Monday, January 17, 2011

Re: **JP** beig

buhat khoub kaha ammar bhai, kash hum yeh dill se jaan lain aur es per amal b karain, 

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Qaiser Bashir <qbashir@jgroup.com.sa> wrote:

 Bookmark and Share

Daily Express

http://www.express.com.pk/images/NP_LHE/20110116/Sub_Images/1101146241-1.jpg

http://www.express.com.pk/images/NP_LHE/20110116/Sub_Images/1101146241-2.gif

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197



--
Kashif Iqbal.

Sheikhupura.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

Five Israelis indicted in Los Angeles

January 16, 2011
Israeli brothers Meir and Yitzhak Abergil and three other Israelis
were ordered held in prison without bond on Jan 14; they are charged
with crimes ranging from murder and massive embezzlement to money
laundering, racketeering and running a large L.A.-based Ecstasy ring.
Yitzhak Abergil is allegedly the crime boss of the operation.

All five were extradited July 13 from Israel, after a protracted legal
battle, to stand trial in Los Angeles federal court.
.
In addition, a federal grand jury indicted Yoram El-Al, and Luis
Sandoval. The latter was charged as a member of the San Fernando
Valley-based Vineland Boyz street gang, accused as the main
distributors of the Ecstasy ring and as enforcers for the Israeli
organizers.

After the 2008 grand jury indictment, Israeli police arrested the
Abergil brothers and their associates.

An Israeli district court found the accused "extraditable" in 2009,
the defendants appealed, but last month the Israeli Supreme Court
rejected their petition.

Israeli courts have rarely agreed to extradite their citizens to other
countries, in line with the Jewish tradition of not turning over Jews
for trial in "Christian" courts. U.S. and Israeli officials have
agreed that if found guilty, the defendants would not receive the
death penalty and would serve any sentences in Israeli prisons.

Israeli police and media have frequently described the Abergils as
bosses of one the country's most powerful crime syndicates, with
extensive overseas operations.

The Los Angeles Police Department has been concerned with Israeli
crime in the city since the 1970s, as Deputy Chief Michael Downing,
who heads the LAPD's Counter-Terrorism and Criminal Intelligence
Bureau, and Captain Greg Hall, who commands the Major Crimes Division,
told the Los Angeles Jewish Journal several months ago.

While stressing the cooperation of the established Jewish and Israeli
communities with the police, the two officers noted a gradual increase
in crimes by Israelis, mostly in such white collar felonies as money
laundering, tax evasion, real estate and financial frauds. but also in
narcotics trafficking.
"Israeli crime here tends to be quite sophisticated and hard to
track," Hall said. "We're worried about what may be going on that we
don't know about."

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

**JP** See our minister expense in US$

 

**JP** See the Sindh CM

 

Re: This so called "Political Forum" group is a pathetic group of evil Reich wing haters and liars.

hey, TN
try this forum: http://groups.google.com/group/abc_politics_forum?hl=en&lnk=

they have some real liberal trash moderators who will protect your
sorry ass

On Jan 13, 7:25 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This so called "Political Forum" group is a pathetic group of evil
> Reich wing haters and liars.
>
> It is pathetic that Keithie Keith, Dickie Dick, Markie Mark, and
> Brucie Girl continue their repeated relentless vicious personal
> attacks against me and The President of The United States in this
> hateful, vile Reich wing "Political Forum" group of cynics, liars,
> haters, and un-American GOP fools who keep parroting out tired old
> twisted pretzel glue Reich wing bumper sticker slogans like "Marxist"
> "Moonbat" "Obamacare" "Nobama" and "Zero".
>
> Are you also telling Brucie to stop calling Tommy vulgar, vile,
> venemous, childish  names which deserve my retorts, Lil Keithe Keith,
> or is Brucie allowed to use his profane, vulgar, and hate filled
> insults against me, Keithie? Why do you do the same? Why have you
> yourself gone behind my back and spread false hateful smear and lies
> about me?
>
> Keith, you should really change the name of this group from "Political
> Forum" to "Right Wing Nut Pundits"! You are worse than Glenn Dreck and
> Rush Fatblob combined.
>
> You should be deeply ashamed of yourselves, all of you.
>
> --
> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> Have a great day,
> Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

**JP** Advertisement for Driver

 
----- Original Message -----

Respected Sir/Madam,
 
Kindly circulate the job advertisement for driver on the group.
 
Kind Regards,


Kiran Imran

Project Manager
Global Peace Pioneers - GPP
H.No 351, St 15, G-10/2
Ph No. 051-2290086
www.globalpeace.net.pk

Georgia Policy Change Allows Guns In Cars On School Property

Georgia Policy Change Allows Guns In Cars On School Property
http://savannahnow.com/news/2011-01-13/policy-change-allows-guns-cars-school-property

--
How Do You Know What You Know? - This is my life. I make the rules.

"It is incredible how as soon as a people becomes subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and so willingly that one is led to say, on beholding such a situation, that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement."
- Étienne de la Boétie


Far too many good people rely on stupid ideas offered by amateurs who send out emails or hold weekend seminars! Jurisdictionary was created by a lawyer with a quarter-century of experience winning lawsuits by controlling judges and lawyers!

I Refuse To Comply With The Unconstitutional Demands Of The Federal Government
Read the US Constitution

What Of The Crimes, Massacres Prevented?

What Of The Crimes, Massacres Prevented?
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/what-of-the-crimes-massacres-prevented-113838619.html

--
How Do You Know What You Know? - This is my life. I make the rules.

"It is incredible how as soon as a people becomes subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and so willingly that one is led to say, on beholding such a situation, that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement."
- Étienne de la Boétie


Far too many good people rely on stupid ideas offered by amateurs who send out emails or hold weekend seminars! Jurisdictionary was created by a lawyer with a quarter-century of experience winning lawsuits by controlling judges and lawyers!

I Refuse To Comply With The Unconstitutional Demands Of The Federal Government
Read the US Constitution

Government Spying on Americans - Say It's Not True

Government Spying on Americans
http://counterpunch.org/richman01142011.html

--
How Do You Know What You Know? - This is my life. I make the rules.

