Jun 28, 2011 || World News

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Politics is a Scam -- Why I Will Never Vote Again

Politics is a Scam -- Why I Will Never Vote Again
Posted by James Altucher
on June 26th, 2011

I had five seconds to make the secretive most powerful man in the world like me so I could potentially make millions. "James," Bill McCluskey said to me, "this is Alan Quasha." Bill was CEO of Brean Murray, one of the mini-banks I considered selling my fund of hedge funds to in 2006. We had a deal on the table and I was desperate at the time to make it work. The table was circular, there were papers on it with numbers, I was bullshitting every which way I could about "synergies". Whatever. That was months later. But first I had to meet Alan Quasha, the owner of Brean Murray, at an event they were throwing, and he had to like me. Because…

Alan Quasha squinted his eyes, shook my hand. He had no idea who I was. I certainly wasn't anything like George W. Bush, the man Quasha had personally saved in 1986. The man Bush owes his sobriety to. In 1986 Bush was CEO of some oil company that was going down in flames. Possibly the worst oil company in Texas history.

Some calls were made and Quasha's Harken Oil bought Bush's company for millions of dollars. Then, of course, a few years later, Bush sold his shares in Quasha's Harkin Oil right before Harkin Oil announced a mega-loss and the stock tanked. Bush used his profits to buy a stake in the Texas Rangers, sold that stake later for 10-15 million dollars and was finally able to follow his father's sage advice ("don't go into politics until you get rich" ***).

Let's spell out what that means: if Alan Quasha called up W on September 12, 2001 in the middle of Bush pouring over maps of the jungles of Afghanistan to see where we would invade (do they have jungles in Afghanistan? Do we really need an "h" in Afghanistan?), Bush would say "hold all calls", close the doors of the Oval Office and say "Hi Daddy Number 2 , to Quasha. He owed his life, his livelihood, the Texas Rangers, the Presidency, all to Alan Quasha and now I was shaking Quasha's hand. I had five seconds to make Alan Quasha like me almost as much as he liked Bush so he would buy my company. Why? Alan Quasha was Chairman of Brean Murray.

Fast-forward about ten seconds. Alan Quasha had moved on. Now I was being introduced to Terry Mcauliffe. Terry was the Vice-Chairman of Brean Murray. Terry was known in most circles as "Bill Clinton's best friend". Terry raised the bulk of the money for the two Presidential campaigns that Bill was in (the first, of course, where he crushed Bush, the Elder). I'm guessing Terry also raised the money for all of Hillary's political races. If Chelsea Clinton ever ran for Mayor of New York (now that Weiner is out of the running so you never know) I bet Terry would raise all the money for her race as well.

So there you have it. The biggest mastermind in Republican politics, the behind the scenes mover and shaker across the entire Bush family, was Chairman of the company. And the biggest mover-and-shaker in Democrat politics, was Vice Chairman. The war of values, between Democracy and Republicanism that our founders had fought for, had shed blood for, was over between them, if it ever even existed. Screw "The Federalist Papers"! Let's make some money!

You see why your vote is useless? Not only is it useless, it's scary. A female friend of mine told me: "it was like the biggest orgasm I had felt in the past 10 years of my marriage" when Obama became President.

But then what happened? Obama extended Bush's tax cuts, kept Bush's Secretary of Defense, extended the wars in Afganistan and Iraq, didn't close Guantanamo Bay, and fought for a healthcare that's now being disputed (and overturned) in every court in America. What else has he done? I can't think of it. Planned Parenthood has less government funding now than under Bush. Africa has less funding from the US than under Bush (in fact, Obama has bombed Africa / Libya).

And yet we all fought so much. "Palin is an idiot!" "Biden can't speak straight!" "Where's Obama's birth certificate!" "Is McCain senile?"! "!"!"!" Let's fight in the streets and pass out pamphlets and wear buttons and lose friends ("I can't believe he's voting for Nader!") and stick on bumper stickers that can never be scratched off once we realize they are as embarrassing as that magic dragon tattoo we got lasered across our backs when we were 17.

We fought so hard for beliefs we all thought we had and where do they all end up? Where does it all congeal together right before it flushes down the toilet?

Answer:

One is Chairman and the other is Vice-Chairman of the same company. They're all laughing together. Slapping backs. Making Money. They are laughing at you and me, my friend. The war is over for them.

We voted them all in there, they served their time, and now they are minting money as if they own the printing press. I watched Quasha and McCaulliffe laugh, sitting next to each other when they used to pretend to be sitting so far apart.

They have no idea who I am, what I want out of life, what ideas I think are good or bad, or would save the world, or whatever. They were laughing as hard as they could just ten feet from me and I knew while I stood there watching them, hoping beyond hope that they would share some of the wealth, I knew that they were laughing at me.

http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2011/06/politics-is-a-scam-why-i-will-never-vote-again/

JP Daily Quran and Hadith

IN THE NAME OF "ALLAH"
Assalamu'alaikum Wa Rahmatullah e Wa Barakatuhu,

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

JP Jab Zindghee Shuru Ho Ghee...?? Must Read.!!

Assalam-O-Alaikum,

Dear All, Please read the attached book and try to apply in your life.

Please remember me & my family in your prayers.

Jazak Allah Khair.

QASIR BASHIR

JP Latest Jobs, Internships, Scholarships and Fellowships alert

JP Fw: [25th Rajab al-Murajjab] Hadrat Sayyiduna Imam Moosa Kaazim Radi Allahu Ta'ala Anhu

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Noori <noori@rehmat-e-alam.com>
To: journalist.hasnain@yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 6:16 PM
Subject: [25th Rajab al-Murajjab] Hadrat Sayyiduna Imam Moosa Kaazim Radi Allahu Ta'ala Anhu

Hadrat Sayyiduna Imam Moosa bin Ja'far
"al-Kaadhim" Radi Allahu Ta'ala Anhu

HIS POSITION IN THE SILSILA: Hadrat Sayyiduna Imam Moosa Kaazim Radi Allahu Ta'ala Anhu is the Seventh Imam and Shaykh of the Silsila Aaliyah Qadiriyah Barakatiyah Ridawiyah Nooriyah. He was a great Aalim and is a Wali-e-Kaamil.

BIRTH: He was born in Abwa Sharif (between Makkah Mukarrama and Madinah Munawwarah), on a Sunday, either on the 7th or the 10th of Safar, 128 Hijri. [Masaalik as-Saalikeen, Vol. 1, Page 225]

NAME: His name was Moosa, and he was also known as Saami, Abul Hassan and Abu Ibrahim. His titles were Saabir, Saaleh, Ameen and Kaazim.

