Wednesday, August 24, 2011

DC quake

 

 

BREAKING NEWS: Resident Obama has just confirmed that the DC earthquake occurred on a rare and obscure fault-line, apparently known as "Bush's Fault". Obama also announced that the Secret Service and Maxine Waters continues an investigation of the quake's suspicious ties to the Tea Party. Conservatives however have proven that it was caused by the founding fathers rolling over in their graves. Residents of D.C. Don't be alarmed with the Earthquakes.That is just the Country shifting to the RIGHT!




--
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.

Where's Gaddafi???




 

--
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.

An Earthquake Comes to Washington


 

http://tinyurl.com/3s64dlo

 

An Earthquake Comes to Washington

Wednesday, 24 August 2011 06:14 Daniel Greenfield

E-mailPrintPDF

It took an earthquake to interrupt Obama's golf game. Nothing else until now has. But while the rumbling of tectonic plates comes and goes, the deeper rumbling of millions of voters will not. The rumbling is larger than this election. It is bigger than Obama and larger than his feckless party. It is an earthquake of self-definition.

 

There are two types of earthquake events in the last hundred years. Shocks that made Americans rethink their society, the government and the world around them. Economic depressions and unexpected wars.  The Great Depression, Pearl Harbor and September 11 were all shocks to the system that changed the country. That changed how Americans saw themselves. And we may now be in the midst of a fourth such event.     

 

Obama's backers expected that a second depression would lead to a second New Deal. His victory seemed to bear out their predictions. The crisis was here, now was the time to exploit it. But instead of another New Deal, the crisis has led to an Anti-New Deal, a revolt against government regulation.                                                

The left's dogmatic rigidity, its adherence to theories of history in which capitalism leads to socialism blinded it to the obvious. A major national economic crisis had come again, but the context of it had changed.

There was a world of difference between 1933 and 2010 in the level of government involvement in the economy. Today we are living in a New Deal world, reformed, moderated and elaborated on. Massive government intervention in the economy is not a radical new idea, it's business as usual. The architects of the New Deal could claim that they were addressing the failures of capitalism-- but today there is no longer any sector of the economy that legally takes place outside the sphere of government. The buck stops in DC.

The anti-capitalist rhetoric of the left has been unconvincing for that reason. When the two richest men in America hold fundraisers for the Democratic Party, does that mean the capitalists have taken over the party, or that the socialists have taken over capitalism? Most people intuitively know the answer to that. The modern economic reality is an oligarchy where public officials and private lobbies intersect.

The dirty handshakes between the public sector and the private led to this disaster. It's easy to call for more regulation in response-- but who regulates the regulators? 

Obama rose to power on wheelbarrows of money from the rich, the super-rich and from unknown sources that have never been accounted for. He raised twice as much money as McCain, and while the media disinformation machine insists that it was the power of social media at work, it was actually the power of socialism.

Socialism is just crony capitalism misspelled, and everyone knows it. Everyone who has ever competed for a government contract, been forced to join a union by government mandate or been squeezed out of an industry by agreements negotiated between corporate lobbyists and their congressional allies that is. The more you regulate, the more you control. 

New York Times columnists may kvell over Warren Buffett's eagerness to be taxed at a higher rate, but most people suspect that it isn't saintliness at work, but personal economic interest. The same interest that led Buffett, Bill Gates and other top billionaires to support Obama. There is nothing strange about the phenomenon of anti-capitalist capitalists. Capitalism is one way to make money. Socialism is another. The modern monopoly is as likely to rest on government regulation as on the naked marketplace. And the modern trust operates out of the White House and Capitol Hill.

But it is not just personal corruption that leaves the left a less than credible force of economic reform. The entire national context has changed.

There is no use denouncing the capitalists, as if it were 1929 outside the window instead of 2011. That old form of economic hegemony no longer exists except under government patronage. And there is also no use in pretending that the complex relationship between government and business can be untangled with only one of the parties getting the blame, while the other party gets the power. 

 

The old FDR way of offering progressive government as the antidote to free market recklessness no longer works. It no longer comforts anyone or makes them feel secure. There is a long history of government recklessness that makes it impossible for more than a limited portion of the population to be that naive again.

 

The public is more accepting of government intervention today than it was then, but it is also more distrustful of it. And that distrust easily comes to the surface in a time of crisis which is why the movement to hold government accountable is gathering steam.