"It is incredible how as soon as a people becomes subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and so willingly that one is led to say, on beholding such a situation, that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement."
- Étienne de la Boétie


Far too many good people rely on stupid ideas offered by amateurs who send out emails or hold weekend seminars! Jurisdictionary was created by a lawyer with a quarter-century of experience winning lawsuits by controlling judges and lawyers!

I Refuse To Comply With The Unconstitutional Demands Of The Federal Government
Read the US Constitution

What America Really Needs Is More "Good People" With Guns!

What America Really Needs Is More "Good People" With Guns!
http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=5416

--
How Do You Know What You Know? - This is my life. I make the rules.

"It is incredible how as soon as a people becomes subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and so willingly that one is led to say, on beholding such a situation, that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement."
- Étienne de la Boétie


Far too many good people rely on stupid ideas offered by amateurs who send out emails or hold weekend seminars! Jurisdictionary was created by a lawyer with a quarter-century of experience winning lawsuits by controlling judges and lawyers!

I Refuse To Comply With The Unconstitutional Demands Of The Federal Government
Read the US Constitution

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation
http://spktruth2power.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/twenty-five-ways-to-suppress-truth-the-rules-of-disinformation/

--
How Do You Know What You Know? - This is my life. I make the rules.

"It is incredible how as soon as a people becomes subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and so willingly that one is led to say, on beholding such a situation, that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement."
- Étienne de la Boétie


Far too many good people rely on stupid ideas offered by amateurs who send out emails or hold weekend seminars! Jurisdictionary was created by a lawyer with a quarter-century of experience winning lawsuits by controlling judges and lawyers!

I Refuse To Comply With The Unconstitutional Demands Of The Federal Government
Read the US Constitution

Re: Myths of Martin Luther King

Martin Luther King, Jr., was originally named Michael King, Jr. No
name change was legally made.
But really, who cares what his name was?


