Radical Imams Preaching Extremism and Religious Hatred Do Not Represent Islam.

They are criminal jihadists misfits and thugs or self-professed radical extremist Imams and guilty of Islamic blasphemy equal to or greater than their followers of barbaric radical and criminal jihads.

Today around the globe, represents one of the major problems facing all civilized societies, democracies and religions throughout the universe.

They are just as radical and barbaric as their jihads criminal killers of men women and children. They are the ones who daily propagandize their own warped and criminal interpretation of Islam.

By preaching racial and religious hatred toward all civil societies and calling for or supporting the cowardly barbaric assignations, killings, terror, beheadings and suicide bombings in the name of Islam against men, women and children be they Muslim or non-Muslim.

Such extremist radical Imams ignore the basic penal laws of Islam and criminally misinterpret the writings of Islam. Islamic law and teachings forbid terrorism. Terrorism is above all murder. 

Murder is strictly forbidden in the Qur’an. Qur’an 6:151 says, “and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” (i.e. murder is forbidden but the death penalty imposed by the state for a crime is permitted 5:53).

If the motive for terrorism is religious, it is impermissible under Islamic law. It is forbidden to attempt to impose Islam on other people. The Qur’an says, “There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error.”

In the Islamic law of war, not just any civil engineer (Imam) can declare or launch a war. It is the prerogative of the duly constituted leader of the Muslim community that engage in the war. Nowadays that would be the president or prime minister or the elected head of state, as advised by the mufti or national experts (judges) of law. Not an Imam.

A true Muslim believer and follower of Islam is moderate, not an extremist, truthful, not dishonest, humble, not arrogant, dignified and decent not graceless. Where are these Imams and Muslims today?   

The vast majority of the so-called moderate Muslims who daily attend mosque are closing their eyes and not dealing with these imams and the radicalization happening right in front of them daily. It is not enough that these so-called moderate Muslims express regret while complaining about racial profiling by law enforcement.

Who is monitoring these radical Imams in North America, Europe, and the Middle East or throughout the world? Not Muslim communities or a majority of any of the so-called moderate Muslims often mentioned by the press.

Why it is that law enforcement is barred from investigating in mosques to prevent this radicalization by extremist Imams before it goes too far?

One of the Problems for All Civilized Societies Today is...........

The barbaric jihadist criminal interpretation of Islam by self-professed extremist radical Imams!

The number one problem that must be confronted openly, decisively and rapidly by all civilized societies around the globe have become abundantly clear.

It is the barbaric jihadist criminality and their interpretation of Islam. These Muslim misfits and thugs are the number one problem that must be confronted openly, decisively and rapidly by all civilized societies around the globe. 

There cowardly and barbaric assassinations, beheadings, suicide bombings of men, women and children around the world represent is a clear cut assault on individual freedoms of choice thought, speech and religious tolerances within democratic civil societies.

The barbaric assassination of 12 individuals recently in Paris that included two Muslims, one a policeman and the other a cartoonist, highlights to all civilized societies and peaceful religions the absurdity and contradictions of Islam as interpreted by these barbaric criminal Muslim jihadists and their propagandized interpretation of Islam that represents and call for the oppression and collective totalitarianism of all free peoples and civilized societies throughout the world. 

A sleeping world has been awakened, by the barbaric radical criminal jihadist gunmen in Paris, to the fact that fascist radical Imams and their followers are against the most fundamental freedoms of all democratic and civilizes societies, the freedoms of right to life, liberty, the security of person, free speech, choice and religious believes without persecution.

These self-professed spiritual Imam leaders of these barbaric radical jihads are just as radical and barbaric as their jihads criminal killers of men women and children as they are the ones who daily propagandize their own warped and criminal interpretation of Islam and preach hatred toward all civil societies and call for supporting killings and terror against men, women and children.

Such extremist radical Imams ignore the basic penal laws of Islam and criminally misinterpret the writings of Islam.

Who is monitoring these radical Imams in North America, Europe and the Middle East?