The Great Depression paved the way for a change in the relationship between the public and the government. And the Ought Depression may be doing the same thing. But while the New Deal made it a close relationship, the political wars of the last two years are leading instead to a breakup between the public and the government.

Progressive government has not only failed to avert several economic crises, it has also completely mismanaged the social safety net and become so hideously expensive that it can no longer be kept up. Those are all dangerously compelling answers and the left has come up with no response to them except to throw out conspiracy theories and cry racism. Such intellectual desperation reminiscent of a dictator ranting hysterically on a televised broadcast as the noose tightens around his regime.

This is the larger earthquake shaking Washington. And it's not just the ivory towers of the left that are trembling. The Republican Party has not built up the same type of political machine that its opposite numbers on the left have, but it's still the party of big government. Not for philosophical reasons, but for practical ones. Few people take a job only to make themselves redundant. And few politicians give up power once they have it.

The Republican Party is less likely to have a radical social agenda or to construct an empire of activists integrated into every level of the public and private sector to carry it through, but it isn't the party of freedom either. After the wild days of Teddy, it has been content to be the reasonable party. The party of moderates who come in to clean up the mess that the radical lunatics leave behind. To be the ones that the nation turn to when the FDRs and Jimmy Carters and Obamas make too great a mess. And then a very presidential figure sweeps in, fixes some things, throws out some others, raises taxes and does all the things that even his liberal predecessor couldn't get away with, and leaves to the cheers of a grateful nation with his 'Dime Store New Deal' clutched tightly in hand.

That's why the Tea Party is the real earthquake in Washington DC. A political movement dedicated to the political disarmament of government power. It's an attack on the centralization consensus, the cornerstone of progressive politics that says bigger is better and more central oversight is what gets the job done.

In a decade where a digital marketplace was created by allowing the natural self-organization of people to shape their own decision-- the decentralization proposed by the Tea Party is on the right side of history. The Federal government white elephant that seemed so impressive in 1955 looks like a hopeless antique in an age of freelance workers, reputation management and the self-ecosystem.

The evolution of technology has also led to a quantum leap in personal empowerment. Whether it's the Army of One or the Army of Davids-- the individual is the center of his own organization. And this conflicts with an ever more intrusive government which insists on telling people what to eat. With the family and the corporation collapsing-- the state is still trying to present itself as the one enduring thing in everyone's life. The cradle to grave state that can't take care of its finances, but promises to take care of you.

 

Obama was supposed to put a fresh technicolor coat of paint on the old outmoded systems, but his technocracy amounted to little more than incompetence disguised as self-promotion. A quality that is ubiquitous in social media, but also nakedly obvious after enough exposure to it. Not only did he fail to convince the country that government should be expanded, but his mismanagement gave rise to a populist opposition movement that is threatening to bring down the entire chain of assumptions of progressive government.

The exploitation of the economic disaster to create a 21st century New Deal failed because it was the ragged ends of the New Deal that had brought about the economic disaster, and the New New Deal that created an even bigger disaster with its uncontrolled spending.

The American public has lost faith in big government and in the messiah of big government. And a nation of people who feel out of control in the midst of a whirling economic crisis want to regain some control by taking it back from the bureaucrats, the lobbyists and the politicians. This is the real earthquake and when it strikes, then the golf game will be called on account of a hard electoral rain.

 

 

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

--
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.

Fwd: THE BRAIN~




 

If you see this lady turning in clockwise you are using your right brain. 
If you see it the other way, you are using left brain. 
Some people do see both ways, but most people see it only one way.

See if you can make her go one way and then the other by shifting the brain's current. 
BOTH DIRECTIONS CAN BE SEEN ( how do you shift your brain's current?)


Experimentation has shown that the two different sides, or hemispheres, of the brain are responsible for different manners of thinking. The following table illustrates the differences between left-brain and right-brain thinking:

 Left Brain          ;                Right Brain 

Logical                              Random
Sequential                        Intuitive
Rational                            Holistic
Analytical
                               Synthesizing
Objective                          Subjective
Looks at parts                   Looks at wholes

      Most individuals have a distinct preference for one of these styles of thinking. Some, however, are more whole-brained and equally adept at both modes. In general, schools tend to favor left-brain modes of thinking, while downplaying the right-brain ones.

Left-brain scholastic subjects focus on logical thinking, analysis, and accuracy.