On Jan 17, 9:02 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Myths of Martin Luther Kingby Marcus Epstein
> January 18, 2003
> There is probably no greater sacred cow in America than Martin Luther King Jr. The slightest criticism of him or even suggesting that he isn't deserving of a national holiday leads to the usual accusations of racist, fascism, and the rest of the usual left-wing epithets not only from liberals, but also from many ostensible conservatives and libertarians.
> This is amazing because during the 50s and 60s, the Right almost unanimously opposed the civil rights movement. Contrary to the claims of many neocons, the opposition was not limited to theJohn Birch Societyand southern conservatives. It was made by politicians like Ronald Reagan andBarry Goldwater, and in the pages ofModern Age, Human Events,National Review, andtheFreeman.
> Today, the official conservative and libertarian movement portrays King as someone on our side who would be fighting Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton if he were alive. Most all conservative publications and websites have articles around this time of the year praising King and discussing how today's civil rights leaders are betraying his legacy. Jim Powell's otherwise excellentThe Triumph of Libertyrates King next to Ludwig von Mises and Albert J. Nock as a libertarian hero. Attend any IHS seminar, and you'll read "A letter from a Birmingham Jail" as a great piece of anti-statist wisdom. The Heritage Foundation regularly has lectures and symposiums honoring his legacy. There are nearly a half dozen neocon and left-libertarian think tanks and legal foundations with names such as "The Center for Equal Opportunity" and the "American Civil Rights Institute" which claim to model themselves after King.
> Why is a man once reviled by the Right now celebrated by it as a hero? The answer partly lies in the fact that the mainstream Right has gradually moved to the left since King's death. The influx of many neoconservative intellectuals, many of whom were involved in the civil rights movement, into the conservative movement also contributes to the King phenomenon. This does not fully explain the picture, because on many issues King was far to the left of even the neoconservatives, and many King admirers even claim to adhere to principles like freedom of association and federalism. The main reason is that they have created a mythical Martin Luther King Jr., that they constructed solely from one line in his "I Have a Dream" speech.
> In this article, I will try to dispel the major myths that the conservative movement has about King. I found a good deal of the information for this piece inI May Not Get There With You: The True Martin Luther Kingby black leftist Michael Eric Dyson. Dyson shows that King supported black power, reparations, affirmative action, and socialism. He believes this made King even more admirable. He also deals frankly with King's philandering and plagiarism, though he excuses them. If you don't mind reading his long discussions about gangsta rap and the like, I strongly recommend this book.Myth #1: King wanted only equal rights, not special privileges and would have opposed affirmative action, quotas, reparations, and the other policies pursued by today's civil rights leadership.This is probably the most repeated myth about King. Writing on National Review Online, There Heritage Foundation's Matthew Spalding wrote a piece entitled"Martin Luther King's Conservative Mind,"where he wrote, "An agenda that advocates quotas, counting by race and set-asides takes us away from King's vision."
> The problem with this view is that King openly advocated quotas and racial set-asides. He wrote that the "Negro today is not struggling for some abstract, vague rights, but for concrete improvement in his way of life." When equal opportunity laws failed to achieve this, King looked for other ways. In his bookWhere Do We Go From Here, he suggested that "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis." To do this he expressed support for quotas. In a 1968 Playboy interview, he said, "If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas." King was more than just talk in this regard. Working through his Operation Breadbasket, King threatened boycotts of businesses that did not hire blacks in proportion to their population.
> King was even an early proponent of reparations. In his 1964 book,Why We Can't Wait, he wrote,No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries…Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of a the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law.Predicting that critics would note that many whites were equally disadvantaged, King claimed that his program, which he called the "Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged" would help poor whites as well. This is because once the blacks received reparations, the poor whites would realize that their real enemy was rich whites.Myth # 2: King was an American patriot, who tried to get Americans to live up to their founding ideals.InNational Review, Roger Cleggwrotethat "There may have been a brief moment when there existed something of a national consensus – a shared vision eloquently articulated in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, with deep roots in the American Creed, distilled in our national motto,E pluribus unum. Most Americans still share it, but by no means all." Many other conservatives have embraced this idea of an American Creed that built upon Jefferson and Lincoln, and was then fulfilled by King and libertarians like Clint Bolick and neocons like Bill Bennett.
> Despite his constant invocations of the Declaration of Independence, King did not have much pride in America's founding. He believed "our nation was born in genocide," and claimed that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were meaningless for blacks because they were written by slave owners.Myth # 3: King was a Christian activist whose struggle for civil rights is similar to the battles fought by the Christian Right today.Ralph Reed claims that King's "indispensable genius" provided "the vision and leadership that renewed and made crystal clear the vital connection between religion and politics." He proudly admitted that the Christian Coalition "adopted many elements of King's style and tactics." The pro-life group, Operation Rescue, often compared their struggle against abortion to King's struggle against segregation. In a speech entitledThe Conservative Virtues of Dr. Martin Luther King, Bill BennetdescribedKing, as "not primarily a social activist, he was primarily a minister of the Christian faith, whose faith informed and directed his political beliefs."
> Both King's public stands and personal behavior makes the comparison between King and the Religious Right questionable.
> FBI surveillance showed that King had dozens of extramarital affairs. Although many of the pertinent records are sealed, several agents who watched observed him engage in many questionable acts including buying prostitutes with SCLC money. Ralph Abernathy, who King called "the best friend I have in the world," substantiated many of these charges in his autobiography,And the Walls Came Tumbling Down. It is true that a man's private life is mostly his business. However, most conservatives vehemently condemned Jesse Jackson when news of his illegitimate son came out, and claimed he was unfit to be a minister.
> King also took stands that most in the Christian Right would disagree with. When asked about the Supreme Court's decision to ban school prayer, King responded,I endorse it. I think it was correct. Contrary to what many have said, it sought to outlaw neither prayer nor belief in god. In a pluralistic society such as ours, who is to determine what prayer shall be spoken and by whom? Legally, constitutionally or otherwise, the state certainly has no such right.While King died before the Roe vs. Wade decision, and, to the best of my knowledge, made no comments on abortion, he was an ardent supporter of Planned Parenthood. He even won their Margaret Sanger Award in 1966 and had his wife give a speech entitledFamily Planning – A Special and Urgent Concernwhich he wrote. In the speech, he did not compare the civil rights movement to the struggle of Christian Conservatives, but he did say "there is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts."Myth # 4: King was an anti-communist.In another article about Martin Luther King, Roger Clegg ofNational ReviewapplaudsKing for speaking out against the "oppression of communism!" To gain the support of many liberal whites, in the early years, King did make a few mild denunciations of communism. He also claimed in a 1965Playboythat there "are as many Communists in this freedom movement as there are Eskimos in Florida." This was a bald-faced lie. Though King was never a Communist and was always critical of the Soviet Union, he had knowinglysurroundedhimself with Communists. His closest advisor Stanley Levison was a Communist, as was his assistant Jack O'Dell. Robert and later John F. Kennedy repeatedly warned him to stop associating himself with such subversives, but he never did. He frequently spoke before Communist front groups such as the National Lawyers Guild and Lawyers for Democratic Action. King even attended seminars at The Highlander Folk School, another Communist front, which taught Communist tactics, which he later employed.
> King's sympathy for communism may have contributed to his opposition to the Vietnam War, which he characterized as a racist, imperialistic, and unjust war. King claimed that America "had committed more war crimes than any nation in the world." While he acknowledged the NLF "may not be paragons of virtue," he never criticized them. However, he was rather harsh on Diem and the South. He denied that the NLF was communist, and believed that Ho Chi Minh should have been the legitimate ruler of Vietnam. As a committed globalist, he believed that "our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation. This means we must develop a world perspective."
> Many of King's conservative admirers have no problem calling anyone who questions American foreign policy a "fifth columnist." While I personally agree with King on some of his stands on Vietnam, it is hypocritical for those who are still trying to get Jane Fonda tried for sedition to applaud King.Myth # 5: King supported the free market.OK, you don't hear this too often, but it happens. For example, Father Robert A. Sirico delivered a paper to the Acton Institute entitledCivil Rights and Social Cooperation. In it, he wrote,A freer economy would take us closer to the ideals of the pioneers in this country's civil rights movement. Martin Luther King, Jr. recognized this when he wrote: "With the growth of industry the folkways of white supremacy will gradually pass away," and he predicted that such growth would "Increase the purchasing power of the Negro [which in turn] will result in improved medical care, greater educational opportunities, and more adequate housing. Each of these developments will result in a further weakening of segregation."King of course was a great opponent of the free economy. In a speech in front of his staff in 1966 hesaid,You can't talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can't talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You're really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry… Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong…with capitalism… There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a Democratic Socialism.King called for "totally restructuring the system" in a way that was not capitalist or "the antithesis of communist." For more information on King's economic views, see Lew Rockwell'sThe Economics of Martin Luther King, Jr.Myth # 6: King was a conservative.As all the previous myths show, King's views were hardly conservative. If this was not enough, it is worth noting what King said about the two most prominent postwar American conservative politicians, Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.
> King accused Barry Goldwater of "Hitlerism." Hebelievedthat Goldwater advocated a "narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude." On domestic issues he felt that "Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century." King said that Goldwater's positions on civil rights were "morally indefensible and socially suicidal."
> King said of Reagan, "When a Hollywood performer, lacking distinction even as an actor, can become a leading war hawk candidate for the presidency, only the irrationalities induced by war psychosis can explain such a turn of events."
> Despite King's harsh criticisms of those men, both supported the King holiday. Goldwater even fought to keep King's FBI files, which contained information about his adulterous sex life and Communist connections, sealed.Myth # 7: King wasn't a plagiarist.OK, even most of the neocons won't deny this, but it is still worth bringing up, because they all ignore it. King started plagiarizing as an undergraduate. When Boston University founded a commission to look into it, they found that that 45 percent of the first part and 21 percent of the second part of his dissertation was stolen, but they insisted that "no thought should be given to revocation of Dr. King's doctoral degree." In addition to his dissertation many of his major speeches, such as "I Have a Dream," were plagiarized, as were many of his books and writings. For more information on King's plagiarism,The Martin Luther King Plagiarism Pageand Theodore Pappas'Plagiarism and the Culture Warare excellent resources.
> When faced with these facts, most of King's conservative and libertarian fans either say they weren't part of his main philosophy, or usually they simply ignore them. Slightly before the King Holiday was signed into law, Governor Meldrim Thompson of New Hampshire wrote a letter to Ronald Reagan expressing concerns about King's morality and Communist connections. Ronald Reagan responded, "I have the reservations you have, but here the perception of too many people is based on an image, not reality. Indeed, to them the perceptionisreality."
> Far too many on the Right are worshipping that perception. Rather than face the truth about King's views, they create a man based upon a few lines about judging men "by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin" – something we are not supposed to do in his case, of course – while ignoring everything else he said and did. If King is truly an admirable figure, they are doing his legacy a disservice by using his name to promote an agenda he clearly would not have supported.http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: WikiLeaks and the U.S.-Supported Dictatorship in Tunisia

In fact, didn't the U.S. government invade Iraq to spread democracy,
well, at least after those infamous WMDs failed to materialize?"

