipients, micromanage American society, and ride roughshod over state and local government they would have given Congress that authority in the enumerated powers. They clearly did not.

Our founders anticipated earmark-style power grabs from Congress and spoke against such excess for the ages. James Madison, the father of the Constitution said, “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison, spoke directly against federally-funded local projects. “[I]t will be the source of eternal scramble among the members, who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get the most who are the meanest.” Jefferson understood that earmarks and coercion would go hand in hand.

Also, if earmarks were a noble constitutional tradition, how did we thrive for 200 years without an earmark favor factory in Congress?

Finally, for those worried about ceding constitutional authority to the executive branch, I would respectfully remind them that the president has zero authority to spend money outside of the authority Congress gives him. The way to hold the executive branch accountable is to spend less and conduct more aggressive oversight. Earmarks are a convoluted way for Congress to try to regain authority they have already ceded to the executive branch through bad legislation. The fact is there is nothing an earmark can do that can’t be done more equitably and openly through a competitive grant process.

Beyond these myths, I would encourage members to consider the following realities.

1. Earmarks are a major distraction

Again, earmarks not only do nothing to hold the executive branch accountable – by out-porking the president – but take Congress’ focus away from the massive amount of waste and inefficiency within federal agencies. In typical years, the number of earmark requests outnumbers oversight hearings held by the Appropriations Committee by a factor of 1,000 to 1. Instead of processing tens of thousands of earmark requests the Senate should increase the number of oversight hearings from a few dozen to hundreds. The amount of time and attention that is devoted to the earmark chase is a scandal waiting to be exposed.

2. This debate is over among the American people and the House GOP

If any policy mandate can be derived from the election it is to spend less money. Eliminating earmarks is the first step on that path. The House GOP has accepted that mandate. The Senate GOP now has to decide whether to ignore not only the American people but their colleagues in the House. The last thing Senate Republicans should be doing is legislative gymnastics to get around the House GOP earmark ban.

3. Earmarking is bad policy

In recent years the conventional wisdom that earmarks create jobs has been turned on its head. The Obama administration’s stimulus bill itself, which is arguably a collection of earmarks approved by Congress, proves this point. Neither Obama’s stimulus nor Republican stimulus – GOP earmarks – is very effective at creating jobs.

Harvard University conducted an extensive study this year of how earmarks impact states. The researchers expected to find that earmarks drive economic growth but found the opposite.

“It was an enormous surprise, at least to us, to learn that the average firm in the chairman’s state did not benefit at all from the unanticipated increase in spending,” said Joshua Coval, one of the study’s authors. The study found that as earmarks increase capital investment and expenditures by private businesses decrease, by 15 percent specifically. In other words, federal pork crowds out private investment and slows job growth. Earmarks are an odd GOP infatuation with failed Keynesian economics that hurts local economies.

Earmarks also crowd out funding for higher-priority items. Transportation earmarks are a good example. Pork projects like the Bridge to Nowhere and bike paths divert funds from higher priority projects according to a 2007 Department of Transportation inspector general report. Thousands of bridges continue to be in disrepair across America in part because Congress has taken its eye off the ball and indulged in parochial spending.

4. Earmarking is bad politics

If the Senate GOP wants to send a signal that they don’t get it and are not listening they can reject an earmark moratorium. For Republicans, earmarks are the ultimate mixed message. We’ll never be trusted to be the party of less spending while we’re rationalizing more spending through earmarks. The long process of restoring fiscal sanity in Washington begins with saying no to pork.

– Sen. Tom Coburn represents the state of Oklahoma in the U.S. Senate.

Aptos, CA psychologist: Do you have an adult child who needs their parent to make most decisions? Think about a Limited Conservatorship if in California….

Do you have an adult child in California who substantially – very different from others his or her age — cannot do what society typically expects a young person to do?

For example, let’s say you have a son or daughter age 25 who has never held a part time job more than a couple months, who still lives with you or in a separate space you pay for, who has no real friends, who cannot cook more than microwave and who cannot make normal decisions that young persons make at that age?

Are you in effect still acting as the parent in charge although the adult child is moving along in age — but quite delayed?

What to do?

Think about a Limited Conservatorship as one vehicle that might assist.

For those who can, of course you can contact your personal attorney.

You need to know that there are free (govt paid for) or relatively low cost alternatives:

For example, SPIN in Santa Cruz County, supported by your tax dollars, offers workshops which assist families with children with developmental disabilities and delays.

Tonight SPIN (10-26-2010) in Watsonville, California held a meeting (6:30 – 8:00) with an attorney present. The meeting was to provide legal information concerning Limited Conservatorships.