As the vast majority of the so called moderate Muslims who daily attend mosque are closing their eyes and not dealing with these imams and the radicalization happening right in front of them on a daily basis. It is not enough that these so called moderate Muslims express regret and while complaining about racial profiling by law enforcement.

Why it is that law enforcement is barred from investigating in mosques in order to prevent this radicalization before it goes too far?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/charlie-hebdo-cartoon-i-knew-i-had-to-express-defiance-because-i-wanted-to-be-true-to-the-spirit-of-the-magazine-9965467.html

Are provincial governments with their political party politics really necessary?

Perhaps another idea rather than the entry of the divisiveness of partisan party politics at the municipal level would be to move in another direction completely.

Consider eliminating provincial governments and having the federal government take over education, healthcare, and other public welfare benefits and goods that citizens consider to be entitlements from birth to grave.

With the administrative duties transferred to the municipal levels of government, this would further reduce repetitive representative and political overlap and the never-ending divisiveness of party politics. 

Provincial taxes could be eliminated and replaced with slightly increased federal tax rates with the added efficiency of removing the provincial level of government and if handled correctly would translate into overall savings for taxpayers.

Provinces already exist financially because of our current system of transfer payments from the federal government paying for the greatest portion of education, healthcare, debt payments, and other entitlement programs, as our federal government largely gets to set the mandate under which they are delivered anyway, no matter what provincial leaders advocate, on the behalf of their citizens, ultimately the national interest usually gets the final say.

Political food for thought!

1.  @   http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/canadian-government-debt-2014.pdf

2. @  http://www.torontosun.com/2014/04/11/all-levels-of-canadian-government-debt-total-41-trillion

The Art of Double Dipping by Career Politicians

It has become apparent that recently retiring 30-year federal and provincial elected representative of specific political parties i.e. liberal, conservative or NDP have come up with their own definition of new revenue sources for personal use.

The greed for power or supplementing their overly generous government pensions after representing a political party’s loyal members at either the federal or provincial government levels is becoming the new form of political double-dipping in Ontario and Canadian politics.

I am referring to the recent retirement or quitting from federal politics by one Jim Karygiannis after having represented the liberal political party and its local constituent supporters at the federal level for more than 30 years of continued elected service.

This career politician and parliamentarian recently thanked all his fellow members of the liberal federal political party and now starts to collect his annual pension and benefits which he earned from representing his party’s taxpaying supporters.

The problem is this political party member now wants to represent these same political party constituent supporters at the municipal government level on the City Council, which unlike federal and provincial levels of government currently does not have an open system of party politics for campaign funding, advertising and worker support.

For decades Canadian citizens at the Toronto and municipal government election levels have and overwhelmingly continue to prefer that their local councillors be independent and represent their constituents rather than representing party politics at the municipal levels of government.

As there is already an abundance of party politics at the provincial or federal level. Further, it is grossly unfair and unethical for a retired MPP or MP of 30 years to then seek political office at the municipal level and be backed financially or otherwise by their political party affiliations while receiving a taxpayer-funded pension for having served these same party supporters at the federal or provincial levels of government.

Such political parties condoned or supported pork barrelling and double-dipping by this or other elected parliamentarians upon retiring is unethical and shows no respect for voters within our One City Community of Toronto.

Toronto City Council, in my perhaps biased opinion, does not at this time or any time in the near future require the introduction of political party politics and the divisiveness it encourages within communities, cities and municipalities.

It is the time leaders of the Liberal, Conservative and NDP political parties all immediately establish a no-double-dipping rule. 

This rule would clearly prohibit all previously elected and retiring political party parliamentarians who have served their party constituents, and supporters, for 30 years or longer from seeking another position of elected office at the municipal government level for up to ten years from the date of retirement from either their federal or provincial elected government service.

What is needed to stop such double-dipping is a Five-Year Post-Employment Ban for Designated Public Office Holders & retiring or quitting MPs or MPPs.