Right-brained subjects, on the other hand, focus on aesthetics, feeling, and creativity. 

 


--
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** یوم القدس


اسلا م وعلیکم
 سر ! میں نے یہ کالم یوم القدس کے حوالے سے لکھا ہے امید ہے پسند آئے گا  جمعہ کو یہ دن منا یا جا ئے گا  ۔

یوم القدس
 عینی نیا زی
عین القین













--
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

Story on Texas Jobs


As told by the Democrat Chair of the Texas Fed….

 

http://www.dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2011/fs110817.cfm

 

Texas’ Record of Job Creation
Here is a chart that displays nonagricultural employment growth by Federal Reserve Districts over the past 21½ years, using the employment levels of 1990 as a base of 100 and tracing job creation through June.

Total nonagriculural employment growth by district

To illustrate a point, I am going to separate out three districts: the Second, headquartered at the New York Fed and consisting of New York, southwestern Connecticut, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and a dozen counties in New Jersey; the Eleventh, represented by the Dallas Fed, made up of Texas, the wooded areas of eastern Louisiana and southern New Mexico; and the Twelfth, or the San Francisco Fed’s district, which consists of California, eight other states, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa and Guam. The state of New York produces 72 percent of the economic output of the Second District; Texas accounts for 95 percent of the Eleventh District’s output; and California accounts for 62 percent of the Twelfth District’s output. One might consider this second chart to be an imperfect but reasonable proxy for the employment growth over the past two decades of the three largest states in the country.

Total nonagricultural employment by District

Like the chart for employment in all 12 of the Fed’s districts, the three districts’ employment levels are indexed to 100 in 1990. You will see that, at the end of June, the index stands at 150 for the Eleventh District, 125 for the Twelfth and 103 for the Second. Nonagricultural employment growth in Texas has compounded at an annual rate of 1.95 percent over 21½ years; that of California at 0.57 percent; and New York’s at 0.19 percent. If you are interested in the output of their workers over this same period, the compound annual growth rate of Texas GDP is 3.6 percent; California’s is 2.59 percent; and New York’s 2.06 percent.

Now, let’s look at job creation in Texas since June 2009, the date that the National Bureau of Economic Research (or NBER, the body that “officially” dates when a recession starts and ends) declared the recent economic recession to have ended.

There are several ways to calculate Texas’ contribution to national job creation from June 2009 through the end of June 2011. One is to look at the number of jobs created by all 50 states, including those that have lost jobs since the nation’s anemic recovery began. Using this metric, through June of this year Texas has accounted for 49.9 percent of net new jobs created in the United States.

Another way to calculate Texas’ contribution to job creation is to lop off those states that have continued losing jobs and consider only those that have positive growth in employment these past two years. Using this metric, Texas has accounted for 29.2 percent of job creation since the recession ended.

These are the facts. You may select whichever metric you wish. Regardless, it is reasonable to assume Texas has accounted for a significant amount of the nation’s employment growth both over the past 20 years and since the recession officially ended.

This raises the obvious question―what kind of jobs are being created in Texas? Here are two charts that might help you form an opinion.

Texas nonfarm jobs in the recovery

Jobs and wages

The first provides a breakdown of employment growth by sector since the recession ended, listing each employment sector by its weight in the employment mix of Texas. The most jobs have been created in the educational and health services sector, which accounts for 13.5 percent of Texas’ employment. The second-most jobs have been created in the professional and business services sector, which accounts for 12.5 percent of the Texas workforce. The mining sector, which includes support activities for both mining and oil and gas, employs 2.1 percent (yes, two-point-one percent) of Texas’ workers. In the second chart, you will see that these jobs are not low-paying jobs. The average weekly wage in the education and health services sector is $790; in the professional and business services sector it is $1,117; and in the mining sector, the average weekly wage is $2,271. Together these three sectors account for 68 percent of the jobs that have been created in Texas in the past two years.

I should point out that in 2010, 9.5 percent of hourly workers in Texas earned at or below the federal minimum wage, a share that exceeds the national average of 6 percent. California’s share was 2 percent and New York’s was 6.5 percent. Texas and New York do not have a state minimum wage that is higher than the federal minimum wage.[1] At least 17 states do have minimum wages that are above the federal level of $7.25; California’s minimum wage, for example, is $8.