No, and they more than materialized. Ask Bill Clinton.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: What’s Going on in Tunisia?

Are we proposing "regime change"?

On Jan 17, 11:44 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> What's Going on in Tunisia?A revolution in progressbyJustin Raimondo, January 17, 2011
> The dethronement of Tunisian strongmanBen Ali, and hisflight to Saudi Arabia, has our mediaconjuringvisionsof a powerful upsurge of "democratic" populism in what was previously thought of as a minor backwater, famous for its beaches and little else. A friend of the West, Ben Ali was the spitting image of his predecessor,Habib Bourguiba, whom he overthrew in a bloodless coup. Always tempered by the moderate tone ofTunisian politics, which stresses continuity and stability over revolutionary change, Bourguiba and his Destourian (pro-independence) party took decades to negotiate a peaceful transition from French protectorate to full independence in 1956.
> For the next thirty years, Bourguiba managed to tamp down popular discontent in all its forms, from the leftist trade unions to the Islamist militants – the latter a very small minority with limited influence. This was done not so much by outright repression, as in other one-party states during the rise of Third World nationalism in the 1960s, but through cooptation – and the strategic gyrations of Bourguiba, a skillful manipulator of competing interests who never let one faction get the upper hand for very long.
> As he got into his late seventies, however, the Tunisian strongman who had successfully steered his country toward independence without an armed struggle – as in neighboringAlgeria– went downhill physically and mentally, and his policies became increasingly erratic. Things reached the point where his incapacity was obvious even to his most devoted supporters, and so onNovember 7, 1987, Ben Ali and his supporters invoked an article of the Tunisian constitution which provides for the transfer of power in case of the president's incapacity.
> In hismessage to the nationannouncing the succession of power, Ben Ali was careful to pay tribute to his predecessor, who still enjoyed tremendous prestige as the veritable father of the nation. In accordance with the Tunisian temperament, which values moderation and continuity, he stressed his intent to build on the foundations laid down by the previous regime. In spite of the renaming of the Destourian party, which was now the Destourian Socialist Party, the new ruler was determined to keep the country open to Western development and maintain its official nonaligned stance.
> The great problem for the regime, however, was its self-insulating and self-perpetuating statism, which encouraged – indeed, made inevitable – the development of a particularly brazen form of crony capitalism, with the economy in the hands of the state – and the state in the firm grasp of Ben Ali's immediate and extended family. As a WikiLeaked USdiplomatic cableput it:"Whether it's cash, services, land, property, or yes, even your yacht, President Ben Ali's family is rumored to covet it and reportedly gets what it wants. Beyond the stories of the First Family's shady dealings, Tunisians report encountering low-level corruption as well in interactions with the police, customs, and a variety of government ministries. The economic impact is clear, with Tunisian investors – fearing the long-arm of "the Family" – forgoing new investments, keeping domestic investment rates low and unemployment high. These persistent rumors of corruption, coupled with rising inflation and continued unemployment, have helped to fuel frustration with the GOT and have contributed to recent protests in southwestern Tunisia (Ref A). With those at the top believed to be the worst offenders, and likely to remain in power, there are no checks in the system."But of course there is always the ultimate check on the system – revolution in the streets. Which is precisely what happened when a young man by the name ofMohamed Bouazizi, a graduate student forced by poverty to sell fruits and vegetables in the market, set himself on fire in protest at having been denied a permit. Apparently he had declined, or could not afford, to pay off the appropriate party-state officials. His desperate actsparked a series of demonstrationswhich soon spread beyond his small town in the southwestern countryside, and in a matter of a few weeks Ben Ali was on a plane and out of power.
> Tunisia had a brief fling with economic liberalization in Bourguiba's day, but this was firmly opposed by both Party militants and Islamists, who feared the social consequences of economic liberty (albeit for different reasons). The liberalizing era was soon halted, however, when Bourguiba saw the opposition it was engendering from his most devoted followers, and when Ben Ali took power there was no similar "liberal" phase. By this time the Destourian apparatus had become completely distanced from the people, with party and state effectively merged and all power vested in the person and family of the President. Elections were held periodically, but there was no effective competition, and besides the whole process was rigged.
> As we go to "press," as they used to say, the Tunisian revolution is far from over. A wing of the ruling party has managed, so far, to retain control, and there is some fighting still going on between Ben Ali loyalists and the New Gang in Charge, but the differences between these two factions is marginal, at best, as underscored bythis report:"A state of emergency has now been declared in Tunisia that bans demonstrations and imposes a strict dusk-to-dawn curfew, with orders given to security forces to shoot anyone disobeying orders or fleeing. "Meet the new boss – same as the old boss.
> The "Jasmine Revolution" is being held up as a hopeful harbinger of things to come in the Arab world: for the first time, we are being told, a sclerotic despotism is being challenged and successfully overthrown by a populist uprising. This is simplistic, to say the least.
> To begin with, the folks in charge are hardly revolutionaries, but partisans of the old Tunisian establishment – the party of Bourguiba and Ben Ali. Secondly, the Tunisian temperament is not conducive to revolutionary upsurges in the sense that we understand the concept: Tunisians are no more likely to start their own version of the French Revolution than they are likely to convert en masse to Buddhism. It simply goes against the cultural grain.
> Yet there are certain economic imperatives – such as a street vendor's need to make a living – that militate against a return to the old normalcy. With the world economy undergoing a radical contraction, and countries such as Tunisiaentirely dependenton foreign trade and aid, demands for economic liberalization are bound to rise – and surely crony corporatism of the Tunisian or any other variety is going to face increasingly militant challenges.
> What this portends for US foreign policy is not all that clear at the moment, but one thing is certain: the US is bound to see this turmoil as a wedge to be used by radical Islamists. This is why we pourbillionsinto regimes such as Ben Ali's – with Egypt'sHosni Mubaraka very similar case. It's too late to disavow our support for these tyrants: the history of their collaboration with Washington istoo extensiveto be denied. As the economic screws tighten worldwide, and these rigid, reflexively repressive regimes come apart at the seams, the US will be caught between the need to be "pragmatic" (i.e. preserve stability at all costs) and itsrhetorical stanceas the standard-bearer of "democracy" and liberalism internationally.
> What to do? The only course is to stand aside and let the process work itself out. Intervention at any level is bound to boomerang and have the opposite effect from the one intended. Tunisian nationalism, the overriding ideological force in the nation's politics and traditions, has a very weak adversary in the Islamist parties, which are all in exile and wieldminimal if anyinfluence in the current upsurge. However, that could change if the US hand becomes too apparent: that is, if Washington creates a problem where none presently exists.
> The ruling party will no doubt try to secure its tenacious grip on power, and yet that power is being challenged by a secular populist movement. If, if the interests of promoting "stability," the US gets too close to Ben Ali's successors, then this will give the Islamists the opening they have been waiting for. I see that our Secretary of State has already made a statement welcoming the prospect of "democratic reform" in Tunisia and calling for calm: if only our public officials did not feel the need to comment on happenings in every country on earth, no matter how far removed from our shores – if only, in short, they would button their lips, for a change, our national interests would be very well served. The best policy, at the moment, is to sit back and watch as the Tunisians take care of business in their own way, and for their own reasons.
> Lots of Westerners fell for the "'Tunisian success story" narrative, which Christopher Hitchens limned pretty well in a 2007articleforVanity Fair:"Who wouldn't want the alternative of an African Titoism, or perhaps an African Gaullism, where presidential rule keeps a guiding but not tyrannical hand?A country where people discuss micro-credits for small business instead of "macro" schemes such as holy war? Mr. Ben Ali does not make lengthy speeches on TV every night, or appear in gorgeously barbaric uniforms, or live in a different palace for every day of the week. Tunisia has no grandiose armed forces, the curse of the rest of the continent, feeding parasitically off the national income and rewarding their own restlessness with the occasional coup.
> "And the country is lucky in other ways as well. … It has been spared the awful toxicity of ethnic and religious rivalry, which makes it very unusual in Africa. Its international airport is named Tunis-Carthage, evoking African roots without Afrocentric demagogy."For Hitchens, it is enough that the country is not afflicted with what he regards as the curse of religiosity, and he goes on to detail the views of a female professor of theology attached to a Tunis mosque and university who denies the veil is mandated by the Koran. Hitchens characterizes the Ben Ali regime's attempts to police the internet as "crude and old-fashioned" – not repressive. His main concern is that Islamist radicals who are not "welcome" in Tunisia are given somewhat freer rein in England, from which they broadcast their message, and he ends his piece with this warning:"An enclave of development, Tunisia is menaced by the harsh extremists of a desert religion, and ultimately by the desert itself. As with everything else in Africa, this is not a contest we can view with indifference."The Bourguibas and Ben Alis who created this "enclave of development" sowed the seeds of their own destruction, and yet as long as no one was rocking the boat Hitchens and his fellow interventionists were willing to tolerate their "old fashioned" tyranny. The problem with this kind of ideological one-dimensionality is that it doesn't take into account the Mohamed Bouazizis of this world, who yearn to be free.http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/01/16/whats-going-on-in-tunisia/