The five-year period would start from the time the member (MP or MPP) ceases to carry out his or her functions with the political party he/she was elected to represent or the time the member resigned or quit as an MP or MPP. Those who contravene this provision would be committing an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $150,000.

The prohibition would apply equally to all elected members of the federal parliament and or a provincial legislature.   

More food for thought: 
Are provincial governments with their political party politics really necessary?

Perhaps another idea rather than the entry of the divisiveness of party politics at the municipal level would be to move in another direction.

Consider eliminating the provincial governments and having the federal government take over education, healthcare, and other public welfare benefits and goods that citizens consider to be entitlements from birth to grave.

Administrative duties being transferred to municipal levels of government which would further reduce representative and political overlap. 

Provincial taxes could be eliminated and replaced with slightly increased federal tax rates with the added efficiency of removing a level of government if handled correctly would translate into an overall saving for taxpayers.

Provinces already exist financially because of our current system of transfer payments from the federal government paying for the greatest portion of education, healthcare, debt payments, and other entitlement programs, as our federal government largely gets to set the mandate under which they are delivered anyway, no matter what provincial leaders advocate, on the behalf of their citizens, ultimately the national interest usually gets the final say.

Source:

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2014/04/04/crackdown_on_bad_political_behaviour_will_be_shortlived.html

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/04/01/veteran_scarborough_liberal_mp_jim_karygiannis_steps_down.html

 

Value of services versus the need for new taxes.

It seems that most editorials from the for-profit mainstream media organizations are continually left-leaning and slanted in favour of new revenue sources (new taxes) and increased taxes on individuals in their never-ending support for services that are vote-getting valued and put forward by political parties of all stripes.  

As they never seem to support favouring or editorialize a need for any increases or new taxes on corporations or special interest group’s even though corporate tax rates at both the provincial and federal levels remain at an all-time low rate.

First we citizens must recognize and remember the fact that political parties of all stripes i.e. liberals, conservatives, new democrats, greens etc. all have less than ONE per cent of eligible voters who are actual card-carrying or dues-paying members of their specific political party.

Further the main stream media would like us all to believe that a healthy middle-class income is that of $60,000 to $100,000 per year.

Yet our municipal, provincial and federal politicians all take home a base annual salary and benefits in excess $130,000 of which 1/3 is tax free while 47% of Toronto residential property tax-paying citizens have an annual household income of under $53,000 and the medium income for a one-person household is under $46,000 in Toronto alone.  

Other than the media, political parties and the political corporate elite through editorials, who has agreed that the current taxpayer-funded non-entitlement services that governments continually give voters are the services realistically wanted by a majority of citizens or by those having that middle-class annual income of $60,000 to $100,000 per year or of our citizens that currently have a medium one-person household income of under $46,000.

In place of the so-called solution of increasing taxes on individuals as presented by the Stars editorial a more democratic course might be one of making sure that the majority of voting citizens have the government services that they as a majority of citizens actually want. And then, without ever having been asked, have to fund unsustainable programs for services put forth by the various political parties who represent at best a mere One Percent of all eligible citizen voters.    

Sources:

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/comparing-the-debt-burdens-of-ontario-and-california.pdf

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2014/03/21/ontario_has_room_to_raise_taxes_editorial.html

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/03/22/immigrants-dont-blame-society--and-they-succeed

http://clarkepeter.ca/

Star's Editorial Insults All Canadian Heterosexuals.

This editorial “outing” of the Star's HETEROPHOBIC attitude itself is an insult to all Canadians in my humble opinion.

To insinuate that individuals who do not support the lifestyles of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexuals, Transsexual, Transgender, Intersex, Queer/Questioning and 2 Spirited are utterly unfit for public office is asinine and contrary to the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is also a reverse form of bullying and a method of discrimination.

I hold the strong position and belief that individual’s within our Canadian society must be allowed to decide for themselves what is best for them as an individual and not be chastised by the media or special interest groups for holding an opposite viewpoint from those of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexuals, Transsexual, Transgender or Queer/Questioning.