The agricultural sector has a relatively high share of minimum wage workers. Approximately 2 percent of Texas’ workers are in the ag sector, whereas 1.1 percent of California’s workforce and a mere 0.5 percent of New York’s workforce are employed in agriculture. This is true especially in the border area, which also has many migrant workers and where the level of education is relatively low. Finally, Texas has a younger workforce than the nation, further boosting the share of minimum wage earners in the state. For example, the leisure and hospitality sector employs a disproportionate number of young people, and the average weekly wage in that sector is a very low $347.

So those are the facts. The Dallas Fed will henceforth be providing monthly updates on employment in Texas through our website at www.dallasfed.org. We hope it will be a useful tool for everyone ranging from columnists who write for the New York Times to the pundits who provide commentary for Fox News, as well as serious economists.

 

 

"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."  Frank Zappa

 

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
IF YOU DON'T STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS, FEEL FREE TO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM! Please visit: www.operationshoebox.com
.

__,_._,___

--
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 and Hadith

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




 




 

Obama's Identity check


 

President Obama walks into the Bank of America to cash a check

As he approaches the cashier he says "Good morning Ma'am, could you please cash this check for me"?

Cashier: "It would be my pleasure sir. Could you please show me your ID"?

Obama: "Truthfully, I did not bring my ID with me as I didn't think there was any need to. I am President Barrack Obama, the president of the United States of America!!!!"

Cashier: "Yes sir, I know who you are, but with all the regulations, monitoring, of the banks because of imposters and forgers, etc. I must insist on seeing ID"

Obama: "Just ask anyone here at the bank who I am and they will tell you. Everybody knows who I am"

Cashier: "I am sorry Mr. President but these are the bank rules and I must follow them."

Obama: "I am urging you please to cash this check "

Cashier: "Look Mr. President this is what we can do: One day Tiger Woods came into the bank without ID. To prove he was Tiger Woods he pulled out his putting iron and made a beautiful shot across the bank into a cup. With that shot we knew him to be Tiger Woods and cashed his check.

Another time, Andre Agassi came in without ID. He pulled out his tennis racquet and made a fabulous shot whereas the tennis ball landed in my cup. With that spectacular shot we cashed his check.

So, Mr. President, what can you do to prove that it is you, and only you, as the President of the United States?"

Obama stood there thinking, and thinking and finally says: "Honestly, there is nothing that comes to my mind. I can't think of a single thing"

Cashier: "Will that be large or small bills, Mr. President?"

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
God Bless America! Support Our Troops!!
.

__,_._,___

--
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.

Islam-Baiting Doesn’t Work

July 19, 2011
Islam-Baiting Doesn't Work
It Failed in Campaign 2010 and Will Do Worse in 2012
By Stephan Salisbury

During the 2010 midterm election campaign, virtually every hard-charging candidate on the far right took a moment to trash a Muslim, a mosque, or Islamic pieties. In the wake of those elections, with 85 new Republican House members and a surging Tea Party movement, the political virtues of anti-Muslim rhetoric as a means of rousing voters and alarming the general electorate have gone largely unchallenged. It has become an article of faith that a successful 2010 candidate on the right should treat Islam with revulsion, drawing a line between America the Beautiful and the destructive impurities of Islamic cultists and radicals.

"Americans are learning what Europeans have known for years: Islam-bashing wins votes," wrote journalist Michael Scott Moore in the wake of the 2010 election. His assumption was shared by many then and is still widely accepted today.

But as the 2012 campaign ramps up along with the anti-Muslim rhetoric machine, a look back at 2010 turns out to offer quite an unexpected story about the American electorate. In fact, with rare exceptions, "Islam-bashing" proved a strikingly poor campaign tactic. In state after state, candidates who focused on illusory Muslim "threats," tied ordinary American Muslims to terrorists and radicals, or characterized mosques as halls of triumph (and prayer in them as indoctrination) went down to defeat.

Far from winning votes, it could be argued that "Muslim-bashing" alienated large swaths of the electorate -- even as it hardened an already hard core on the right.

The fact is that many of the loudest anti-Muslim candidates lost, and for a number of those who won, victory came by the smallest of margins, often driven by forces that went well beyond anti-Muslim rhetoric.  A careful look at 2010 election results indicates that Islamophobic talking points can gain attention for a candidate, but the constituency that can be swayed by them remains limited, although not insignificant.