HIS PARENTS: His father was Hadrat Imam Jaafar Saadiq and his mother was Umm-e-Wulad Bibi Hameeda Radi Allahu Ta'ala Alaihim Ajma'een .

HIS FEATURES: He was of good height, and very handsome. He was tan in complexion and some have said that he was not very fair in complexion. [Anwaar-e-Sufiyah, Page 92]

SHAYKH-E-TARIQAT: He is the mureed and Khalifa of his father, Hadrat Imam Jaafar as-Saadiq Radi Allahu Ta'ala Anhu.

HIS EXCELLENCE: Hadrat Moosa Kaazim was such a blessed personality, that whomsoever took his name as a wasila, they found that all their duas were accepted. It is for this reason, that the people of Iraq referred to him as Baabul Hawaa'ij (The Door at which all their problems were answered).

Hadrat Imam Shafi'i Radi Allahu Anhu says that

The Mazaar Shareef of Imam Moosa Kaazim is a great means of acceptance.

Hadrat Imam Jaafar as-Saadiq Radi Allahu Anhu says,

"From all of my children, the most exalted is Moosa Kaazim. He is a pearl from amongst the pearls (treasures) of Allah."

He was an Aabid and Zaahid, and spent his days keeping fast, and his nights in the ibaadat of Allah. He was also known as Abdus Saaleh, due to the lengthy nights that he used to spend in the Ibaadat of Almighty Allah. He was known as Kaazim (one who drinks his anger), due to his humility and simplicity. He was also very generous and kind. He would go out in search of the needy in Madinah Munawwarah, and would then send people to distribute money to them in the darkness of night, and none would know from where they had received the money. He never turned any supplicant away at any time. He always fulfilled the needs of those who asked his assistance. Whenever he met any person, he would be first in making Salam. If someone spoke against him or tried to harm him, then he even took care of that person by sending him money and treating him kindly. [Masaalik as-Saalikeen, Vol. 1, Page 226]

Hadrat Shafeeq Balkhi who was a contemporary of Imam Moosa Kaazim says,

"On my way to Hajj in 149 Hijri, I stopped over at a town called Qaadisiya. I was looking at the behaviour and the manner of the people living there, when my sight fell upon a very handsome young man, who was wearing a Suf (blended cotton fabric) cloth over his clothes, and a pair of shoes. He sat away from the rest of the people. I began to think that he was a Sufi kind of person and wanted to be an obstacle in the way of the people. I thus went towards him to give him some advice. When he saw me coming towards him. He called my name and told me exactly what I was thinking. I then thought in my heart, that this is definitely a pious man, as he does not even know me, yet he called me by my name and said what was in my heart. I felt that I should meet with him and ask his forgiveness. I rushed to find him, but he had already gone away. I searched for a very long time, but could not find him. We stopped at a place called Fida during our journey, and again I saw him. He was in namaaz, and he was trembling and weeping. I walked towards him again, with the intention of asking him to forgive me, when he said, "O Shafeeq Read! Verily I am Compassionate towards him who repented and brought faith and did good deeds and then walked the straight path." He read this verse, and then walked away. I then began to think that he was from amongst the Abdaals (a station of Wilaayat), for he has read my heart twice already. Then we went to Mina, and I saw him again. He was standing at a well, with a huge bowl in his hand. He was intending to take some water. Then all of a sudden the bowl fell from his hands into the well. When this happened, he recited the following couplet: 'You are my Sustainer, when I am thirsty for water, and You are my strength when I intend to eat.' He then said, 'O Allah! O my Creator! O my Lord! You know that with the exception of this bowl, I have nothing else. Do not deprive me of this bowl.' By Allah, I saw that the water in the well reached the top of the well and he stretched out his hand and filled his bowl with water. He then performed wudhu and read four rakaats of Namaaz. After Namaaz, he filled sand into his bowl of water and began to stir it. He then began to drink the mixture of sand and water. I went close to him and said salaam. He returned my salaam. I then asked if he would bless me with some of the blessings which he has attained. He said, 'O Shafeeq! My Lord has always bestowed his hidden and apparent bounties upon me, so always intend good from your Lord.' He then handed his bowl over to me. When I drank out of it, By Allah it was a sweet drink, and never have I tasted something so delicious. The barkat of that meal was such, that I did not feel any hunger and thirst for may days. Then I did not see him until we entered Makkah Mukarramah. I again saw him late one night near the well of Zamzam, reading Namaaz, weeping and trembling. After his Namaaz he sat there for a long time and read tasbeeh. He then read his Fajr Salaah and went to the Haram to perform the Tawaaf. As he left the Haram, I followed him, but I was amazed to see him in a completely different situation to which I had seen him during our journey. I saw his friends, disciples and servants all around him. They sealed of the entire area around him as he arrived and they began to make his khidmat. Each one of them were making salaam to him with great love and respect. On seeing this, I asked one person, 'Who is this young man?' He said, 'he is Moosa bin Jaafar bin Muhammad bin Ali bin Hussain bin Ali bin Abi Taalib.' [Jaami' al-Manaaqib, Page 226/230]

KARAAMATS: Imam Moosa Kaazim performed many miracles. A few of his miracles are quoted below for us to attain barakaat.

KNOWLEDGE OF THE UNSEEN: Ishaaq bin Amaar says, that when Imam Moosa Kaazim was imprisoned, then the Saahibain of Imam Abu Hanifa, namely Imam Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad bin Hassan (Ridwaanullahi Ta'ala Alaihim Ajma'een) went to meet with him, so that they ask him some important questions. Whilst they were seated with him, a prison guard came to him and said, 'I am now about to complete my duty and I am on my way home. If there is anything you need, please let me know, so that I may arrange it for you tomorrow when I return.' Hadrat Moosa Kaazim looked at him and said, 'There is nothing I need. All is well.' As he left, Imam Moosa Kaazim said, 'I am amazed by him, that he wants to know if there is anything that he can do for me tomorrow, whereas tonight he will pass away.' When Imam Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad (Ridwaanullahi Ta'ala Alaihim Ajma'een) heard this, they said, 'We came here to learn about some laws relating to fard and sunnahs and he discusses Ilm-e- Ghaib (Knowledge of the Unseen).' Both of them, then sent a man to follow the prison guard to see the outcome of what Imam Moosa Kaazim said. The man sat outside the house of the prison guard, as he was instructed. When he heard the sounds of weeping and screaming, he enquired as to what had happened. The people of the house informed him that the guard had passed away. When this message reached Imam Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad (radi Allahu anhum), they were astonished. [Tashreef al-Bashar, Page 84]