Let’s ALL respect the simple fact that All people as individuals have lives, relationships and families have the constitutional right and freedoms to reject or accept social trends and have that basic human right and freedom to make their own choices?  

Sources:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2014/02/07/mayor_rob_ford_insults_toronto_by_refusing_to_take_part_in_world_pride_editorial.html

http://www.worldpridetoronto.com/about/mission

Mayor Ford used as a Distraction from Toronto/Provincial Business Tax Scandal?

The Mayor's personal life and problems have provided newsprint and mainstream media outlets with endless muckraking articles attacking not only himself but also his, wife, children and brother to the extent of gross overkill on an individual’s personal life and political policies.

The political reality of this saga could well be a distraction used by Toronto’s elite,  politicized mainstream media outlets, political foes and party politics as an ongoing cover-up to Ontario’s and the City’s decade of business tax scandal?

If you think I am nuts, well the facts point us in a disturbing and different direction than my sanity or lack thereof!

You see the City, thanks to the government at Queens Park for the past decade, has been decreasing business property taxes at the direct expense of residential property taxes as their own information below clearly indicates for all to see.  

From 2005 to 2014 the province of Ontario lowered general business rates from 14% to 11% and small business tax rates from 5.5% to 4.5%.

During this same time period, the City of Toronto increased its residential property taxes by 30.66% while increasing business property taxes by only 10.307%! 

Inflation for this period was 17.3%.  

Get the picture yet?

Our federal government is no better and is also in on this tax gate scandal at the direct expense of individual taxpayers. They lowered general and investment business tax rates in 2005 from 22.12% to 15.0% for 2014 and their small business rate from 13.12% to 11.0%  

All this going on while the media and some self-anointed elite Torontonians are obsessed with the Mayor’s personal problems when his political administration at the same time has prudently managed to keep Toronto’s operating budget balanced as mandated by provincial legislation. 

Ford’s four-year term has held residential property tax increase to 7.2% from 2011 to 2014. The inflation rate for this period is 6.5%. (1.2% projected for 2014)  

Compared to the 14.45% tax increases for residential property by the previous Mayoralty administration's last four years from 2010 to 2007! 

Mayor Ford's administration has averaged residential property tax increase over his four-year term to 1.8% compared to the previous administrations' last four-year increase average of 3.61%.      


A historic achievement for the taxpayers of Toronto by this politically prudent and transparent Mayor Ford and his administration regardless of his unfortunate personal problems.

Have we become anarchists and forgotten that all of us are created equal and all are equally imperfect and there remain unequal laws and taxes created by unjust people?

The Toronto media has failed to mention in detail these facts that support the need for residential property tax reform at the expense of business in my humble opinion considering that youth unemployment in 2003 stood at 16.4%. 

And today after all these business tax reductions the unemployment rate for our Toronto youth has jumped to 19.8 %( unadjusted for seasonality)

The mainstream media corporations, political parties, career politicians, the elite's civic action groups, lobbyists and Toronto's union leaders ALL continually support NEW TAXES on Individuals and NOT on business, corporations, banks or unions their buddies and financial supporters!  

Wake up Toronto as to just what the status quo has given you. Change is good!

Up Date May 2014

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/05/04/taking-a-second-look-at-mayor-rob-fords-fiscal-record

In 2014 the City approved a $9.6 Billion Operating Budget representing a residential property tax increase of 2.71 percent and a non-residential 0.75 percent tax increase for businesses

In 2013 the City also maximized revenue sources, reduced the impact of capital financing, and implemented a moderate municipal property tax increase (2.00% residential and 0.67% non-residential) and a Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) fare increase of 5 cents, which are in line with inflation. City Council approved a gross Operating Budget of $10.858 billion .2013 Budget

On January 17, 2012, the City Council approved a balanced tax-supported 2012 Operating Budget of $9.4 billion and a 2012-2021 Capital Budget and Plan of $14.8 billion. The 2012 Operating Budget includes a 2.5 percent property tax increase for residents, a 0.83 percent tax increase for businesses and a 10-cent fare increase for TTC customers. 2012 Budget