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

**JP** Ghost City in France


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

What’s Going on in Tunisia?


What's Going on in Tunisia?
A revolution in progress
by Justin Raimondo, January 17, 2011

The dethronement of Tunisian strongman Ben Ali, and his flight to Saudi Arabia, has our media conjuring visions of a powerful upsurge of "democratic" populism in what was previously thought of as a minor backwater, famous for its beaches and little else. A friend of the West, Ben Ali was the spitting image of his predecessor, Habib Bourguiba, whom he overthrew in a bloodless coup. Always tempered by the moderate tone of Tunisian politics, which stresses continuity and stability over revolutionary change, Bourguiba and his Destourian (pro-independence) party took decades to negotiate a peaceful transition from French protectorate to full independence in 1956.

For the next thirty years, Bourguiba managed to tamp down popular discontent in all its forms, from the leftist trade unions to the Islamist militants – the latter a very small minority with limited influence. This was done not so much by outright repression, as in other one-party states during the rise of Third World nationalism in the 1960s, but through cooptation – and the strategic gyrations of Bourguiba, a skillful manipulator of competing interests who never let one faction get the upper hand for very long.

As he got into his late seventies, however, the Tunisian strongman who had successfully steered his country toward independence without an armed struggle – as in neighboring Algeria – went downhill physically and mentally, and his policies became increasingly erratic. Things reached the point where his incapacity was obvious even to his most devoted supporters, and so on November 7, 1987, Ben Ali and his supporters invoked an article of the Tunisian constitution which provides for the transfer of power in case of the president's incapacity.

In his message to the nation announcing the succession of power, Ben Ali was careful to pay tribute to his predecessor, who still enjoyed tremendous prestige as the veritable father of the nation. In accordance with the Tunisian temperament, which values moderation and continuity, he stressed his intent to build on the foundations laid down by the previous regime. In spite of the renaming of the Destourian party, which was now the Destourian Socialist Party, the new ruler was determined to keep the country open to Western development and maintain its official nonaligned stance.

The great problem for the regime, however, was its self-insulating and self-perpetuating statism, which encouraged – indeed, made inevitable – the development of a particularly brazen form of crony capitalism, with the economy in the hands of the state – and the state in the firm grasp of Ben Ali's immediate and extended family. As a WikiLeaked US diplomatic cable put it:

"Whether it's cash, services, land, property, or yes, even your yacht, President Ben Ali's family is rumored to covet it and reportedly gets what it wants. Beyond the stories of the First Family's shady dealings, Tunisians report encountering low-level corruption as well in interactions with the police, customs, and a variety of government ministries. The economic impact is clear, with Tunisian investors – fearing the long-arm of "the Family" – forgoing new investments, keeping domestic investment rates low and unemployment high. These persistent rumors of corruption, coupled with rising inflation and continued unemployment, have helped to fuel frustration with the GOT and have contributed to recent protests in southwestern Tunisia (Ref A). With those at the top believed to be the worst offenders, and likely to remain in power, there are no checks in the system."

