Feb 10, 2011 || World News

Thursday, February 10, 2011

JP Jamal-e-Mustafa (Sallal Lahu Alaihe Wasallam) "

اللهم صلى على محمد صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم

JP reaction of the reaction

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Qasim Ali <qasima23@yahoo.com>
To: daily.khabrain@gmail.com
Sent: Thu, February 10, 2011 2:18:15 AM
Subject: ATTENTION 2 HAFIZ MASOOD SAHIB

Army official suggests U.S. troops might be needed in Mexico

Harold | February 10, 2011 at 8:47 am | Categories: Criminal Activity, Drug Cartels, Government, Mexican Government, Military, Politics, Propaganda, Sovereignty, U.S. Constitution | URL: http://wp.me/pmtmV-5oH

Matthew D. LaPlante, The Salt Lake Tribune 2/8/2011 Fretting over a scenario in which armed U.S. soldiers could be called to the border — or even over it — to hold back lawlessness and violence, Undersecretary of the Army Joseph Westphal invoked a contentious word to describe Mexico's problem with drug cartels: He called it [...]

JP Afia and all Pakistanis held in US should come home safely

In the current crises (for US), Pakistan should now demand the release of Afia and all other Pakistanis held against all norms of decency in US jails...the whole nation is united, and while the apologists try their old technique of trying to spread fear, fear is in the ranks of the enemies of our country....this is yet another chance for our corrupt government to stand for the country....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-52G0f9ns&feature=related

Re: Supreme Court warned on avoiding eligibility

Axshully about a dozen states have (or are) implementing requirements
that any would-be candidate appearing on THEIR state's ballot would
have to PROVE they are qualified. Were Obama to run in 2012, it seems
that such proof will need to be provided.

While there may be some benefit to the ongoing and continuous controversy,
it seems that were such 'proof' to exist ... simply providing it woul have
long ago allayed any/all concerns.

Regard$,
--MJ

"I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE SOME REPORTERS PAWING THROUGH OUR PAPERS.
WE ARE THE PRESIDENT."
-Hillary Clinton commenting on the release of subpoenaed documents

At 09:40 AM 2/9/2011, you wrote:
>SCOTUS said no 2 years ago.
>
>As much as I would like to see otherwise (it would be fun), the train
>has left the station. Time to move on
>
>On Feb 9, 9:28 am, JSM <ekrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ** A veteran attorney who has pursued a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's
> > presidential eligibility since he was elected is telling the U.S. Supreme
> > Court that if its members continue to "avoid" the dispute they effectively
> > will "destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system."
> > Isn't anybody out there the least concerned the the question of eligibility
> > of the leader of this nation doesn't make the news? Who is controlling the
> > media and why? (Duh)
> >
> > --
> > When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying
> > the cross.
> >
> > Sinclair Lewis
>
>--
>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.

--
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.

BYE BYE MUBARAK! Egypt army takes over !!!!

Egypt army says takes 'measures to protect nation'

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/02/10/137129.html

Re: Military spending drains and distorts the civilian economy.

At 09:17 AM 2/9/2011, you wrote:

Gut = cut.

We can cut it. We can't eliminate it.

Did not suggest eliminating it.
Gut is MORE than cut.

Regard$,
--MJ

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}]

Re: The poor are not getting poorer

> Victimized? By these invented 'crimes' or something else?
> Government -- LEGITIMATE Government -- secures rights <period>.

And people with more money get their rights secured faster by
government.

So your problem is with Government.

What MJ isn't telling you about Libertarianism:
the fact that Libertarianism weighs the different rights afforded to
people.
i.e. Walmart (or any business) could put up a sign saying; Blacks Not
Served (or any other variant to the theme).
He would argue that people would decide where to shop, and that
Walmart would suffer the consequences of doing so.
Maybe, maybe not.
But certainly people would be inconvenienced, and much more time and
money wasted in compliance or non compliance than is currently.

I said nothing about Libertarianism -- which does not 'weigh' rights anyhow.

Not certain WHAT your example is supposed to relate.
Sam Walton has a right to his life (yes, he is dead, but for the example ...)
Black Patron has a right to his life.

IF Sam Walton did NOT want to serve Black Patron, it is certainly his right. (That he is far more interested in 'green' would necessarily overcome such bias notwithstanding).
Black Patron has no right to FORCE Sam Walton to 'serve' him (slavery).
Similarly, Sam Walton has no right to FORCE Black Patron to buy from him.

   "There is only one boss--the customer. And he can fire
    everybody in the company from the chairman on down,
     simply by spending his money somewhere else" -- Sam Walton.

> Minimum wage only ensures that someone MUST be paid at least X.
> It does not guarantee employment. In fact, those worth LESS than
> X will not be employed.

Half true.
The part of the Civil War that many people overlook is the fact that
many northerners were out of work precisely because of the low cost of
slavery.

Lincoln's War is irrelevant to the Minimum Wage.

Regard$,
--MJ

"If you don't like your job you don't strike. You just go in every day, and do it really half-assed. That's the American way." - Homer Simpson

Re: Obama Says Corporation Have to Share Benefits, Profits and Bonuses with Workers

They send the IRS or other alphabet soup agencies to wreak havoc,
cost dollars and ultimately destroy the business and life of the owner.

Read the FTC vs. FTC piece provided.