HIS FORESIGHT: Esa Mada'ini says that he worked for a year in Makkah Mukarramah and then decided to spend a year in Madinatul Munawwarah as he felt that this would be a means of achieving many blessings. He arrived in Madinatul Munawwarah and often visited Imam Moosa Kaazim whilst he was there. One day whilst he was seated in the presence of Hadrat Moosa Kaazim, the Imam looked at him and said, "O Esa! Go and see, your house has collapsed over all your belongings." Esa Mada'ini immediately rushed home and found that his house had collapsed over all his belongings. He quickly employed a man that was passing by to remove all his belongings from the house. He then realised that his jug was missing. The following day, he went to meet Hadrat Moosa Kaazim who said, "O Esa! Did you lose anything when your house collapsed. If so, let me know, so that I may make dua and Allah shall bless you with something better in its place." Esa Mada'ini answered that everything was found except a jug. Hadrat then lowered his head for a while and then raised his head and said, "You removed it from the house before it collapsed and you have forgotten about where you left it. Go to the maid of the house and ask her to give the jug to you." He did this, and found that the maid handed over the lost jug to him. [Masaalik as-Saalikeen, Page 83]

HIS CHILDREN: Almighty Allah had blessed Imam Moosa Kaazim with many children. The names of his children are as follows:

Sons: Hadrat Ali Raza, Zaid, Aqeel, Haaroon, Hassan, Hussain, Abdullah, Abdur Rahmaan, Ismaeel, Ishaaq, Yahya, Ahmad, Abu Bakr, Muhammad, Akbar, Jaafar Akbar, Jaafar Asghar, Hamza, Abbas, Qaasim

Daughters: Bibi Khadija, Asmaul Akbar, Asmaul Asghar, Faatimatul Kubra, Faatimatus Sughra, Zainab Kubra, Zainab Sughra, Umme Kulthoom Kubra, Umme Fardah, Umme Abdullah, Ummul Qaasim, Aaminah, Hakeema, Mahmooda, Imaama, Maimoona (Ridwaanullahi Ta'ala Alaihim Ajma'een).

HIS KHULAFA: The names of all his Khulafa can not be found, but His two well-known khulafa are being mentioned:

1. Hadrat Shaykh Ali Raza
2. Hadrat Shaykh Matlibi [Anwaar-e-Sufiyah, Page 93]

WISAAL: He commanded one of his servants to be the administrator of his funeral arrangements. Hadrat Sayyiduna Moosa Kaazim was poisoned by his enemies. He passed away on either the 5th or 25th of Rajab, 183 Hijri on a Friday, at the age of 55.

MAZAAR SHAREEF: His Mazaar Shareef is in a place called Kaazmeen (Kadhimiyah) in Iraq.

JP FW: [Disarmed] Re: [PakistanWritersClub-Riyadh] MQM RESIGNED

Thanks & Best Regards

A Liberal Attack on Jim Bovard

Monday, June 27, 2011
A Liberal Attack on Jim Bovard
by Jacob G. Hornberger

One of the enjoyable things about being a libertarian is being attacked by both the right and the left. Whenever a libertarian attacks some form of statism, you can be confident that either conservatives or liberals or both are going to be offended.

A recent example from the left is an attack on James Bovard (who serves as a senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation) by a columnist named Bill Egnor at the liberal website Firedoglake. Bovard had written an article published by the Wall Street Journal poking fun at the waste and fraud in the federal government's food-stamp program.

Egnor says that just because there are people defrauding and abusing the system is no reason to ditch the system itself. He suggests that there are thousands of people out there who desperately need food stamps. He says that "when the nation has a crisis caused by folks like Bovard and it puts millions out of work and the government steps in to bail those assholes out, it is also incumbent on the government to do something for those who are suffering at no fault of their own."

Egnor's article highlights a sharp line that distinguishes liberalism from libertarianism: Liberals believe in forcing people to care for others, while libertarians do not.

No, I suppose I should modify that: Liberals believe in forcing people to care for others, as long as it's government doing the forcing, while libertarians do not.

Suppose I were to accost Egnor at gunpoint while he was withdrawing money from an ATM and forced him, on pain of being shot if he refused, to withdraw $5,000 from the ATM and give it to me. He complies and I use all of the money to buy sandwiches that I give to people who are desperately poor and needy.

What would Egnor's response be? Would he be grateful? Would he say, "Jacob, you are a compassionate libertarian"?

Of course not. He would accuse me of being a thief. He would summon the police and send them after me. He would testify against me at my criminal trial and perhaps ask the judge to throw the book at me.

But suppose, instead, that I run to my friendly congressman and persuade him to enact a law that imposes a surtax of $5,000 on Egnor and everyone else. The IRS collects the tax money (by force) and turns it over to the federal food-stamp agency, which proceeds to print up and distribute the food stamps (after deducting a certain amount to cover its salaries and other administrative expenses).

What would Egnor say? His tune would change entirely. He would now exclaim that I am a good, caring, kind, and compassionate person, one who is willing to makes whatever sacrifices are necessary to help the poor.

But force is force. If it's wrong for me to force Egnor to help the poor, it's just as wrong for everyone in society to force Egnor to help the poor. Unlike liberals, we libertarians believe in freedom of choice across the board, including not just what a person reads or ingests, but also what he does with his own money.

As we libertarians have long argued, one of the most disastrous consequences of the welfare state has been the mindset of dependency that it has inculcated in the American people, and Egnor is a perfect example of this phenomenon. He is absolutely convinced that if food stamps were abolished today, there would be mass starvation among the American poor tomorrow. Of course, Egnor would undoubtedly exclaim, "I would help the poor but no one else would." Never mind that millions of his fellow liberals say the same thing and that none of them believes the others.

That's one of the distinguishing characteristics of libertarians we have faith not just in ourselves but also in others. And we place our faith in freedom, free men, and free markets, not in the impersonal, coercive apparatus of the state. Unlike Egnor, we wouldn't think of forcing anyone to help the poor but, at the same, time we have no doubts that when people are free to keep their own money most of them won't hesitate to give for what they consider a worthy cause.

Finally, when it comes to diagnosing the nation's ills, Egnor gets it wrong there too. Like other liberals, he blames America's economic woes on the free market, an unusual position to say the least, given that Americans have suffered under a welfare state and a regulated economy since at least the New Deal.