But of course there is always the ultimate check on the system – revolution in the streets. Which is precisely what happened when a young man by the name of Mohamed Bouazizi, a graduate student forced by poverty to sell fruits and vegetables in the market, set himself on fire in protest at having been denied a permit. Apparently he had declined, or could not afford, to pay off the appropriate party-state officials. His desperate act sparked a series of demonstrations which soon spread beyond his small town in the southwestern countryside, and in a matter of a few weeks Ben Ali was on a plane and out of power.

Tunisia had a brief fling with economic liberalization in Bourguiba's day, but this was firmly opposed by both Party militants and Islamists, who feared the social consequences of economic liberty (albeit for different reasons). The liberalizing era was soon halted, however, when Bourguiba saw the opposition it was engendering from his most devoted followers, and when Ben Ali took power there was no similar "liberal" phase. By this time the Destourian apparatus had become completely distanced from the people, with party and state effectively merged and all power vested in the person and family of the President. Elections were held periodically, but there was no effective competition, and besides the whole process was rigged.

As we go to "press," as they used to say, the Tunisian revolution is far from over. A wing of the ruling party has managed, so far, to retain control, and there is some fighting still going on between Ben Ali loyalists and the New Gang in Charge, but the differences between these two factions is marginal, at best, as underscored by this report:

"A state of emergency has now been declared in Tunisia that bans demonstrations and imposes a strict dusk-to-dawn curfew, with orders given to security forces to shoot anyone disobeying orders or fleeing. "

Meet the new boss – same as the old boss.

The " Jasmine Revolution" is being held up as a hopeful harbinger of things to come in the Arab world: for the first time, we are being told, a sclerotic despotism is being challenged and successfully overthrown by a populist uprising. This is simplistic, to say the least.

To begin with, the folks in charge are hardly revolutionaries, but partisans of the old Tunisian establishment – the party of Bourguiba and Ben Ali. Secondly, the Tunisian temperament is not conducive to revolutionary upsurges in the sense that we understand the concept: Tunisians are no more likely to start their own version of the French Revolution than they are likely to convert en masse to Buddhism. It simply goes against the cultural grain.

Yet there are certain economic imperatives – such as a street vendor's need to make a living – that militate against a return to the old normalcy. With the world economy undergoing a radical contraction, and countries such as Tunisia entirely dependent on foreign trade and aid, demands for economic liberalization are bound to rise – and surely crony corporatism of the Tunisian or any other variety is going to face increasingly militant challenges.

What this portends for US foreign policy is not all that clear at the moment, but one thing is certain: the US is bound to see this turmoil as a wedge to be used by radical Islamists. This is why we pour billions into regimes such as Ben Ali's – with Egypt's Hosni Mubarak a very similar case. It's too late to disavow our support for these tyrants: the history of their collaboration with Washington is too extensive to be denied. As the economic screws tighten worldwide, and these rigid, reflexively repressive regimes come apart at the seams, the US will be caught between the need to be "pragmatic" (i.e. preserve stability at all costs) and its rhetorical stance as the standard-bearer of "democracy" and liberalism internationally.

What to do? The only course is to stand aside and let the process work itself out. Intervention at any level is bound to boomerang and have the opposite effect from the one intended. Tunisian nationalism, the overriding ideological force in the nation's politics and traditions, has a very weak adversary in the Islamist parties, which are all in exile and wield minimal if any influence in the current upsurge. However, that could change if the US hand becomes too apparent: that is, if Washington creates a problem where none presently exists.

The ruling party will no doubt try to secure its tenacious grip on power, and yet that power is being challenged by a secular populist movement. If, if the interests of promoting "stability," the US gets too close to Ben Ali's successors, then this will give the Islamists the opening they have been waiting for. I see that our Secretary of State has already made a statement welcoming the prospect of " democratic reform" in Tunisia and calling for calm: if only our public officials did not feel the need to comment on happenings in every country on earth, no matter how far removed from our shores – if only, in short, they would button their lips, for a change, our national interests would be very well served. The best policy, at the moment, is to sit back and watch as the Tunisians take care of business in their own way, and for their own reasons.

Lots of Westerners fell for the "'Tunisian success story" narrative, which Christopher Hitchens limned pretty well in a 2007 article for Vanity Fair:

"Who wouldn't want the alternative of an African Titoism, or perhaps an African Gaullism, where presidential rule keeps a guiding but not tyrannical hand? A country where people discuss micro-credits for small business instead of "macro" schemes such as holy war? Mr. Ben Ali does not make lengthy speeches on TV every night, or appear in gorgeously barbaric uniforms, or live in a different palace for every day of the week. Tunisia has no grandiose armed forces, the curse of the rest of the continent, feeding parasitically off the national income and rewarding their own restlessness with the occasional coup.

"And the country is lucky in other ways as well. … It has been spared the awful toxicity of ethnic and religious rivalry, which makes it very unusual in Africa. Its international airport is named Tunis-Carthage, evoking African roots without Afrocentric demagogy."

For Hitchens, it is enough that the country is not afflicted with what he regards as the curse of religiosity, and he goes on to detail the views of a female professor of theology attached to a Tunis mosque and university who denies the veil is mandated by the Koran. Hitchens characterizes the Ben Ali regime's attempts to police the internet as "crude and old-fashioned" – not repressive. His main concern is that Islamist radicals who are not "welcome" in Tunisia are given somewhat freer rein in England, from which they broadcast their message, and he ends his piece with this warning:

"An enclave of development, Tunisia is menaced by the harsh extremists of a desert religion, and ultimately by the desert itself. As with everything else in Africa, this is not a contest we can view with indifference."

The Bourguibas and Ben Alis who created this "enclave of development" sowed the seeds of their own destruction, and yet as long as no one was rocking the boat Hitchens and his fellow interventionists were willing to tolerate their "old fashioned" tyranny. The problem with this kind of ideological one-dimensionality is that it doesn't take into account the Mohamed Bouazizis of this world, who yearn to be free.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/01/16/whats-going-on-in-tunisia/

WikiLeaks and the U.S.-Supported Dictatorship in Tunisia

Monday, January 17, 2010
WikiLeaks and the U.S.-Supported Dictatorship in Tunisia
by Jacob G. Hornberger

What has happened in Tunisia provides a perfect encapsulation of U.S. foreign policy and why U.S. officials are so angry over the WikiLeaks leaks.