Regard$,
--MJ

... the State claims and exercises the monopoly of crime ... It
forbids private murder, but itself organizes murder on a colossal
scale. It punishes private theft, but itself lays unscrupulous hands
on anything it wants, whether the property of citizen or of alien.
-- Albert Jay Nock, _On Doing the Right Thing, and Other Essays_ (1928).

At 10:43 AM 2/10/2011, you wrote:
>He can't force them.
>
>Picture yourself owning a hair dressing shop that made a profit last
>year. Now the fed shows up and tells you you have to hire another
>person, or else.
>
>Or else what?
>
>On Feb 9, 4:43 pm, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 3:37 pm, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Its more than semantics. unless you can show me where the gubmint has
> > > to power to tell them what they "have to" do with their profits.
> >
> > > I can't find it.
> >
> > Then wait to find out how he forces them, because you can't find that
> > either.
>
>--
>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.

--
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 Daily Quran & Hadith

Sura al-Isrā'	Sura : Makki	by Tilawat : 17	by Reveal : 50	Ruku` : 12	Ayats : 111	Part No. : 15

017-al-Isra Ayat 69 to 72.jpg

Chapter 9 - Hadith No. 35.gif

Thanks & Best regards,

Imran Ilyas
Dubai
Cell: 00971509483403

--
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

Re: Obama Says Corporation Have to Share Benefits, Profits and Bonuses with Workers

He can't force them.

Picture yourself owning a hair dressing shop that made a profit last
year. Now the fed shows up and tells you you have to hire another
person, or else.

Or else what?

On Feb 9, 4:43 pm, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 3:37 pm, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Its more than semantics. unless you can show me where the gubmint has
> > to power to tell them what they "have to" do with their profits.
>
> > I can't find it.
>
> Then wait to find out how he forces them, because you can't find that
> either.

--
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: House Refuses to Renew Patriot Act Provisions

Drop the rules change for 2/3's majority without amendment, resubmit
and pass.