No, Egnor, what has failed is your beloved welfare-state way of life (along with the warfare-state way of life that so many of your claque believe in too). It has not only produced the mindset of dependency that afflicts you and other liberals, it has also led to the out-of-control spending and borrowing that now threatens the financial and economic security of the American people, including the poor.

It's time to admit the obvious. It was a gigantic mistake to have adopted Franklin Roosevelt's socialist and fascist philosophy and programs. It's time to restore economic liberty and libertarianism to our land before liberals (and conservatives) make the damage even worse than they've already made it.

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-06-27.asp

The Militarization of Compassion

The Militarization of Compassion
Peter J. Boettke
July/August 2011 • Volume: 61 • Issue: 6 •

This article first appeared at TheFreemanOnline.org.

John Stuart Mill wrote in his Principles of Political Economy that "what has so often excited wonder" in observers is "the great rapidity with which countries recover from a state of devastation; the disappearance, in a short time, of all traces of the mischiefs done by earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, and the ravages of war. An enemy lays waste a country by fire and sword, and destroys or carries away nearly all the moveable wealth existing in it: all the inhabitants are ruined, and yet in a few years after, everything is much as it was before."

Mill explained the conditions necessary for this rapid recovery: 1) free mobility of capital and labor, and 2) the survival of some portion of the population and stock of human capital. If these conditions are met, then economic and social recovery do indeed take place very quickly.

Militarization versus Decentralization

This is perhaps a jarring statement in the wake of the tragic human suffering we are witnessing in Japan (or saw last year in Haiti). Of course in the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster, rescue efforts and humanitarian assistance at the basic level require extensive direction. But we must not ignore decentralized coordinating processes. In the aftermath of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, for example, various decentralized efforts to provide assistance were vital to the survival of thousands. Though we focus, especially in the 9/11 case, on the government first-responders, in both instances nongovernment people often responded on the spot at critical moments. There is no doubt that police and firemen in New York City and the Coast Guard in New Orleans played significant roles during the first moments after the disastrous events. But after that initial period, government activism more often than not was counterproductive.

Shortly after Hurricane Katrina I initiated a research project at the Mercatus Center to analyze the effectiveness of the voluntary response to the crisis through the market and civil society. Families and communities were strengthened and rebuilt through the cultivation of commerce. To the extent that commerce was impeded, families were weakened and communities remained in ruins. This conclusion runs counter to common intuitions that demand a command-and-control approach in the wake of a crisis.

The language of disaster and recovery efforts is one of centralizationa military effort is presumed to be required to tackle the urgent problem. But the militarization of compassion is not very effective in achieving improvement. As my colleague Chris Coyne (author of After War and a forthcoming book on humanitarian aid) suggests in his paper "Delusions of Grandeur," imagine you asked the firemen responding to a raging fire at a corporate building to also coordinate the provision of medical supplies and treatment, oversee the reconstruction of the building, and then rebuild the company's supply chain after the fire was extinguished and the building rebuilt. This is precisely what happens through the creeping militarization of humanitarian efforts.

The militarization of compassion does not help strengthen families, rebuild communities, or cultivate commerce. Instead, it centralizes efforts and ignores the local knowledge that resides in individuals and that is embedded in communities. Our intuition pushes toward command and control, but the science of economics pushes back against this intuition and favors the decentralized, on-the-ground information possessed by individualswho are capable of embracing the challenges of the "cares of thinking and all the troubles of living" (as Tocqueville argued was required of a society of free and responsible individuals). The militarization of compassion may help those far away to feel they are doing their best to address the crisis, but once we get beyond the initial search-and-rescue phase and on to the second, rebuilding phase, the result is usually planned chaos.

Government Roadblocks

What emerged from our studies of the rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina was the vital role that both civil society and commercial life, as opposed to government direction, played in successful efforts to bounce back from the disaster. Whenever government attempted to guide individuals in their decisions rather than allow them to base those decisions on their local knowledge and to follow their private motivations, roadblocks to recovery arose. Mill's observation about the amazing rapidity of recovery was confirmed in those areas where the free movement of labor and capital was permitted, and frustration was produced by restrictions on the freedom to choose.

What we have learned from the study of disasters and recovery is that efforts to provide immediate humanitarian aid will always have elements of chaos. The chaos is alleviated not through the militarization of compassion, but rather through the market mechanism that takes over the allocation of resources and signals the required adjustments through relative prices and the feedback of profit and loss.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-militarization-of-compassion-2/

The Economics of Caring and Sharing

The Economics of Caring and Sharing
Dwight R. Lee
July/August 2011 • Volume: 61 • Issue: 6 •

The author would like to thank the Earhart Foundation for supporting his previous research on happiness, which led to considerations on which the present paper is based.

If we were to apply the unmodified, uncurbed rules of the micro-cosmos (i.e., of the small band or troop, or say our families) to the macro-cosmos (our wider civilization), as our instincts and sentimental yearnings often make us wish to do, we would destroy it. Yet if we were always to apply rules of the extended order to our more intimate groupings, we would crush them. -- F. A. Hayek,The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism

The widespread belief that markets are immoral is a major reason they are so poorly understood and so rarely appreciated. This belief is not easily overcome. The fundamental problem is that our instinctive sense of morality, which I shall call magnanimous morality (the morality of caring and sharing), makes it easy to see markets as morally flawed. Furthermore, the explanation economists give for what they see as the major advantage of markets reinforces the instinctive tendency to see them as immoral. Unless economists recognize the source of this hostility and acknowledge it is based on a praiseworthy moralitybut one not fundamental to the success of marketsthere can be little progress overcoming the view that markets are immoral. This would be a shame since there is a strong moral case to be made for markets.

Markets are based on a morality, which I shall call market morality, that helps to direct our actions into a global pattern of mutual assistance which appears to result from magnanimous morality but in fact could never be achieved by that morality. Because market morality lacks instinctive appeal, there is widespread support for attempts to create a more moral economic order by substituting magnanimous morality for market morality. Such attempts unavoidably erode the benefits from both moralities and lower the overall morality of the economy.

I wish to emphasize the difference between magnanimous and market moralities, showing that each supplements the other in contributing to a moral social orderbut only if they are confined to their proper spheres of human action.