In 2011, the Toronto City Council approved an Operating Budget that is balanced, includes no major service cuts, and does not include increases to property tax rates. 
2011 Budget

On April 15, 2010, Toronto City Council approved a 2010 Operating Budget of $9.2 billion that includes a 2.9% property tax increase for residents and a 0.967% property tax increase for businesses. 2010 Budget Summary

On March 31, 2009, the Toronto City Council approved an $8.7 billion Operating Budget. The 2009 Capital Budget is part of the $25.9 billion 10-year capital plan, previously approved in 

December 2008. In 2009, the City Council also approved a property tax increase of four percent for residential properties and a 1.33 percent property tax levy increase for multi-residential and commercial properties. 2009 Budget Summary

On March 31, 2008, Toronto City Council approved an $8.2 billion Operating Budget. The 2008 Capital Budget of $1.610 billion was previously approved on December 10, 2007, as part of an $8.355 billion five-year capital plan (2008-2012). In 2008, the City Council also approved a property tax increase of 3.75 percent for single-family residential properties and a 1.5 percent increase for multi-residential and commercial properties. 2008 Budget Summary

On April 23, 2007, the Toronto City Council approved a $7.8 billion Operating Budget and a $1.432 billion tax-supported Capital Budget. In 2007, the City Council also approved a property tax increase of 3.8% for residential properties and 1.26% for non-residential properties. City Budget 2007 Homepage

City Council in 2006 approved a $7.6 billion operating and $1.25 billion tax-supported capital budget for a 3.0% residential property tax increase and a 1.0% non-residential tax increase was also approved. City Budget 2006 Homepage

On March 1st, 2005, Toronto City Council approved a $7.1 billion Operating Budget and $1.0 billion Capital Budget. In 2005, City Council also approved a 3% property tax increase for residential properties and a 1.5% increase for non-residential properties. City Budget 2005 Homepage

City Council in 2004 approved a $6.6 billion operating and $908 million tax-supported capital budget that contains a 3% tax increase for residential and a 1.5% increase for non-residential properties. City Budget 2004 Homepage

City Council in 2003 approved a $6.4 billion operating budget and a net tax levy of $2.85 billion. The result was a property tax increase of 3% for residential homeowners and no increase for non-residential properties. Council also approved a $965 million capital budget that for the most part maintains the City's assets in a state of good repair. City Budget 2003 Homepage

City Council approved the 2002 City budget which included a $6.2 billion operating budget and $954 million capital budget for a total of about $7.2 billion. The operating budget represents a 1.6 percent increase over the 2001 operating budget. Toronto homeowners had a 4.3% property tax increase, or $79 per household on an average home valued at $261,000 while no increase was made to non-residential properties. City Budget 2002 Homepage

City Council in 2001 approved a $6.1 billion tax-supported operating budget and a $1.120 billion tax-supported capital budget for the year 2001 with another $1.034 billion committed as project cash flow over four years for a total capital budget of $2.154 billion. The operating budget required a tax increase of 5% for homeowners and no increase for non-residential properties. City Budget 2001 Homepage

City Council in 2000 approved a $5.9 billion operating budget that ensured a third consecutive year of a property tax freeze. The budget met all existing financial requirements to operate City services and enhanced several programs. City budget 2000 Homepage

The 1999 operating budget of $5.5 billion  The Capital Budget Program gave priority to investing in City facilities and infrastructure. City budget 1999 Homepage

City Council approved a 1998 operating budget of $5.6 billion and a capital budget of $1 billion for the newly amalgamated city. By holding operating expenditures at $5.6 billion, the City Council froze 1998 property tax rates at 1997 levels - delivering a "zero tax increase" and maintaining city services and programs at existing levels. City budget 1998 Homepage

UPDATE March 2014.

Because the Star and Royson James make statements and claims to contradict both Pennachetti and Rossinni along with the Mayor does not make them factual or true. You be the judge!

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha ll/2014/03/29/budget_confusion_lets_ford_get_away_with_1b_savings_claim_james.html