A grateful President is never a bad thing

On Feb 10, 10:32 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> House Refuses to Renew Patriot Act ProvisionsbyThe Freemanon Wednesday, February 9, 2011 at 8:32am
> "A measure extending portions of the Patriot Act fell seven votes short in the House as 26 Republicans joined Democrats in voting it down." (UPI)A blow on behalf of civil liberties.How Washington Protects Your Privacy and LibertyJames Bovard
> January/February 2011 • Volume: 61 • Issue: 1 •
> Preserving trust in government is the highest goodat least for politicians. To create that trust, government continually spawns façades to make people believe their rights are safe. Few things better illustrate this charade than the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.
> In 2004, three years after the Patriot Act was enacted, politicians started to worry about the rising number of Americans grumbling about government intrusions. The 9/11 Commission proposed creating "a board within the executive branch to oversee adherence to the guidelines we recommend and the commitment the government makes to defend our civil liberties." Creating another office within the executive branch to report on executive branch activities was unlikely to produce anything more than extra jobs for Washington hangers-on. The White House edited the 9/11 commission's report before it was publicly released, so the Bush team had no trouble with this toothless-tiger palliative.
> In December 2004, acting on the commission's recommendation, Congress mandated the creation of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. The same law that created the oversight board also made it easier for the FBI to get eavesdropping warrants on Americans, created a new standard to make it easier to prosecute citizens who donate to foreign charities of which the U.S. government disapproves, and provided a new layer of secrecy for federal agencies.
> Some congressmen hailed the board as the start of a brave new era. Things would be different since there was a new sheriff in Washington -- or at least that was what people were supposed to think. The civil liberties developments in the years after the board was created offer profound lessons into how the government works.
> It would have been difficult to design a better rubber stamp than the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. It had no subpoena power, so it was effectively obliged to accept unsubstantiated assertions from the agencies violating privacy and liberty. The president had the right to appoint board members and could fire them any time. Bush did not appoint any experts on civil liberties; instead, the board was stacked with Republicans who formerly held government positions as enforcement zealots. And the first appointments did not occur until seven months after the law passed. The American Bar Association noted that Bush's nominations were timed "as part of the administration's push to encourage Congress to reauthorize provisions of the USA Patriot Act that expire within the next few months." The oversight board supposedly guaranteed that Patriot Act powers would not be abused.
> Six months after Bush stacked the board, the biggest civil liberties expose of recent decades exploded on the front page of theNew York Times. The prior year, when he was running for reelection, Bush assured Americans that no wiretaps were occurring without federal court authorization. But theTimesrevealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) had conducted warrantless wiretaps on thousands of Americans based on flimsy pretexts. TheTimes'James Risen reported that Bush's "secret presidential order has given the NSA the freedom to peruse . . . the email of millions of Americans." The NSA's program was quickly christened the "J. Edgar Hoover Memorial Vacuum Cleaner."
> In the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights the Founding Fathers decreed that government searches must be based on probable cause and approved by a neutral magistrate. The Bush wiretapping program was based solely on the president's edict. Shift supervisors at the National Security Agency decided which Americans got wiretapped. But a GS-13 civil servant is not constitutionally on par with a federal judge.An Ineffective RageDid the existence of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board change how the wiretapping scandal played out? Not a whit. Bush seized on theTimesexposé to portray himself as heroically rising above the statute book to protect the American people. A month later, Republican members of Congress gave Bush a standing ovation when he bragged about his "terrorist surveillance program" in his State of the Union address. There was more enthusiasm in Congress for prosecutingNew York Timeseditors and reporters for treason than for prosecuting NSA officials for violating federal law.
> Supporters of civil liberties rallied a few months later to try to slow the bandwagon to renew the Patriot Act. One major concern was the provision in the original Patriot Act that made it far easier for the FBI to use National Security Letters (NSLs) to compel private citizens, businesses, nonprofits, and other entities to surrender information on demand. NSLs empower the FBI to seize records that reveal "where a person makes and spends money, with whom he lives and lived before, how much he gambles, what he buys online, what he pawns and borrows, where he travels, how he invests, what he searches for and reads on the Web, and who telephones or e-mails him at home and at work," theWashington Postnoted. The FBI was issuing more than 50,000 NSLs per year.
> While Bush pressured Congress to renew the Patriot Act in 2005, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced, "The track record established over the past three years has demonstrated the effectiveness of the safeguards of civil liberties put in place when the act was passed. There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse." In reality the feds had already discovered hundreds of criminal abuses of Patriot Act powers involving FBI agents and NSLs. But the abuses were kept under wraps until after Congress renewed the Patriot Act.
> A bipartisan agreement to renew the Patriot Act was finally reached, giving the White House almost everything it wanted. As part of the deal Bush administration officials agreed to provide Congress far more details on how Patriot Act powers were being used. The Justice Department would be obliged to disclose to Congress how many Americans were having their privacy violated by NSLs.
> However, Bush reneged in a "signing statement" quietly released after a heavily hyped White House bill-signing ceremony. He decreed that he was entitled to deny Congress any information that would "impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties." Bush announced that he would interpret the law "in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information."
> In other words, any provision of the law that required disclosure would be presumptively null and void. The crux of the Bush administration's "unitary executive" doctrine was that all power rests in the president and that "checks and balances" are archaic.
> The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board had no complaint about this charade. Instead, the members belatedly and heartily endorsed the NSA's warrantless wiretaps on Americans' phone calls and emails.
> In 2007, before the Board could issue its first annual report, White House staffers massively rewrote and censored a draft version. Lanny Davis, the sole Democratic member of the board, resigned, later protesting that "the board was logically viewed . . . as the functional equivalent of White House staff."Toothless WatchdogBut the mere existence of the board allowed members of Congress to pirouette as constitutional saviors. When the House passed legislation later in 2007 moving the board out of the White House and requiring Senate confirmation of its members, Rep. Carolyn Maloney proclaimed, "The American people must have trust in their government to support its tactics against terrorism, and a strong Civil Liberties Board is vital to upholding that public trust." But the restructured board, like the original, was better designed to alleviate public fears than to restrain federal power. The "reformed" Board was given little or no power to acquire information that federal agencies chose not to give. And it is difficult to understand how requiring Senate confirmation of Board members was a silver bullet, since the Senate had given approval, retroactive or otherwise, to the Bush administration's most controversial abuses.
> The same season that Congress passed the civil liberties board reform proposal it also enacted a law requiring the Homeland Security Department's chief privacy officer to "to report each year about Homeland Security activities that affect privacy," theNew York Timesreported. The law required that "reports be submitted directly to Congress 'without any prior comment or amendment' by superiors at the department or the White House." Congress passed this law because of an earlier controversy about White House censorship of the Homeland Security Department's report on privacy violations.
> Five months after the law passed, Bush covertly issued a legal opinion effectively declaring that provision null and void. Deputy assistant attorney general Steven Bradbury declared that "such interference [by Congress] is impermissible." Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, denounced Bush's action as "unconstitutional" and "a dictatorial, after-the-fact pronouncement by him in line with a lot of other cherry-picking he's done on the signing statements." But Bush's action was largely ignored by the media. And his Civil Liberties Board certainly did not even whimper.
> When Bush lagged in appointing members to the restructured board, Sen. Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, urged him in 2008 to move quickly "to preserve the public's faith in our promise to protect their privacy and civil liberties as we work to protect the country against terrorism." Lieberman wanted to preserve "the public's faith" at the same time he championed "enhanced interrogation" methods and retroactive immunity for any company or person who violated Americans' rights in the name of antiterrorism. (The Senate did not confirm any of Bush's belated nominations.)Change You Can Forget AboutDuring his presidential campaign Barack Obama vigorously criticized Bush's civil liberties abuses. Many of his supporters expected that, if elected, Obama would radically change federal policies regarding American liberty.
> As of this past October, Obama had made no appointments to the oversight board. Rep. Bennie Thompson, then chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Rep. Jane Harman, then chairman of that panel's subcommittee on intelligence, wrote Obama early last year urging him to speedily make appointments because "we believe that the Board will give an anxious public confidence that appropriate rights are respected." Harman is best known as the sponsor of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, which could have spurred massive crackdowns on libertarians, constitutionalists, and others with nonmainstream ideas.
> Many newspaper editorials have also complained about Obama's failure to stock the oversight board. But this is perhaps the most honest action the Obama administration has taken regarding civil liberties. In area after area Obama has rubber-stamped Bush-era abuses and signaled that there would be no investigation or prosecution of official wrongdoers from the previous administration. Obama is also embracing Bush-style State-secrecy doctrines that prohibit disclosure of the rationale for U.S. government-planned assassinations of Americans.
> The oversight board is far more likely to induce complacency than to protect liberty. Since 9/11, trampling the Constitution is a no-fault offense. In Washington nowadays, only "extremists" believe that federal officials should be jailed for violating citizens' privacy.
> For every member of Congress such as Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), who vigorously and consistently opposes federal abuses, there are vanloads of congressmen cheering federal agents' trampling the statute book in the name of public safety. The founders intended Congress to be a vigorous check on the abuses of the executive branch. However, few members of Congress have the gumption to pursue official lawbreakers or to fight to expose agencies' crime sprees. In the 1970s, senators like Sam Ervin (D-N.C.) and Frank Church (D-Id.) spearheaded probes into executive-branch abuses, revolutionizing how Americans thought about the president, the CIA, and the FBI. Ervin and Church succeeded in part because of sheer willpower. But there is little or no such courage in Washington nowadays.
> Washington vastly prefers the appearance of checks and balances to the reality of government under law. At a time when federal officials who violate Americans' rights have nothing to fear from Uncle Sam, the existence of the oversight board is a cruel taunt to private citizens.
> Perhaps the best epithet for the feds' civil liberties record is the saying of Lily Tomlin: "No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up." "I'm from the government, and I'm here to safeguard your privacy" is the post-9/11 version of the old joke. But American liberty cannot afford any more sham protections. Abolishing the oversight board would be the most honest step Washington has taken on civil liberties in this century.http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/how-washington-protects-your-privacy-and-liberty/