The Magnanimous Morality of Caring and Sharing

We instinctively think of morality as personally caring for and sharing with others. It can be defined briefly as satisfying three conditions: 1) helping others intentionally; 2) doing so at a personal sacrifice; and 3) providing the help to identifiable individuals or groups. Behavior of this sort is clearly beneficial to the well-being of small groups in which the members are in close personal contact and knowledgeable of the circumstances and concerns of one another. We spent most of our evolutionary history in small hunter/gatherer tribes fitting this description, so a strong affinity for magnanimous morality has been hardwired into our emotional makeup. Its presence or absence has predictable effects on how we view behavior and social arrangements.

The enduring popularity of Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol, published in 1843, illustrates the emotional appeal of intentionally caring for and sharing with identifiable people at personal sacrifice. Ebenezer Scrooge is introduced as "a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinner" with no regard for the welfare of this employee, Bob Cratchit, his own family, or anyone else. But after Scrooge's encounter with the ghost of his former partner and the three ghosts of Christmas he experiences a moral transformation. He finds true happiness in paying for the medical care needed by Tiny Tim, the Cratchits' crippled son, raising Bob's salary, and more generally using his wealth for the benefit of others.

The appeal of magnanimous morality is fully warranted and understandable. The relationships we have with family and friends are rooted in it, providing us with our greatest happiness and most satisfying and meaningful moments. It should be emphasized that magnanimous morality is not inconsistent with the proper functioning of a market economy. Success in market transactions depends on being sensitive to the concerns of others. And this sensitivity seems to extend beyond strictly market transactions. Based on experimental evidence from a number of countries with wide differences in the degree of integration into global markets, Herb Gintis concludes, "[S]ocieties that use markets extensively develop a culture of cooperation, fairness and respect for the individual" (quoted in Matt Ridley's The Rational Optimist).

It should also be admitted, however, that the proper functioning of a market economy does not depend primarily on magnanimous morality. Indeed, the morality on which markets primarily depend is easily seen as rejecting magnanimous morality, and the way most economists make the case for markets encourages this view and the instinctive hostility that so many have for markets.

The Morality of the Market

Market morality is rather modest, with little if any emotional appeal; in fact, it scarcely seems to deserve the name "morality," instead being commonly seen as a justification for behavior widely held to be immoral. This morality can be defined as following the general rules and norms of market exchanges, such as respecting property rights, honoring contractual obligations, and not harming others by violating their legitimate rights and expectations through force or fraud. Market morality can be achieved, according to Adam Smith in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, "by sitting still and doing nothing." And while markets reward kindness and caring for those with whom we have personal exchanges, the vast majority of the exchanges we benefit from are impersonal; we neither know nor meaningfully care for those on the other side of the exchange.

Since these impersonal exchanges create enormous benefits from outcomes that emerge without conscious direction, people seldom give much thought to those benefits or the market morality on which they depend. Of course people do think about markets occasionally, but when they do it is seldom with appreciation for the benefits they are receiving. More often than not people think about markets when they are being inconvenienced by the market disciplinethe requirements "imposed" on us, for example, in return for incomethat makes their benefits possible. Few of us connect such discipline to the far greater benefits we receive as a consequence, particularly when we see others who appear to be reaping great rewards from the very discipline that is apparently making us so much worse off. Under these circumstances it is easy to conclude that we are imposed on unnecessarily by the greed of others. How easy it is to also believe there is something immoral with an economic system that not only tolerates greed but also rewards it.

When economists make the case for what they see as the most impressive feature of markets, they typically do so with the aid of Adam Smith in a way that reinforces the view that markets at best lack morality. Smith understood and appreciated magnanimous morality, as any reader of The Theory of Moral Sentiments, his first book, knows. But this would not be known to someone who knew only Smith's "invisible hand" argument for markets in The Wealth of Nations. The advantage of markets, according to Smith, is that by pursuing their own interests in the marketplace, people unintentionally do more to promote the public interest (the interest of no one in particular) than if it had been their intention to do so. This argument ignores every requirement for magnanimous morality, and the way economists phrase the argument makes it easy for people to conclude erroneously that the argument for the market rules out the more personal caring and sharing in which our personal relationships are rooted.

I am not proposing that economists discard the invisible-hand explanation of the market. But to make the case for the morality of markets, economists should recognize the tendency for people to dismiss the benefits of the market for its apparent moral failing and counter that tendency by pointing out the inability of magnanimous morality to achieve the desirable economic outcomes expected of it.

Demanding More Than Magnanimous Morality Can Deliver

The belief that markets are immoral causes many either to fail to notice or to dismiss the benefits they realize from them. For example, while most people claim to value conservation and clearly benefit from the conservation that smoothes the availability of goods and resources over time, the nearly unanimous criticism of speculators, whose profit-seeking behavior makes this conservation possible, suggests that most people are unaware that this is a benefit of markets.

Even those aware that they are receiving a benefit from market activity commonly feel it is contaminated by the process providing it. This was illustrated after Hurricane Fran knocked out power in Raleigh, North Carolina, in September 1996. According to Michael Munger, four men from Goldsboro, North Carolina (an hour from Raleigh), rented two freezer trucks and drove to Raleigh with a thousand bags of ice, which they bought for $1.70 each. Customers quickly queued up to pay $8 a bag, with each limited to five bags. Some complained about the price, but no one refused to pay. With the line still long, the local police arrived in force, arrested the four men for price gouging, and confiscated their trucks and all the remaining icewhich was not distributed to those in line. Surprisingly, at least to economists, the frustrated shoppers applauded the police for arresting those whose activities would have made them better off; would the customers have been happier had the sellers not bothered at all? The applause strongly suggests that those in the line felt that the benefit for which they had lined up was contaminated by the profit motive.

Or consider the idea of getting consumers in developed countries to pay extra for "fair trade" coffee, bananas, tea, and chocolate to reduce the poverty of poor farmers in developing countries. Assuming the premiums paid for "fair trade" products go to the intended recipients and forgetting Gene Callahan's economic analysis suggesting these recipients may be harmed even if they do ( "Is Fair Trade a Fair Deal?," Freeman , March 2008), it is clear that "fair trade" advocates are sincere in their belief that this approach will reduce poverty and hope that it will catch on with consumers. Yet many are conflicted by what has been described as a paradox in the "fair trade" movement resulting from the widespread hostility toward markets that pervades it. As described by Sarah Lyon and Mark Moberg in Fair Trade and Social Justice, "In seeking social justice . . . fair trade . . . pursues a market-based solution to the very problems developing from free markets." When large corporations such as Starbucks, Nestlé, Walmart, and McDonald's signed on to sell "Fair Trade" products, which would clearly increase sales and supposedly the incomes of poor farmers, many in the movement objected. Representative of these objections are those voiced by Pedro Haslam and Nicholas Hoskyns (in their contribution to The Fair Trade Revolution), who see these corporations motivated by "marketing success rather than ideology." "[F]air trade certified farmers who sell to them [big corporations]. . . ," they continue, "are still locked into the traditional supply chain dominated by the largest companies. This is not the vision of sustainability and community many of us started out with, where local family-owned businesses sell the products of small farmers and personal relations are maintained throughout the supply chain."