I am a licensed, clinical Ph.D. psychologist. I attended the SPIN meeting because I had referred a couple families and on occasion I write reports recommending Limited Conservatorships.

As I could not stay for the entire SPIN meeting (10-26-2010) regarding Limited Conservatorships here is some info — perhaps it was not provided — concerning how to get a Limited Conservatorshp.

This is not legal advise. This is based on my experience as a licensed clinical psychologist interacting with families who need to exert control over the affairs of adult children:

There is FREE assistance for families who need to assist adult (over age 18) persons who cannot manage their life without family or other assistance.

What you can do:

Using Google:

1) type into Google” California Judicial Council Forms
go to: Browse All Forms
type in: Probate – Guardianships and Conservatorships
Download appropriate forms for Conservatorships
2) not know what forms to download?
3) go to the Law Library in Santa Cruz (in the Court House, basement, there is an attorney there to assist you).
4) With assistance from the attorney, file the forms with the County clerk of SAnta Cruz, CA
5) Get a Hearing Date stamped on your legal form by the County Clerk of Santa Cruz County.
6) Be sure to “ Notice” the Regional Center – learn what that means with assistance from the lawyer provided by Santa Cruz County
7) With a Hearing Date, Notice and what you are requesting (how many of the usual 7 powers are you requesting be removed from your adult child) in my experience the regional center near you in CA will respond to Superior Court
8) In my experience, when Superior Court requests a California regional center to provide a Limited Conservatorship that report will be provided in a timely manner.

A Limited Conservatorship is one vehicle that may assist parents who need to provide basic assistance to adult children. There are other vehicles. If you need more information or assistance, contact Dr. Cameron Jackson 831 688-6002 P.O.Box 1972, Aotos, CA 95002-1972

Was this helpful?

President Obama issues proclamations like Emperor Augustus? “in those days a decree went out frm Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered…All went to their own towns…Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth …to the city of David called Bethlehem…”

Obama-Care requires all non-profits to register with IRS & give 1099's

Is there is a resemblance between President Obama and Emperor Augustus who, 2010 years ago, required everyone to register where they were born?

Because the Emperor proclaimed they must, Joseph took pregnant Mary to Bethlehem…. And now, in 2010, Obama-Care tells every non-profit organization that they must trudge over to the government and register afresh with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

There are a million and a half non-profit organizations in the U.S. Because of Obama-Care all of them must register afresh with the IRS. And, all non-profits who do $600 of business with anyone must give that person a 1099. Did you know that failure to re-register with the IRS can result in lose of non-profit status and a huge fine?

So — if you support or know of any tiny non-profit out there be sure to tell them of President Obama’s proclamation: Go to the city of Washington and register with the government! Modern day Emperor Obama requires that you register! Or stand to lose non-profit status and pay a fine.

Only 63% of all non-profits are registered with the IRS. That means that 1/3 are not. So, because of Obama-Care, roughly 500,000 non-profits must — for the first time — journey to Washington and register with the IRS. And every non-profit must take the time — which means money — to fill out the new form.

Do you support repeal of Obama-Care? Vote out every Democrat — including Sam Farr — that voted for Obama-Care.

For some exact figures on non-profits go to:
urban org

Aptos psychologist: Do you want Islamic sharia law that OKs beating wives and cutting off hands for those who steal? Let’s not return to 7th century life.

Support more mosques in your local community?

About time Americans get educated about Islamic law and how it can affect your local American community. Take a few minutes to read 10 reasons why NOT to have Islamic law affecting you and those you love.

By the way, the prophet Muhammad had nine (9) wives when he died. Yet he told his followers that they could only have four (4) wives. Is that an example of do what I say, not what I do? Some call that hypocrisy….?

Muhammad beat his wife A. and ok’s beating wives who are “high handed”. Wife beating ok? Not in my view.

Have we not evolved beyond the nomadic, violent values of 7th centurry?

Read more as to why Islamic sharia law should be rejected in America and other countries.
Continue reading “Aptos psychologist: Do you want Islamic sharia law that OKs beating wives and cutting off hands for those who steal? Let’s not return to 7th century life.”

Aptos, CA psychologist: Duplicity – thy name is … not woman but the the replacement for ex-Senator Hilary Clinton

Do you trust Hillary Clinton’s replacement to the Senate? Would you send her a dime? I say “No!” based on her pro-Obama voting record and how she mis-leads the public about her work history.

Hilary Clinton’s replacement to the Senate is attorney Kristen Gillibrand. Gillibrand faces conservative Republican Joseph DioGuarrdi in Nov. 2010.