--
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.

House Refuses to Renew Patriot Act Provisions

House Refuses to Renew Patriot Act Provisions
by The Freeman on Wednesday, February 9, 2011 at 8:32am

"A measure extending portions of the Patriot Act fell seven votes short in the House as 26 Republicans joined Democrats in voting it down." ( UPI)

A blow on behalf of civil liberties.

How Washington Protects Your Privacy and Liberty
James Bovard
January/February 2011 • Volume: 61 • Issue: 1 •

Preserving trust in government is the highest goodat least for politicians. To create that trust, government continually spawns façades to make people believe their rights are safe. Few things better illustrate this charade than the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.

In 2004, three years after the Patriot Act was enacted, politicians started to worry about the rising number of Americans grumbling about government intrusions. The 9/11 Commission proposed creating "a board within the executive branch to oversee adherence to the guidelines we recommend and the commitment the government makes to defend our civil liberties." Creating another office within the executive branch to report on executive branch activities was unlikely to produce anything more than extra jobs for Washington hangers-on. The White House edited the 9/11 commission's report before it was publicly released, so the Bush team had no trouble with this toothless-tiger palliative.

In December 2004, acting on the commission's recommendation, Congress mandated the creation of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. The same law that created the oversight board also made it easier for the FBI to get eavesdropping warrants on Americans, created a new standard to make it easier to prosecute citizens who donate to foreign charities of which the U.S. government disapproves, and provided a new layer of secrecy for federal agencies.

Some congressmen hailed the board as the start of a brave new era. Things would be different since there was a new sheriff in Washington -- or at least that was what people were supposed to think. The civil liberties developments in the years after the board was created offer profound lessons into how the government works.

It would have been difficult to design a better rubber stamp than the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. It had no subpoena power, so it was effectively obliged to accept unsubstantiated assertions from the agencies violating privacy and liberty. The president had the right to appoint board members and could fire them any time. Bush did not appoint any experts on civil liberties; instead, the board was stacked with Republicans who formerly held government positions as enforcement zealots. And the first appointments did not occur until seven months after the law passed. The American Bar Association noted that Bush's nominations were timed "as part of the administration's push to encourage Congress to reauthorize provisions of the USA Patriot Act that expire within the next few months." The oversight board supposedly guaranteed that Patriot Act powers would not be abused.

Six months after Bush stacked the board, the biggest civil liberties expose of recent decades exploded on the front page of the New York Times. The prior year, when he was running for reelection, Bush assured Americans that no wiretaps were occurring without federal court authorization. But the Times revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) had conducted warrantless wiretaps on thousands of Americans based on flimsy pretexts. The Times' James Risen reported that Bush's "secret presidential order has given the NSA the freedom to peruse . . . the email of millions of Americans." The NSA's program was quickly christened the "J. Edgar Hoover Memorial Vacuum Cleaner."

In the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights the Founding Fathers decreed that government searches must be based on probable cause and approved by a neutral magistrate. The Bush wiretapping program was based solely on the president's edict. Shift supervisors at the National Security Agency decided which Americans got wiretapped. But a GS-13 civil servant is not constitutionally on par with a federal judge.

An Ineffective Rage

Did the existence of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board change how the wiretapping scandal played out? Not a whit. Bush seized on the Times exposé to portray himself as heroically rising above the statute book to protect the American people. A month later, Republican members of Congress gave Bush a standing ovation when he bragged about his "terrorist surveillance program" in his State of the Union address. There was more enthusiasm in Congress for prosecuting New York Times editors and reporters for treason than for prosecuting NSA officials for violating federal law.

Supporters of civil liberties rallied a few months later to try to slow the bandwagon to renew the Patriot Act. One major concern was the provision in the original Patriot Act that made it far easier for the FBI to use National Security Letters (NSLs) to compel private citizens, businesses, nonprofits, and other entities to surrender information on demand. NSLs empower the FBI to seize records that reveal "where a person makes and spends money, with whom he lives and lived before, how much he gambles, what he buys online, what he pawns and borrows, where he travels, how he invests, what he searches for and reads on the Web, and who telephones or e-mails him at home and at work," the Washington Post noted. The FBI was issuing more than 50,000 NSLs per year.