These statements reflect hostility for economies based on "marketing success" and impersonal exchanges between large companies and the suppliers they depend on. The statements, and numerous others from "fair trade" enthusiasts, express a yearning for economies based on personal dealings between consumers in developed countries and those in poor countries who supply them with products anonymously. In this they are like many others who are emotionally attracted to the idea of economies based more on the magnanimous morality of caring and sharing and less on the market morality of pursuing self-interest through impersonal market exchange.

While it is hard to imagine a life of meaning and joy without mutual caring and sharing, we shouldn't demand more of magnanimous morality than it can deliver. Calls for a more moral marketplacesometimes referred to as capitalism with a human faceare invariably motivated by the hope of substituting the instinctive morality of the small group for the morality of impersonal markets. When such a substitution goes beyond feel-good rhetoric and is actually attempted, the result is less morality and prosperity as political power replaces voluntary exchange.

Good economists see nothing wrong with caring and sharing. But they also see the opportunity to supplement that morality by extending our ability to help far more people than we can personally care about. The primary advantage of markets is that they provide each of us with the information and motivation to share with literally millions of people, without caring for them.

Of course some will say, "Yes, people are helping each other, but they are doing so for the wrong reason by considering only what's in it for them." Such people may never be convinced that self-interest is a legitimate motivation. But one would like to ask them if, when enjoying a good cup of coffee, reading a thrilling mystery on their e-reader, or boarding an airplane to visit a sick friend, they are troubled by the thought that all the many people who made those things possible were motivated primarily by a desire to improve their own conditions and the conditions of the families they love. I doubt they are, and for their sake I hope they aren't.

The healthiest and certainly the most compassionate way to think about markets is by recognizing that they allow us to provide better for the few we genuinely do care about by doing more to serve and share with the multitude of those we don't. This suggests that a strong moral case can be made for the market by explaining why the noble desires inspired by magnanimous morality are more fully realized when the urge to substitute that morality for market morality is resisted.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-economics-of-caring-and-sharing/

Fear-Mongering and Servitude

Fear-Mongering and Servitude
James Bovard
July/August 2011 • Volume: 61 • Issue: 6 •

In his 1776 essay, "Thoughts on Government," John Adams observed, "Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it." The Founding Fathers hoped the American people would possess the virtues and strength to perpetuate liberty. Unfortunately politicians over the past century have used trick after trick to send Americans scurrying to politicians to protect them.

President Woodrow Wilson pulled America into World War I based on bogus idealism and real fear-mongering. Evocations of fighting for universal freedom were quickly followed by bans on sauerkraut, beer, and teaching German in government schools. H. L. Mencken observed in 1918: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence, clamorous to be led to safetyby menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." In Mencken's time he was often considered cynical. Subsequent developments have proven Mencken to be a prophet.

The Democratic Party relied heavily on the fear card in the 1920 presidential race. On the eve of the November vote that year Democratic presidential candidate James Cox declared: "Every traitor in America will vote tomorrow for Warren G. Harding!" Cox's warning sought to stir memories of the "red raids" conducted in 1919 and 1920 by Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, during which thousands of anarchists, communists, and suspect foreigners were summarily jailed and in many cases deported. The American people rejected Cox and embraced Warren Harding's promise of a "return to normalcy."

President Franklin Roosevelt put "freedom from fear"atop the American political agenda in his 1941 State of the Union address. But FDR's political legacyespecially Social Securityhas institutionalized fear-mongering in presidential and congressional races. Democrats perennially portray Republicans as planning to yank life support from struggling seniors.

For almost 50 years American politicians have used television ads to spur dread, most famously in the 1964 "Daisy" ad for Lyndon Johnson's campaign. The ad showed a young girl, in the words of Jim Rutenberg in the New York Times, "picking the petals off a daisy before the screen was overwhelmed by a nuclear explosion and then a mushroom cloud and Mr. Johnson declared, 'These are the stakes.'" The ad did not specifically claim that Barry Goldwater, the Republican nominee, would annihilate the human race, but the subtle hint wafted through. Though this ad only aired once, it instantly became a legend.

Whipping up fear was the flipside of President Bill Clinton's "feeling your pain" political style. Clinton fanned people's fear of guns, militias, and life without medical insurance. At the same time, the Clinton administration stretched the power of government on all frontsfrom concocting new prerogatives to confiscate private property to championing FBI agents' right to shoot innocent Americans to bankrolling the militarization of local police forces. Clinton was the Nanny State champion incarnate, teaching Americans to look to government for relief from every peril of daily lifefrom unpasteurized cider to leaky basements. As long as the President seemed to care about average Americans, his abuses were largely forgotten. (The 1996 Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Bob Dole, also promised to provide voters with "freedom from fear" via untying "the hands of the police.")

Fear and Bush

The 2004 race was the most fear-mongering presidential campaign in modern American history. In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, George W. Bush referred to terror or terrorism 16 times. Bush reelection campaign television ads showed firemen carrying a flag-draped corpse from the rubble at Ground Zero in New York and a pack of wolves coming to attack home viewers as an announcer warned that "weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm." (One commentator suggested that the ad's message was that voters would be eaten by wolves if John Kerry won.) Just before Election Day a senior GOP strategist told the New York Daily News that "anything that makes people nervous about their personal safety helps Bush." People who saw terrorism as the biggest issue in the 2004 election voted for Bush by a 6 to 1 margin. Moises Naim, editor of Foreign Policy, observed that the Bush campaign was "using the fear factor almost exclusively. This is a highly researched decision with all the tools of public opinion management. It's nothing but a reflection that it works."

Bogus terror alerts might have made the difference in the 2004 election. Robb Willer of the Sociology and Small Groups Laboratory at Cornell University examined the relationship between 26 government-issued terror warnings reported in the Washington Post and Bush's approval ratings. "Each terror warning from the previous week corresponded to a 2.75 point increase in the percentage of Americans expressing approval for President Bush," Willer concluded. Bush beat Kerry by 2.4 percentage points in the popular vote. Former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge later admitted that many of the 2004 alerts were unjustified. The Cornell study also found a "halo effect": Americans' approval of Bush's handling of the economy also rose immediately after the announcement of new terror warnings, Willer reported. Apparently the more terrorists were allegedly poised to attack America, the better job Bush was doing.