Gillibrand voted yes for all Obama spending programs. She called herself a public interest lawyer when she actually worked for Philip Morris. Her job for the tobacco company was to keep the research records out of the hands of the courts. Later, she worked for HUD secretary on new products — selling sub-prime mortgages. When the mortgage market collapsed she made money shorting companies such as Country-Wide.

From Dick Morris,com

“Had Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand used her incumbency to good advantage, her victory this fall in the heavily Democratic state of New York would be a foregone conclusion. Instead, she squandered her opportunity — remaining passive and on the sidelines while the Republicans fought for the right to oppose her.

“The rules are different for appointed senators, like Gillibrand, than for incumbents who’ve won election to the job: They have yet to make that crucial first sale with the voters.

“Indeed, they have yet to do most of the groundwork that leads to that sale — like having voters know who you are.

“Gillibrand remains largely unknown to her constituents. She should have used this spring and summer to tell New Yorkers who she is and what are her plans in the Senate. Instead, she hoarded her funds and chose to say and do nothing.

“So there is no true incumbent, just Gillibrand and GOP nominee Joseph DioGuardi competing for a vacancy.

DioGuardi brings real strengths to that competition — while Gillibrand has weaknesses. For starters, she’s reinvented herself again and again over the last two decades.

“It started long before the flip-flops she announced in her first months in the Senate. The “delete” button on her computer must have worn thin as she has erased large segments of her past.

“She now describes her self as having been a “public interest lawyer” in the 1990s. In fact, she represented Philip Morris — assisting its CEO in covering up evidence that he knew of tobacco’s addictive properties and that it caused cancer. Her job was to keep the company research records — which proved beyond a doubt that corporate execs knew the addictive qualities of tobacco — beyond the reach of American courts.

“For years, she hid that role from her constituents. Then, when The New York Times printed the facts, she claimed that she had no choice but to represent tobacco since she was only an associate at her firm. In fact, the firm’s policy was to let associates opt out of any case that offended their moral compass — and she definitely didn’t opt out.

“In 1999, she became counsel to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo. Her job was to promote “new products” for the agency — subprime mortgages for people who couldn’t afford them. But once the mortgage meltdown began, she hit the “delete” key again — expunging the item from her resume.

“She also faces the problem that she profited from the crisis: Once the financial meltdown started, she and her husband shorted firms like Countrywide that specialized in subprime mortgages.

“Bottom line: New Yorkers don’t yet really know Gillibrand as “their” senator — and they ought to know her as a chameleon who’s shown no principle in her pursuit of profit.

“Polls show her only barely above 50 percent before the Republican primary. Now, she is probably under 50 percent.

Joe DioGuardi, a committed conservative with a fine record in Congress, offers an alternative that voters will find attractive. He’s hampered by limited name recognition, likely still in the mid 30s.

But once an incumbent is under 50 percent, she is very vulnerable, particularly with Gillibrand’s record of support for every Obama big-spending scheme. And she stands for nothing in a year when voters are looking for sincerity.

If the national party and its New York adherents give DioGuardi the money he deserves, he has a real shot. is the web site for Friz Muhammad, the Australian radical Islamist who recently calls for be-heading of a Dutch politician.

Fritz Muhammad is angry because the Dutch politician called Islam ‘retarded”. Anyone who mocks Islam… anyone who laughs at Islam… anyone who degrades Islam will die by fatwa said Fritz Muhammad.

One must leave an email on Fritz Muhammad’s site in order to comment. I was tempted but did not.

It is time for moderates to laugh at Friz, to mock him and to deride what he says.

Fritz Muhammad calls on extreme Islamics to be-head a person. But, a jehad is only binding on the author!

Let Friz Muhammad start by doing his own be-heading… of first fleas! And then work up to be-heading ants! Let him practice on creatures way down on the food chain! And then let him work on chopping off his … nails!! Yes, clean up the old hands of Fritz Muhammad!!

I do think it intemperate for that Dutch politician to call Islam “retarded”.

That is an out of date term. Mental Retardation has been replaced with Intellectually Deficient. An 8 sylable phrase instead of a 6 sylable phrase.

I say this tongue in cheek and to mock Fritz Muhammad. Why not consider Islam as developmentally delayed rather than “retarded”?

Just as persons can be developmentally delayed so can cultures, religions and political ideologies.

That Islam permits children in second and third grade to be married… that women must wear a veil …. that women are second class citizens … that Christians and Jews are not equal to Muslims …

Isn’t it fair to say that these ideas are developmentally …delayed? Let me know who goes to Fritz Muhammad’s web site and mocks him to his face.