While Bush pressured Congress to renew the Patriot Act in 2005, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced, "The track record established over the past three years has demonstrated the effectiveness of the safeguards of civil liberties put in place when the act was passed. There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse." In reality the feds had already discovered hundreds of criminal abuses of Patriot Act powers involving FBI agents and NSLs. But the abuses were kept under wraps until after Congress renewed the Patriot Act.

A bipartisan agreement to renew the Patriot Act was finally reached, giving the White House almost everything it wanted. As part of the deal Bush administration officials agreed to provide Congress far more details on how Patriot Act powers were being used. The Justice Department would be obliged to disclose to Congress how many Americans were having their privacy violated by NSLs.

However, Bush reneged in a "signing statement" quietly released after a heavily hyped White House bill-signing ceremony. He decreed that he was entitled to deny Congress any information that would "impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties." Bush announced that he would interpret the law "in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information."

In other words, any provision of the law that required disclosure would be presumptively null and void. The crux of the Bush administration's "unitary executive" doctrine was that all power rests in the president and that "checks and balances" are archaic.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board had no complaint about this charade. Instead, the members belatedly and heartily endorsed the NSA's warrantless wiretaps on Americans' phone calls and emails.

In 2007, before the Board could issue its first annual report, White House staffers massively rewrote and censored a draft version. Lanny Davis, the sole Democratic member of the board, resigned, later protesting that "the board was logically viewed . . . as the functional equivalent of White House staff."

Toothless Watchdog

But the mere existence of the board allowed members of Congress to pirouette as constitutional saviors. When the House passed legislation later in 2007 moving the board out of the White House and requiring Senate confirmation of its members, Rep. Carolyn Maloney proclaimed, "The American people must have trust in their government to support its tactics against terrorism, and a strong Civil Liberties Board is vital to upholding that public trust." But the restructured board, like the original, was better designed to alleviate public fears than to restrain federal power. The "reformed" Board was given little or no power to acquire information that federal agencies chose not to give. And it is difficult to understand how requiring Senate confirmation of Board members was a silver bullet, since the Senate had given approval, retroactive or otherwise, to the Bush administration's most controversial abuses.

The same season that Congress passed the civil liberties board reform proposal it also enacted a law requiring the Homeland Security Department's chief privacy officer to "to report each year about Homeland Security activities that affect privacy," the New York Times reported. The law required that "reports be submitted directly to Congress 'without any prior comment or amendment' by superiors at the department or the White House." Congress passed this law because of an earlier controversy about White House censorship of the Homeland Security Department's report on privacy violations.

Five months after the law passed, Bush covertly issued a legal opinion effectively declaring that provision null and void. Deputy assistant attorney general Steven Bradbury declared that "such interference [by Congress] is impermissible." Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, denounced Bush's action as "unconstitutional" and "a dictatorial, after-the-fact pronouncement by him in line with a lot of other cherry-picking he's done on the signing statements." But Bush's action was largely ignored by the media. And his Civil Liberties Board certainly did not even whimper.

When Bush lagged in appointing members to the restructured board, Sen. Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, urged him in 2008 to move quickly "to preserve the public's faith in our promise to protect their privacy and civil liberties as we work to protect the country against terrorism." Lieberman wanted to preserve "the public's faith" at the same time he championed "enhanced interrogation" methods and retroactive immunity for any company or person who violated Americans' rights in the name of antiterrorism. (The Senate did not confirm any of Bush's belated nominations.)

Change You Can Forget About

During his presidential campaign Barack Obama vigorously criticized Bush's civil liberties abuses. Many of his supporters expected that, if elected, Obama would radically change federal policies regarding American liberty.

As of this past October, Obama had made no appointments to the oversight board. Rep. Bennie Thompson, then chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Rep. Jane Harman, then chairman of that panel's subcommittee on intelligence, wrote Obama early last year urging him to speedily make appointments because "we believe that the Board will give an anxious public confidence that appropriate rights are respected." Harman is best known as the sponsor of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, which could have spurred massive crackdowns on libertarians, constitutionalists, and others with nonmainstream ideas.

Many newspaper editorials have also complained about Obama's failure to stock the oversight board. But this is perhaps the most honest action the Obama administration has taken regarding civil liberties. In area after area Obama has rubber-stamped Bush-era abuses and signaled that there would be no investigation or prosecution of official wrongdoers from the previous administration. Obama is also embracing Bush-style State-secrecy doctrines that prohibit disclosure of the rationale for U.S. government-planned assassinations of Americans.

The oversight board is far more likely to induce complacency than to protect liberty. Since 9/11, trampling the Constitution is a no-fault offense. In Washington nowadays, only "extremists" believe that federal officials should be jailed for violating citizens' privacy.

For every member of Congress such as Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), who vigorously and consistently opposes federal abuses, there are vanloads of congressmen cheering federal agents' trampling the statute book in the name of public safety. The founders intended Congress to be a vigorous check on the abuses of the executive branch. However, few members of Congress have the gumption to pursue official lawbreakers or to fight to expose agencies' crime sprees. In the 1970s, senators like Sam Ervin (D-N.C.) and Frank Church (D-Id.) spearheaded probes into executive-branch abuses, revolutionizing how Americans thought about the president, the CIA, and the FBI. Ervin and Church succeeded in part because of sheer willpower. But there is little or no such courage in Washington nowadays.