According to the New York Times, some of the WikiLeaks cables "make it clear just how much United States officials, preoccupied with the threat of terrorism in many other Muslim countries, valued Mr. Ben Ali's cooperation and ability to maintain order."

And who was Mr. Ben Ali? He was the dictator who the people of Tunisia have just ousted from power in a revolution. Yes, a dictator, one who had been in power for 23 years.

"Impossible!" American statists say. "It's just not possible that the U.S. government would ever be supporting a dictator! In my public schools, we were taught ­ it was ingrained in us ­ that the U.S. government is exceptional. It only favors democracy. In fact, didn't the U.S. government invade Iraq to spread democracy, well, at least after those infamous WMDs failed to materialize?"

That's the myth, one that we here at The Future of Freedom Foundation have been piercing for 21 years. It's one of the myths that is inculcated in American schoolchildren from the time they're six years and continuing regularly thereafter.

The truth is that the U.S. government loves dictatorships, especially military ones, at least when the dictator is considered a loyal member of the U.S. Empire. Whenever a dictator goes independent, he immediately becomes a target for regime change, one in which the recalcitrant dictator is replaced with a compliant dictator, one that maintains "order and stability" within his country, even if that means employing terror and torture to accomplish it.

Look at Saddam Hussein. He was a dictator. The U.S. government loved him and partnered with him to kill Iranians. But when Saddam went independent, he became the target of regime change.

Look at the Iranian prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. He was democratically elected and was independent of U.S. control. The CIA targeted him for regime change, and the operation was successful. He was replaced with the unelected dictator the Shah of Iran, who maintained "order and stability" with terror and torture against his own people. He was loved by the U.S. government because he was a loyal member of the U.S. Empire. That was when Iran was considered "our friend."

Look at Jacobo Arbenz. He was the democratically elected president of Guatemala. Even though he was adopting the socialist policies of Franklin Roosevelt, he was independent of U.S. government control. The CIA targeted him for regime change. He was ousted and replaced by a string of military generals whom the U.S. Empire loved because they provided "order and stability." Never mind that Guatemala was thrown into a civil war that ended up killing hundreds of thousands of people.

Look at Chilean military strongman Gen. Augusto Pinochet. The U.S. Empire loved him and embraced his military coup against the democratically elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende, and supported Pinochet's campaign of terror and torture against his own people. In fact, the CIA even participated in the murder of a young American journalist during the coup.

Look at Pervez Musharraf, the unelected military dictator of Pakistan. The U.S. Empire loved him because, again, he provided "order and stability." Never mind that he also terrorized and tyrannized his own people, until they ousted him from power.

So, what does WikiLeaks have to do with what's happening in Tunisia? Well, it turns out that the WikiLeaks leaks disclosed secret cables by U.S. officials detailing the massive corruption of the Tunisian regime that the U.S. Empire was partnering with as part of its grandiose war on terrorism. According to the cables, the corruption included a "'lavish' dinner of the American ambassador, Robert F. Godec, with Mr. Ben Ali's son-in-law, Mohamed Sakher el-Materi, in his beachfront home in Hamamet. There was 'staff everywhere' and 'ancient artifacts everywhere: Roman columns, frescoes and even a lion's head from which water pours into the pool.'"

Apparently the information provided in the WikiLeaks leaks was the straw that broke the camel's back. Upon reading the Wikileaks cables, the people of Tunisia revolted against the U.S.-supported dictatorship, and Mr. Ben Ali fled the country.

What does the U.S. government say about the ouster of its war-on-terrorism friend and ally, the 23-year dictator Mr. Ben Ali? Oh, it's playing the game. Empire officials are celebrating his ouster, changing their chameleon colors to "pro-democracy," thereby maintaining the myth that is inculcated in the American people from the time they're six years old. Ostensibly supporting the pro-democracy crowd that succeeded in ousting his buddy from power, President Obama said, "I applaud the courage and dignity of the Tunisian people."

One thing's for sure though: Obama isn't praising the courage and dignity of Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and WikiLeaks, whose leaks triggered the ouster of the U.S.-supported Tunisian dictator Mr. Ben Ali. Obama is still going after them with the same vengeance that his friend and ally Mr. Ben Ali employed against the Tunisian people during 23 years of brutal dictatorship.

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-01-17.asp

**JP** Japan’s Frozen Aquarium

Japan's Frozen Aquarium
Please wait images are loading .....
   
As a way of battling the summer heatwave that hit Japan this year, authorities have inaugurated a frozen aquarium that will keep visitors cool and entertained.
Kori no Suizokukan is located in Kesennuma, Miyagi Prefecture and features around 450 specimens of around 80 species of marine wildlife, all captured at a nearby sea port. Visitors can enjoy a brief break from the scorching sun and admire all sorts of fish, crabs or octopuses, as well as unusual objects like action figures, bottles of sake, or flowers, all embedded in huge blocks of ice.
The Frozen Aquarium was inaugurated, in Kesennuma̢۪s fish market, in 2002, and uses flash-freezing technology to conserve fresh specimens and keep them looking so good.
While the Frozen Aquarium is a welcome tourist attraction, visitors can only spend a few minutes inside. Because temperatures inside the aquarium reach -20 degrees Celsius, a special suit is needed to keep people from becoming freezing exhibits themselves. Without these special suits, visitors would start feeling severe pains in just five minutes time. 
   
 
 
 
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

We're conflating proper dissent and terrorism

We're conflating proper dissent and terrorism
It's both misguided and distracting to direct our homeland security efforts against protesters.
By COLEEN ROWLEY
Last update: January 15, 2011 - 6:22 PM

A secretive, unaccountable, post-9/11 homeland security apparatus has increasingly turned inward on American citizens.

The evidence includes everything from controversial airport body scanners to the FBI's raids last September on antiwar activists' homes in Minneapolis and Chicago. A federal grand jury investigation in Chicago was recently expanded.

Unless the erosion of proper legal safeguards is halted, we risk a return to Vietnam-era abuses on the part of the FBI and other security agencies.