Yep!! Hey, Fritz, Islam is progressing … just more slowly and at a slower rate. The Islam religion, political ideology and culture is developmentally delayed! What does that make the Prophet? Heavens! I am not mocking the Prophet just Fritz Muhammad. He deserves to be mocked. And laughed at!

written by

Yes — let’s mock Friz Muhannad!
Let’s laugh at him! Let’s deride him for his comments.

Islam is a political philosophy & non-Muslims are second class citizens

Heard of the Jizziva?
That is the tax that Christians and Jews must pay as non-Muslims.

Though higher up than Buddhists and Hindus, Christians and Jews are to be subjugated and humiliated by the Jizzia tax imposed on them by Muslims. Christians and Jews are second class citizens and treated as such.

Think that Muslims are peace loving? With non-Muslims a Muslim passes the peace by saying peace to those who follow the right way — which is of course the Muslim way. There is only one right way — the Muslim way of course.

Wake up and find out what Islamic religious leaders are preaching in your back yard.

The following is from and written by a single woman who lives in Colorado:

“Did you know?
“Islam is not only a religious philosophy but also is a political ideology.

Jihadists are not a minority of the Islamic community and moderate Muslims deny that Jihadists exist as a majority of their community.

“Radical Muslim leaders use the teaching of the Qur’an (Koran) to establish Islamic law for the world and to justify violence.

The Qur’an (Koran) says the prophet Mohammed is the excellent example of conduct and demonstrates an exalted standard of behavior and whoever obeys Mohammed, obeys Allah.

Child marriage according to Islamic tradition, recorded by the Haddith by the Muham Idari, states his favorite wife was only 6 and Muhammed consumated his marriage when she was 9.

Note, this is not said to condemn the historical acts of Muhammed because this was acceptable behavior during this time but because Muslim’s use his actions as examples of the highest standards of conduct in the Islamic religion then it is considered to be acceptable behavior right now.

“An example of how this example of behavior is being used today is that in current day Yemin they wanted to abolish the minium age of legal marriage from 15 to 9. Another example of this, in 2002, when researchers entered the refugee camps in Afghanistan found 2 out of 3 girls in second grade were already married because of Muhammed’s example of conduct.

“Islamic religion is not spread by the sword because when a country is conquered they don’t mandate conversion to the Islamic religion but Islamic Law is spread by the sword because they do mandate Muslims as superior and all others who are not Muslims are second class and inferior. In other words you have to join the ‘club’ to be considered ‘good enough’.

The greeting you hear in Islam is “Peace be upon you” but did you know Muslims are directed to use this saying only with another Muslim because you cannot wish Peach upon a non-Muslim.

The greeting Muslims use with non-Muslims is “Peace be upon those who follow the right guidance.” In other words, peace again to people who follow the right guidance, i.e., Muslims.

Only two times a Muslim should enter into a PEACE TREATY according to Islamic Law:

Muslims are weak and need to time to recover.

If they have a reasonable expectation is their foes will become Muslim

Negotiaters fail to realize Muslim Jihadi terroists use these strategies. We should respect our enemies enough to understand why they are doing what they are doing. And truly understand there is no basis in Islamic law for a treaty for peaceful co-existence.

Chief enabler as terrosim around the world is an ally of the US, Saudi Arabia.

“Billions of dollars of US aid goes to countries like Egypt and Pakistan who allow the Mosques and schools to teach anti-western views and hate of Americans, Christians, and Jews. They are working according to these principles and goals — why do we still give them money!

“There is no comprehensive effort to combat Jihaddist philosophy in the US Mosques.

There is no greater deed than Jihad and by doing this you atone for all your bad deeds.

Jihad = warfare against the non-believers — is not spiritual warfare.

Jizzia is part of the political arm of Islam. Jizzia in Sharia law in a Muslim country is a taxation for all non-muslims. According to the Quran, “They shall pay a jizzia. By an upper hand may they be subjugated and humiliated.”

Christians and Jews are protected people because they believe in the ‘book’ but are not equal to Muslims and must be ’subjugated and humiliated’.

However, Hindus and Buddahists have it worse because they are not people of the book.

Radical Muslim’s around the world want to replace the western governments and the US Constitution with Islamic Sharia Law.

Three choices offered to enemies: conversion, subjecation, or war. These are not “old” philosphies but are quoted and invoked by Islamic leaders today.

The idealogies of the past are not rejectted but are being used to confornt moderate Muslims today to follow these prinicples.

There are peaceful Muslims but where are they? Why aren’t they speaking out against these Islamic teaching?
Warriors in Jihad around the world look to Mohammed to justify what they are doing.

November 2003, of the Saudi Arabian Embassy web site told Muslim should engage in Jihad.