Washington vastly prefers the appearance of checks and balances to the reality of government under law. At a time when federal officials who violate Americans' rights have nothing to fear from Uncle Sam, the existence of the oversight board is a cruel taunt to private citizens.

Perhaps the best epithet for the feds' civil liberties record is the saying of Lily Tomlin: "No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up." "I'm from the government, and I'm here to safeguard your privacy" is the post-9/11 version of the old joke. But American liberty cannot afford any more sham protections. Abolishing the oversight board would be the most honest step Washington has taken on civil liberties in this century.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/how-washington-protects-your-privacy-and-liberty/

Re: JP Female Office Assistant Required

Assalam o alaikum zafar brother ...

In UAE somebody who i call sister ... she is job less n well educated too ... but cudnt get any job since 6 months ......
i guess we can co ordinate on this .... plz if u dont mind email me on ma personal id

shaheershujaa@gmail.com

i will wait for ur mail ....

Regards
BazMi
Karachi-Pakistan

From: Zafar Iqbal <zafmanzoor@yahoo.com>
To: FINANCE_COM@yahoogroups.com; joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, February 9, 2011 4:20:51 AM
Subject: Re: **JP** Female Office Assistant Required

Hi Sumera,

where is this position based???

office coordinator (female) required by an Engineering compnay in Abu Dhabi...

interested email their cvs...

Best Regards,

Zafar Iqbal
Abu Dhabi - UAE
Cell: +97150 4409475

--- On Tue, 2/8/11, Sumera Faisal <sumerafaisal@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Sumera Faisal <sumerafaisal@yahoo.com>
Subject: **JP** Female Office Assistant Required
To: FINANCE_COM@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, February 8, 2011, 5:45 PM

We are looking for a Female Office Assistant. The ideal candidate should be atleast Intermediate. Basic Computer Knowledge and English Language is also an essential requirement.

Fresh Candidates are encouraged to apply as we provide on job training.

Send your CV and latest Photograph on moon_international@ymail.com

--
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

Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.

JP Urgently Required Female Office Assistant

We are looking for a Female Office Assistant. The ideal candidate should be atleast Intermediate. Basic Computer Knowledge and English Language is also an essential requirement.

Fresh Candidates are encouraged to apply as we provide on job training.

Last Date to send CV is 12/02/2011.

Send your CV and latest Photograph on moon_international@ymail.com

Re: JP Fw: ARTICLE AT VELONTINE DAY

Nice Sharing ...God Bless

Regards
BazMi
Karachi-Pakistan

From: JoinPakistan <joinpakistan@gmail.com>
To: JoinPakistan <joinpakistan@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, February 9, 2011 1:21:30 PM
Subject: **JP** Fw: ARTICLE AT VELONTINE DAY

----- Original Message -----

From: Qasim Ali

To: joinpakistan@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 8:02 AM

Subject: Fw: ARTICLE AT VELONTINE DAY

JP Noam Chomsky: How Climate Change Became a 'Liberal Hoax

Thursday, February 10, 2011 by The Nation and On The Earth Productions

In this sixth video in the series "Peak Oil and a Changing Climate" from The Nation and On The Earth Productions, linguist, philosopher and political activist Noam Chomsky talks about the Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute and other business lobbies enthusiastically carrying out campaigns "to try and convince the population that global warming is a liberal hoax." According to Chomsky, this massive public relations campaign has succeeded in leading a good portion of the population into doubting the human causes of global warming.

Known for his criticism of the media, Chomsky doesn't hold back in this clip, laying blame on mainstream media outlets such as the New York Times, which will run frontpage articles on what meteorologists think about global warming. "Meteorologists are pretty faces reading scripts telling you whether it's going to rain tomorrow," Chomsky says. "What do they have to say any more than your barber?" All this is part of the media's pursuit of "fabled objectivity."

Of particular concern for Chomsky is the atmosphere of anger, fear and hostility that currently reigns in America. The public's hatred of Democrats, Republicans, big business and banks and the public's distrust of scientists all lead to general disregard for the findings of "pointy-headed elitists." The 2010 elections could be interpreted as a "death knell for the species" because most of the new Republicans in Congress are global warming deniers. "If this was happening in some small country," Chomsky concludes, "it wouldn't matter much. But when it's happening in the richest, most powerful country in the world, it's a danger to the survival of the species."

Go here to learn more about "Peak Oil and a Changing Climate," and to see the other videos in the series.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJUA4cm0Rck

JP Fw: The Ignorant Saudi Sheikh

Tuesday, February 8

The Ignorant Saudi Sheikh

Tuesday, February 08, 2011 The Blogger

By Khalid Amayreh

It has been reported that the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh, condemned the ongoing revolution against the tyrannical regime of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

According to reports from Riyadh, the Sheikh condemned anti-regime protests in all Arab countries, calling demonstrations "chaotic acts" carried out by the enemies of Islam in order to "divide" the Muslim world.

The Saudi government outlaws all sorts of demonstrations which government-backed puritanical clerics consider a form of heresy that is incompatible with Islam.

There is no doubt that the edict of the Saudi Sheikh, which by the way was not issued for the first time, reflects a primitive mentality and ignorance in understanding the true spirit of Islam.

The sheikh justifies his ignorant opinion by arguing that rising up against an oppressive despot would cause "fitna" which means division or tumult or confusion.