Agents are now given a green light, for instance, to check off "statistical achievements" by sending well-paid, manipulative informants into mosques and peace groups.

Forgotten are worries about targeting and entrapping people not predisposed to violence.

Forgotten also are the scandals that came to light just months before 9/11 of decades-long FBI operations involving "top echelon informants" (high-level violent criminals) such as Boston crime boss Whitey Bulger.

Even if government officials are well-intentioned, the current tactics and incentives have opened the floodgates of error and opportunism.

Most important, what's been forgotten is that the protection of civil liberties does not weaken our overall security but actually helps to strengthen it.

When security agencies expend their energy against war protesters and environmental advocates, they lose effectiveness in preventing real terrorist violence.

No agency connected the dots before Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly killed 13 and wounded over 40 at Fort Hood, or before airline passenger Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate his "underwear bomb" on Christmas Day 2009, or before Faisal Shahzad planted his car bomb in Times Square.

Tragedy was averted in the latter two incidents only because alert people happened to be on the scene. Yet the perpetrators of these three major events on U.S. soil were in direct communication with the same Yemeni cleric who was allegedly connected to three of the 9/11 hijackers.

A good place to begin reform is by challenging the handful of words in the "Patriot Act" that enlarged the definition of "material support of terrorism" to encompass "expert advice and assistance" given to designated "foreign terrorist organizations."

This phrase essentially makes mere advocacy of peace and humanitarian issues illegal with respect to groups listed by the State Department.

The Patriot Act thus condemns a large range of nongovernmental efforts, which have tended to be more effective than government-backed ones at furthering education, providing humanitarian assistance, and ensuring free and fair elections throughout the world.

Such a chilling effect only makes nonviolent conflict resolution and mediation more difficult and terrorism more likely.

Next, it's necessary to reverse the erosion of attorney general guidelines governing initiation of domestic investigations, which were adopted after the Church Committee uncovered abuses in the 1970s.

In one of its last official acts, the Bush administration lowered the level of necessary suspicion to the point where the FBI needs only deny that it is targeting a group based solely on its exercise of First Amendment rights.

Like the Patriot Act provision, this opens the door wide to FBI harassment of nonviolent activists.

In 2003, a spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center said, apparently without thinking too hard, that evidence wasn't needed to issue warnings about war protesters: "You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that [protest]. ... You can almost argue that a protest against [the war] is a terrorist act."

In a similar vein, the Department of Defense asked on its annual mandatory antiterrorism test, "What is an example of low-level terrorism activity?" The correct answer was "protest."

But protest and civil disobedience are not terrorism. Until that distinction is made at every level of the security system, and proper institutional safeguards are implemented, the "war on terror" will continue to shred civil liberties while failing to prevent terrorist outrages.

The massive and largely irrelevant data collection now occurring only adds hay to the haystack, making it even harder to see patterns and anticipate events.

"Top Secret America" needs to ask itself who is more guilty of furnishing "material aid to terrorism" -- its own operatives, or the activists and protesters it so wrongheadedly targets.


Coleen Rowley, a former FBI special agent and legal counsel in the Minneapolis field office, wrote a "whistleblower" memo in May 2002 and testified to the Senate Judiciary on some of the FBI's pre-9/11 failures. She retired in 2004 and is now a writer and speaker.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/113637589.html

Dining out over the years




 


 


 
 
A group of 15-year-old girlfriends discussed where to meet for
dinner. Finally, they agreed to meet at the Dairy Queen next to the
Ocean View restaurant because they had only $6.00 among them and Jimmy
Johnson, the cute boy in Social Studies, lived on that street.
10 years later, the group of 25-year-old girlfriends discussed where to
meet for dinner. Finally, they agreed to meet at the Ocean View
restaurant because the beer was cheap, the restaurant offered free
snacks, the band was good, there was no cover and there were lots of
cute guys.
10 years later, the group of 35-year-old girlfriends discussed where to
meet for dinner. Finally, they agreed to meet at the Ocean View
restaurant because the cosmos were good, it was right near the gym and,
if they went late enough, there wouldn't be too many whiny little kids.
10 years later, the group of 45-year-old girlfriends discussed where to
meet for dinner. Finally, they agreed to meet at the Ocean View
restaurant because the martinis were big and the waiters had tight pants
and nice buns.
10 years later, the group of 55-year-old girlfriends discussed where to
meet for dinner. Finally, they agreed to meet at the Ocean View
restaurant because the prices were reasonable, the wine list was good,
the restaurant had windows that opened (in case of a hot flashes), and
fish is good for cholesterol.
10 years later, the group of 65-year-old girlfriends discussed where to
meet for dinner. Finally, they agreed to meet at the Ocean View
restaurant because the lighting was good and the restaurant had an early
bird special.
10 years later, the group of 75-years-old girlfriends discussed where to
meet for dinner. Finally, they agreed to meet at the Ocean View
restaurant because the food was not too spicy and the restaurant was
handicapped-accessible.
10 years later, the group of 85-years-old girlfriends discussed where to
meet for dinner. Finally, they agreed to meet at the Ocean View
restaurant because they were pretty sure they had never been there before.
 

 
 







--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Prayer for 2011!!




 


 


 

Dear God, my prayer for 2011 is for a fat bank account & a thin body. Please don't mix these up like you did last year. AMEN!!!
 
cid:3377516175_1270038

 

 


FREE winter Animations for your                                     email â€





--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Centrum Silver (THIS HAS TO BE THE COMMERCIAL OF THE YEAR)!!!








 

 
 
Rare is the man who can weigh the faults of others without putting his own thumb on the scales
 




 
 
 
 
This one is just perfect and will awaken your reality, instead of your dream state!!! 

 





--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Leftist Rhetoric, Political Assassinations, and Race Riots




Another article worth reading.

http://americanvision.org/3929/leftist-rhetoric-political-assassinations-and-race-riots/

P.S. I did steal that book, was quite a radical when I was 18.

--
This group is created for discussing national issues to stop the current administration from transforming this country into something not intended by the founders. Any discussions that are not relevant to that topic will be deleted.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Tea Party Patriots" group.
To post to this group, send email to tea-party-patriots@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tea-party-patriots+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tea-party-patriots?hl=en?hl=en

For more information on Tea Party Patriots, please visit http://www.teapartypatriots.org.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.