Voters in 2004 could choose whether they would be killed by terrorists if they voted for Kerry or whether they would be left destitute and tossed out in the street if they voted for Bush. Boston University professor Tobe Berkovitz commented to the Washington Post: "It's not surprising that both campaigns are looking for the leverage point: scaring the hell out of the American public about what would happen if the other guy wins." But the more an election is about fear, the more the winner will presume to be entitled to all the power he claims to need to combat the threat.

In his 2005 State of the Union address Bush declared: "We will pass along to our children all the freedoms we enjoy. And chief among them is freedom from fear." The Founding Fathers would have derided the notion of politicians giving citizens "freedom from fear." And they would have denounced the notion that this new-fangled freedom is superior to the freedoms the U.S. government had pledged to respect for more than 200 years.

After promising freedom from fear a politician can always invoke polls showing widespread fears to justify seizing new power. The natural result of making freedom from fear the highest freedom is that any policy that reduces fear can be portrayed as pro-freedom. Bush claimed that to keep Americans safe he had to suspend habeas corpus and detain any suspected terrorist in perpetuity based solely on his unproven assertions. Bush authorized the CIA to use waterboarding and other methods of torture on detainees. He ordered the National Security Agency to launch a massive illegal wiretapping program that eavesdropped on thousands of Americans' phone calls and emails without warrants. Yet Bush remained a great champion of freedomat least in the eyes of his supporters.

The political mass production of insecurity is a dominant trait of our age. The easiest way for rulers to destroy the leashes the Constitution imposed on them is to make voters think they must choose: "We can obey the Constitution or we can prevent you from all being killed. What is it going to be?"

Rising fear can also undermine the freedom of speech that is a bulwark against government abuse. To the extent people desperately cling to faith in the leader to save them from all perils, they develop an intolerance to anyone who points out government follies or falsehoods. The Bush 2004 reelection campaign did all it could to fan such intolerance. Stumping around the nation for Bush, former New York City police commissioner Bernie Kerik told audiences in the final months of the campaign: "Political criticism is our enemy's best friend." As criticism is suppressed government becomes more incorrigible. Eventually the mistakes that could have been corrected cheaply early on become catastrophic national failures.

Fear and Obama

President Obama has picked up the fear-mongering relay baton with his attempts to frighten Americans about health care, global warming, economic collapse, and government shutdowns. Obama has also invoked the fear card to sanctify bombing bad guys anywhere and everywhere.

Government fear-mongering creates a downward politico-psychological spiral. The more fearful people become the more gullible they will be. British philosopher John Stuart Mill warned in 1842: "Persons of timid character are the more predisposed to believe any statement, the more it is calculated to alarm them." It is almost irrelevant whether 10 or 20 or 30 percent of the citizenry can see through government's fraudulent warnings. In a democracy as long as enough people can be frightened, all people can be ruled.

In the same way that some battered wives cling to their abusive husbands, the more debacles the government causes the more some voters cling to rulers. The craving for a protector drops an iron curtain around the mind, preventing a person from accepting evidence that would shred his political security blanket. In the days after the 9/11 attacks polls showed a doubling in the number of people who trusted government to "do the right thing." The media fanned this blind faithas if trust in government was the high road to public safety. The Bush administration exploited the trust to unleash itself at home and abroad, and the nation is still paying the costs of its post-9/11 infatuation with government.

Bogus fears can produce real servitude. The Founding Fathers expected the American people to bravely stand up for their rights if their rulers trampled the law. Citizens cannot cower on cue without forfeiting any possibility of keeping government on a leash. If this nation is to have a rebirth of liberty, it must begin with a rebirth of courage.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/fear-mongering-and-servitude/

JP FW: Born between 1930-1979

Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 09:31:02 +0500
Subject: Fwd: Born between 1930-1979
From: mohammad.tawfiq@crescent.com.pk
To: lakhani1982@hotmail.com; wahablakhani_1988@hotmail.com; samar01@live.com

Mohammad Tawfiq | Senior Officer Cash & Bank
Crescent Steel and Allied Products Limited
9th Floor, Sidco Avenue Centre,
264 R. A. Lines Karachi, Pakistan
Tel:021-3567 4881 – 5 Ext-224
Fax:021-3568 0476 | Cell:333 2301071
website : www.crescent.com.pk
"Save a Tree" Please print only if necessary

Our standard disclaimer (http://www.crescent.com.pk/email_disclaimer.htm) applies to this communication.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: GHULAM RASOOL KHATRI <grkhatri@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 4:56 AM
Subject: Born between 1930-1979
To: "Gr. Khatri" <grkhatri@gmail.com>

No matter what our kids and the new generation think about us......!!!!

WE ARE AWESOME !!!!
OUR LIFE IS A LIVING PROOF !!!!
To Those of Us Born during
1930 - 1979


TO ALL THE KIDS WHO SURVIVED THE
1930's, 40's, 50's,
60's and 70's!!


We were put to sleep on our tummies in baby cots covered
with bright colored lead-base paints.

We had no child proof lids on medicine bottles, locks on doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes,
we had no caps or  helmets on our heads.

As infants & children, we would ride in cars with no car seats, no booster seats, no seat belts, no air bags, bald tires and some times no brakes.

Riding in the back of a pick- up truck on a warm day was always a special treat.


We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle.


We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and no one actually died from this.


We ate cup cakes and other sweets made with Butter & white sugar but were not over weight.

WHY?

Because we were always outside playing....that's why!


We would leave home in the morning, go to school mostly on foot and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on..
No one was able to reach us all day.There were no cell phones, not even land lines  and, we were OKAY.

  We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps
and then ride them down the hill,
only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem


  We did not have Play stations, Nintendo's and X-boxes. There were no video games, no 150 channels on cable, no video movies or DVD's,
no surround-sound or CD's,
no cell phones,
no personal computers,
no Internet and no chat rooms.


WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!


We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.
We would get punishments like caning, spankings with sticks, or just a bare hands and no one would call child services to report abuse.

We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them.
Imagine that!!

The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law!

These generations have produced some of the best Managers
risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever.


The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas. What can kids today do besides push buttons..


We had freedom, failures, successes and responsibility, and we learned how to deal with it all.
If YOU are one of them, CONGRATULATIONS!

You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated so much of our lives for our own good.