However, it seems it doesn't occur to the sheikh, who seems to be living in the middle ages, not in the 21 century, that the fitna of living under tyranny and succumbing to organized oppression by brutal despots exceeds by far whatever fitna that might result from rising up against an oppressive authority.

Let us take Tunisia as an example. The former Tunisian dictator Zeinulabedeen bin Ali, who has been given assylum in the land of Prophet Muhammed (S), sought rather frantically to discourage people from observing Islam. He imprisoned and tortured thousands of Muslim activists for just frequenting the mosques. He instructed his repressive police apparatus to hound every religious person and fight every form of religiosity.

Indeed, in order to be able to access the mosque unhindered, especially during dawn prayers, one had to obtain a special permit from the police.

Women, young and old, who donned a headscarf (I am not speaking about the full headdress veil or Niqab that is common in Saudi Arabia or Iran), had their scarves snatched in the streets by the police. Any objection to this humiliation would land the objector in prison immediately. In short, every possible effort was made by the brutal regime to discourage people from practicing their own faith.

Incidentally, Saudi Arabia, which claims, mendaciously of course, to follow Islam to the letter, maintained good, even cordial relations with the thuggish regime of President Zineulabedeen bin Ali.

And now this so-called Mufti is telling us that this anti-Islam policy must not be resisted, protested or even demonstrated against for fear of fitna.

Well, this kind of submissive, subservient and slavish Islam is what enabled the decadent Saudi dynasty to enslave and ransack a huge country that could have become the richest nation on earth, thanks to its huge oil revenue.

This is what made an essentially illiterate and nearly senile monarch, who can't even write or read his own name, stand at the helm of the very country where the glorious message of Islam was revealed to mankind through the Prophet Muhammed (s) who said "The greatest form of Jihad is uttering a word of truth in front of a oppressive king."

Needless to say, this pseudo-Islam which is being promoted by this Saudi sheikh, which dreads telling oppressors "you are oppressor" for fear of fitna is what makes adulterers and sodomites rule with an iron fist the land of Islam in Mecca and Madina and surrender Muslim sovereignty to the United States on a silver platter. They simply have a sheepish people that is told it is haram to criticize the decadent and oppressive rulers, let alone demonstrate against them. It is very much like the people of the Pharaoh who as the Quran said led his people to hellfire because they refused to rise up against him.

So, one wonders what kind of Quran does this ignorant mufti is reading from? There are hundreds of verses in the Holy Quran urging Muslims to resist and oppose oppression, so why does this so-called mufti overlook all these ayas? Isn't he by so doing displeasing the Almighty in order to please the decadent Saudi family?

Didn't the prophet (s), in the following authentic hadith, urge Muslims to resist evil: "Whoever of you sees a wrong done, he should try to change it, first with his hand, second with his tongue, and finally, if he couldn't, he should denounce it in his heart, which represents the weakest point of faith."

In another hadith, the Prophet said "If my Umma dreads telling the oppressor you are oppressor, it is finished."

I would further ask this sheikh.

What are Muslims supposed to do when they see their rulers become servants for Israel and tools for their own enemies as well as thieves embezzling billions of dollars from their people's coffers?

Are they supposed to just sit down on their comfortable sofas and watch tyrants violate people's dignity, usurp people's rights and ruin people's wealth, pending the arrival of the Day of Reckoning?

There is a prophetic tradition saying that two categories of people, if they don't deviate from the right path, the umma will be alright, but if they get corrupt, the entire umma will get corrupt. It was asked "who are they O Prophet of Allah." He said "the ulema (scholars) and rulers"

I urge this misguided and narrow-minded mufti to revert to true religion and pay no attention to the sticks or carrots of the House of Saud. They won't help him on the Day when neither family nor wealth would help, except he that appears before God, with a pure heart.

How the Fed Fuels Unemployment

How the Fed Fuels Unemployment
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Testimony of Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo
Professor of Economics, Loyola University Maryland
Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
2128 Rayburn House Office Building

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you for the opportunity to address the issue of today's hearing: "Can Monetary Policy Really Create Jobs?" Since I am an academic economist, you will not be surprised to learn that I believe that the correct answer to this question is: "yes and no." Monetary policy under the direction of the Federal Reserve has a history of creating and destroying jobs. The reason for this is that the Fed, like all other central banks, has always been a generator of boom-and-bust cycles in the economy. Why this is so is explained in three classic treatises in economics: Theory of Money and Credit by Ludwig von Mises, and two treatises by Nobel laureate economist F.A. Hayek: Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle and Prices and Production. Hayek was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Science in 1974 for this work. I will summarize the essence of this theory of the business cycle as plainly as I can.

When the Fed expands the money supply excessively it not only is prone to creating price inflation, but it also sows the seeds of recession or depression by artificially lowering interest rates, which can ignite a false or unsustainable "boom" period. Lower interest rates induce people to consume more and save less. But increased savings and the subsequent business investment that it finances is what fuels economic growth and job creation.

Lowered interest rates and wider availability of credit caused by the Fed's expansionary monetary policy causes businesses to invest more in (mostly long-term) capital projects (primarily real estate in the latest boom-and-bust cycle), and there is an accompanying expansion of employment in those industries. But since the lower interest rates are caused by the Fed's expansion of the money supply and not an increase in savings by the public (i.e., by the free market), businesses that have invested in long-term capital projects eventually discover that there is not enough consumer demand to justify their investments. (The reduced savings in the past means consumer demand is weaker in the future). This is when the "bust" occurs.