Jihadist’s believe the religious principle that says we can’t live with infidels.
Democracy can support Sharia law — so according to the Iraqi and Afghanistan constitution but Islamic law ALWAYS will outweigh any Democratic beliefs.

Political Islam has not been challenged and will always win out.

Saudi Arabia sends radical books and ideology to US based Mosques and schools.

Year One in the Islamic Calendar is when Muhammed became a military and political leader. Islam is a political idealogy and the US is not approaching Islam as a political group but as a religious group. Why not?

“80% of American Mosques are controlled by extremists teaching hate literature and Muslim supremency being taught in the schools.

Foreign Policy: “Recommendations/What should we do?
Saudi Arabia — we should find alternative energy sources and bring pressure to bare upon Saudi Arabia
Challenge Saudi Arabia’s support of Wahhabism around the world
Iraq- withdraw entirely and/or protect the surrounding countries around Iraq to make sure it does’nt spread.
Iraq was formed by the English — why should they stay together? Iran will have nuclear weapons, they have said they want to destroy Israel — take them at their word — they want to be the leader of global Jihad.
Related Links

Reference: Robert Spencer (

View Robert Spencer’s Talk

What are people saying on Technorati about Wahhabism?

Middle East Media Research Institute TV Monitor Project

Top Ten Reasons Why Sharia is Bad for All Societies (Note, Sharia is the “legal” parts of the Islmaic religion.)

Do Islamic mosques across America — and Islamic community centers — teach Jizzia and other marks of second class citizenship? Why not ask your Islamic religious leaders?

The following may be reproduced if credit is given to Ami Isseroff and MidEastWeb:

“About 638 AD, the Caliph Omar Ibn al-Khattab, entered the city of Jerusalem, then called Aelia Capitolina by the Romans or “Ilia” by the Arab conquerors.

“According to tradition, Omar granted to the people of Jerusalem and to the Patriarch Safronius a covenant of peace and protection which came to be known the Covenant of Omar, or the Code of Omar. In addition, to ensure the care and protection of Christian and Jewish Holy places, Omar entrusted each of the major holy places to the care and protection of a different Muslim family.

Many non-Muslim scholars believe that the covenant of Omar was actually written at a later date, since the earliest manuscript can only be dated from the eleventh century, and because they believe that it represents customs that had accumulated over the centuries. However, there is no definitive proof that the document is not genuine.

“For some reason, this document has gained a very bad reputation among critics of Islam. However, considering the fate of conquered populations in general at that time, it seems to be very liberal, and the intention was to protect and reassure the Christian population of Jerusalem.

The institution of the Jizziya tax and other marks of second class citizenship were not invented by Omar, but rather copied from the custom instituted in other conquered Muslim cities, based on the Qur’an. We must remember that when the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem several hundred years later, Muslims and especially Jews were evicted.

Omar seemingly did not keep one promise of his covenant, which reads “None of the Jews shall reside with them in Ilia’.” In fact, Omar allowed the Jews, formerly excluded from Jerusalem by the Christians, to return and live there, though under Muslim rule, each group lived in different quarters of the city.

written by Ami Isseroff

The goal of radical Islamists is to rip Western law and liberty in two says Nonie Darwish

Nonie Darwish contends there is a growing movement in this country willing to shed blood in the name of Islam. “While Americans are busy erasing Christianity from all public sites and erasing God from the lives of children, the Muslims are planning a great jihad on America.”

Islamic law allows men to marry babies age one and consummate the marriage at age eight. In the U.S. this is child abuse – pure and simple.

For an Islamic woman to prove rape she has to have 4 witnesses. How likely is that to happen in the Middle East?

Muslim men in the West demand Shariah Law so the women cannot divorce.

The plan to put a mosque a couple blocks from Ground Zero should be a wake up call. For every American town and community. What do mosques spread?

Let’s find out what Islamic religious leaders teach in local mosques. Is it hatred of Western liberty? Is it the subjection of women and children to the whims of men?

Instead of the Golden Rule, Islam has two systems of ethics — one for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. And the goal of Islam is to take and subjugate others. So says Nonie Darwish, an Islamic woman who converted to Christianity.

Go and attend the local mosque in your community. See for yourself what goes on. And if you don’t like what goes on — use the free speech this county has to say what you think.

Where are the local mosques? In Santa Cruz it is called an Islamic Center: Going to the local home page I see mention of a religious leader protecting Jews and Christians. This was back when Jerusalem was invaded. For more information:

Muslim Islamic Center of Santa Cruz
4401 Capitola Rd. #2,
Capitola, CA 95010
Tel: (831) 479 8982

written by Cameron Jackson