While you are at it, forward it to your kids so they will know how brave and lucky their parents were.

--

P Please consider the environment before printing this email

The contents of this email and any files attached thereto are intended only for the above-named recipient and are confidential and proprietary of SIGMEN. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them. No part of this material should be reproduced, published in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopy or any information storage or retrieval system nor should the material be disclosed to third parties. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of SIGMEN & takes NO responsibility for the views of the author.

May Allah azawajal strengthen our hearts in pursuit of His happiness

Say, "O Allah , Owner of Sovereignty, You give sovereignty to whom You will and You take sovereignty away from whom You will. You honor whom You will and You humble whom You will. In Your hand is [all] good. Indeed, You are over all things competent.

Re: JP Fw: PPPP TRAPPED NAWAZ SHAREEF AND MQM TRAPPED REHMAN MALIK????

Hi, I don't know about Zardari getting killed, but what I like to see is getting all the money from Zardari and Nawaz Sharif and then send them to jail forever where they should not get any bail and they never come out. Altaf Hussein must be killed no jail time for him he dose not deserve to live.

Saad Iqbal

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 28, 2011, at 4:00 AM, Irshad Ghori <ighori@saudioger.com> wrote:

Aslamualkum every body,

On this election I want to say PPP govt have a complete grip on Kashmir elections…..but we will c when ppp govt will be complete washout in general election in Pakistan….i am 120% sure that ppp govt will be washout and you will c and write my comments that imran khan will be your next prime minister and zardari will be kiiled by our security agencies….all this fact according to American base and his agenda…you will c my truth in next coming months////////////

God help us

From: joinpakistan@googlegroups.com [mailto:joinpakistan@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Asan Deen
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 2:07 PM
To: joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: **JP** Fw: PPPP TRAPPED NAWAZ SHAREEF AND MQM TRAPPED REHMAN MALIK????

It was the same case as what happened in Gilgit/Baltistaan Election, wherein our Prime Minister Sb. left with all his corrupt mafia and distributed the hard earned money of all People of Pakistan in the shape of Qoumi Khazana, to their beloved ones,,, hence not a single pany they expanded from their own pockets to win the election,,, so Fake Persons always play the fake games everywhere.

Exactly the same game played by our Prime Minister Sb. alongwith his coins corrupt people (Lutairay,,, Lutairay,,, Lutairay) to win this bogus election.....

Akhir kabhi choroon kay dill maen bhee rahm aa hee jata ha,,, magar hamari yeh bay hamiyyat aur chore Govt... unn choron/lutairoon say bhee barh gaee ha,,, Awwaam kay masael ki inn ko zara barabar bhee parwah nahein ha,,, magar yeh siasi dangal aaey roze machatay rahtay haein.

Allah inn ko gharat karay. O! Allah,,, inn zalimoon say iss bholi bhali pakistani makhlooq ko bacha,,, yeh to inn ko zinda dargore karnay per tullay baithay haen. Amin.

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:52 AM, iqbal sheikh <iqbalyat@gmail.com> wrote:

i am surprised how ppp is wining in Kashmir ????

it was totally fake election .

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Journalist Hasnain <journalist.hasnain@yahoo.com> wrote:

--- On Sun, 26/6/11, Journalist Hasnain <journalist.hasnain@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Journalist Hasnain <journalist.hasnain@yahoo.com>
Subject: PPPP TRAPPED NAWAZ SHAREEF AND MQM TRAPPED REHMAN MALIK????
To: pak_generations@yahoogroups.com, pak_writers@yahoogroups.com, "Pakalert Press" <pakalertpress1@gmail.com>, "pakistan" <pakistan@yahoopgroups.com>, "Pakistan Media" <pakistanmedia1051@gmail.com>, pakistan-pal@googlegroups.com, pakistan@yahoogroups.com, "PAKISTANI WRITERS" <PakistaniWriters@yahoogroups.com>, pakistani-girls@googlegroups.com, "PakistaniWriters Moderator" <PakistaniWriters-owner@yahoogroups.com>, pakistanwritersclub@yahoogroups.com, "pakizone" <pakizone@yahoogroups.com=>, pb@express.tv, peaceforhumanity@googlegroups.com, Pindi-Islamabad@googlegroups.com, "public" <public_awareness-subscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: haroon.rashid@janggroup.com.pk, HAVE-A-HEART@yahoogroups.com, Herbys-Funpage@yahoogroups.com, hindi_jokes@yahoogroups.com, "Holland America" <hollandamerica@e.hollandamerica.com>, hrwdc@hrw.org, hrwuk@hrw.org, hrwyc@hrw.org, "I.T. Majlis" <itmajlis@yahoo.com>, "Ibad Chishti" <ibadchishti@yahoo.com>, "IFTEKHAR RAGHIB" <iftekhar_raghib@hotmail.com>, "Iftikhar Ahmad Suhail" <iasuhaill@yahoo.com>, ilmoadab@yahoogroups.com, "Imran Rana" <imran_haneef@yahoo.com>, "Imran Qureshi Japan" <imran_engg@hotmail.com>, "public_awareness yahoogroups" <public_awareness@yahoogroups.com>, "Publicity Channel" <publicitychannel@yahoo.com>, rahehidayat@yahoogroups.com, "MQM.CO.UKmqm" <MQM=mqmuk@hotmail.co.uk=>, "mqm chicago" <mqmchicago@aol.com=>, "mqmcanada" <altafsmqmcanada@usa.net=>, "webmaster@geo.tv" <webmaster@geo.tv>
Date: Sunday, 26 June, 2011, 10:20 AM

PPPP TRAPPED NAWAZ SHAREEF . NAWAZ SHAREEF SUPPORTED PPPP BY FRIENDLY OPPOSITION,WHILE REHMAN MALIK TRAPPED MQM,AND MQM SUPPORTED PPPP IN SINDH ASSEMBLY AND NATIONAL ASSEMBLY.

CRISES WATER SUGAR CNG PETROLE WHEAT AND INCREASING PRICES ARE NOT SOLVED. WHILE MORE THAN 180 MILLIONS PEOPLES CRYING DEMANDNG TO SOLVE THEIR PROBLEMS,PROMISED PRE-ELECTIONS. NON HAS SOLVE BY ANY ONE. PRESIDENT PM MPs MNs CMs ARE NEITHER SINCERE NOR FEELINGS.

CHIEF EXECUTIVE ANTI EVIL AND TERRORISM INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT OVERSEAS.

--
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

--
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

--
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

--
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