The economic damage done by the boom-and-bust policies of the Fed occur in the boom period when resources are misallocated in the ways described here. The "bust" period is actually a necessary cure for the economic miscalculations that have occurred, as businesses liquidate their unsound investments and begin to make decisions on realistic, market-based interest rates. Prices and wages must return to reality as well.

Government policies that bail out businesses that have made these bad investment decisions will only delay or prohibit economic recovery while encouraging more of such behavior in the future (the "moral hazard problem"). This is how short recessions can be turned into seemingly endless ones. Worse yet is for the Fed to create even more monetary inflation, rather than allowing the necessary economic adjustments to take place, which will eventually set off another boom-and-bust cycle.

As applied to today's economic situation, it is obvious that the artificially low interest rates caused by the policies of the Greenspan Fed created an unsustainable boom in the housing market. Thousands of new jobs were in fact created -- and then destroyed -- giving an updated meaning to Joseph Schumpeter's phrase "creative destruction." Many Americans who obtained jobs and pursued careers in housing construction and related industries realized that those jobs and careers were not sustainable after all; they were fooled by the Fed's low interest rate policies. Thus, the Fed was not only responsible for causing the massive unemployment that we endure today, but also a great amount of what economists call "mismatch" unemployment. The skills that people in these industries developed were no longer in demand; they lost their jobs; and now they must retool and re-educate themselves.

The Fed has been generating boom-and-bust cycles from its inception in January of 1914. Total bank deposits more than doubled from 1914 to 1920 (partly because the Fed financed part of the American involvement in World War I) and created a false boom that turned to a bust with the Depression of 1920. GDP fell by 24% from 1920–1921, and the number of unemployed more than doubled, from 2.1 million to 4.9 million (See Richard Vedder and Lowell Galloway, Out of Work: Unemployment and Government in Twentieth-Century America). This was a more severe economic decline than was the first year of the Great Depression.

In America's Great Depression economist Murray N. Rothbard demonstrated that, once again, it was the excessively expansionary monetary policy of the Fed -- and of other central banks -- that caused yet another boom-and-bust cycle that spawned the Great Depression. It was not the Fed's subsequent restrictive monetary policy of 1929–1932 that was the problem, as Milton Friedman and others have argued, but its previous expansion. The Fed was therefore guilty of contributing greatly to the massive unemployment of the Great Depression.

In summary, the Fed's monetary policies tend to create temporary and unsustainable increases in employment while being the very engine of recession and depression that creates a much greater degree of job destruction and unemployment.

How Did (Tea Party) Patriots Act?

How Did (Tea Party) Patriots Act?
by John Tyner
Johnnyedge

The House of Representatives failed to extend the PATRIOT Act provisions that I wrote about a few days ago. This is good news, but the fight is not over.

The Patriot Act was moved to the floor under suspension of the rules – a provision that requires two-thirds majority (290 votes) to pass and is often used for noncontroversial legislation. After holding the vote open well past the 15-minute window, it failed 277 to 148 with five Republicans and four Democrats not voting.

Republican leaders will bring the bill back to the floor under a rule, where it will almost certainly secure the 218-vote threshold.

[...]

Twenty-six Republicans voted against the Patriot Act extension, but only eight were freshmen – Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Mike Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Chris Gibson (N.Y.), Randy Hultgren (Ill.), Raul Labrador (Idaho), Bobby Schilling (Ill.), Dave Schweikert (Ariz.) and Rob Woodall (Ga.).

Of those eight freshmen, it appears that all were Tea Party-supported candidates. It's encouraging to see these officials stick to their professed ideals. I hope that this is a continuing phenomenon. According to this article at MSNBC, though, at least forty house seats went to Tea Party-backed candidates. Cross-referencing the list at MSNBC and the outcome of the vote, the following is a list of Tea Party-backed candidates voting for the bill:

Tim Griffin (AR-2), Paul Gosar (AZ-1), Steve Southerland (FL-2), Allen West (FL-22), Sandy Adams (FL-24), Bob Dold (IL-10), Adam Kinzinger (IL-11), Marlin Stutzman (IN-3), Todd Young (IN-9), Jeff Landry (LA-3), Dan Benishek (MI-1), Tim Walberg (MI-7), Michelle Bachmann (MN-6), Vicky Hartzler (MO-4), Renee Ellmers (NC-2), Frank Guinta (NH-1), Joe Heck (NV-3), Michael Grimm (NY-13), Steven Chabot (OH-1), Bill Johnson (OH-6), Steve Stivers (OH-15), Jim Renacci (OH-16), Tim Scott (SC-1), Jeff Duncan (SC-3), Trey Gowdy (SC-4), Mick Mulvaney (SC-5), Scott DesJarlais (TN-4), Bill Flores (TX-17), H. Morgan Griffith (VA-9), Sean Duffy (WI-7), Reid Ribble (WI-8), David McKinley (WV-1)

That's thirty-one out of forty voting for the bill (77.5%), eight voting against, and one no-vote. Despite the eight nay votes, Tea Party-backed candidates overwhelmingly supported an extension of the PATRIOT Act. That's not good for anybody.

Reprinted with permission from Johnnyedge.

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Egypt army says takes 'measures to protect nation'

Sura al-Isrā'

Tuesday, February 8