A Closer Look

It's worth taking a closer look. In 2010, anti-Muslim rhetoric rode in with the emergence that July of a "mosque" controversy in lower Manhattan. New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio, facing indifference to his candidacy in the primary race, took up what right-wing anti-Muslim bloggers had dubbed "the Mosque at Ground Zero," although the planned cultural center in question would not have been a mosque and was not at Ground Zero. With a handy alternate reality already sketched out for him, Lazio demanded that Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andrew Cuomo, then state attorney general, "investigate" the mosque.  He implied as well that its leaders had ties to Hamas and that the building, when built, would somehow represent a threat to the "personal security and safety" of city residents.

A fog of acrid rhetoric subsequently enshrouded the campaign -- from Lazio and his Tea Party-backed opponent, Carl Paladino, a Buffalo businessman. Paladino beat the hapless Lazio in the primary and was then handily dispatched by Cuomo in the general election. Cuomo had not joined the Muslim bashing, but by the end of the race, dozens of major political figures and potential Republican presidential candidates -- including Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, and Rick Perry -- had denounced the loathsome Mosque at Ground Zero and sometimes the whole of Islam. What began as a local issue had by then become a national political litmus test and a wormhole to the country's darkest sentiments.

But the hard reality of election results demonstrated one incontrovertible fact. Both Lazio and Paladino, heavily invested in portraying Muslims as somehow different from everyone else, went down to dismal defeats. Nor could these trouncings simply be passed off as what happens in a relatively liberal northeastern state.  Even in supposed hotbeds of anti-Muslim sentiment, xenophobic rhetoric and fear mongering repeatedly proved weak reeds for candidates.

Take Tennessee, a state in the throes of its own mosque-building controversy (in Murfreesboro) at the height of the 2010 campaign.  There, gubernatorial candidate Ron Ramsey couldn't slam Islam often enough. Despite raising $2.7 million, however, he went down to defeat in the Republican primary, attracting only 22% of the vote. During the campaign, Republican victor Bill Haslam, now governor, simply stated that decisions about mosques and religious construction projects should be governed by local zoning ordinances and the Constitution.

In another 2010 Tennessee race, Lou Ann Zelenik, a Tennessee Republican congressional candidate and Tea Party activist, denounced the Murfreesboro mosque plans relentlessly. Zelenik ran her campaign like an unreconstructed Indian fighter, with Muslims standing in as opponents in a frontier war.  As she typically put the matter, "Until the American Muslim community find it in their hearts to separate themselves from their evil, radical counterparts, to condemn those who want to destroy our civilization and will fight against them, we are not obligated to open our society to any of them."

It didn't work. Zelenik, too, was defeated, attracting 30% of the vote in a three-way primary race; the winner, state senator Diane Black, edged her out with 31%.  Black declined to denounce the Murfreesboro mosque project and went on to win the general election.


Islamophobic Failures Around the Country

The impotency of anti-Muslim rhetoric was not some isolated local phenomenon. Consider this: in the 2010 election cycle, anti-Muslim Senate candidate Sharron Angle was defeated in Nevada, and the similarly inclined Jeff Greene lost his Senate bid in Florida.  A slew of congressional candidates who engaged in anti-Muslim rants or crassly sought to exploit the Mosque at Ground Zero controversy also went down, including Francis X. Becker, Jr., in New York, Kevin Calvey in Oklahoma, Dan Fanelli and Ronald McNeil in Florida, Ilario Pantano in North Carolina, Spike Maynard in West Virginia, and Dr. Marvin Scott in Indiana.

Not all candidates bad-mouthing Muslims failed, of course. Renee Ellmers, a nurse running in North Carolina's Second District, won her race by about 1,500 votes after airing an incendiary television spot that likened the lower Manhattan cultural center to a "victory mosque" and conflated Islam with terrorism. But Ellmers' main campaign talking point was the abomination of health-care reform. That "victory mosque" was only a bauble-like embellishment, a dazzling attention grabber.

Similarly, Republican Rick Scott, running for governor in Florida, featured a deceptive television ad that referred to the New York project as "Obama's mosque" and, like Ellmers's ad, seamlessly fused Islam, terrorism, and murder. Tea Party favorite Scott, however, had a slight advantage in gaining a victory margin of about one percentage point over Democrat Alex Sink: he poured a staggering $73 million of his own money into the race in which he largely painted Obama as an anti-business incompetent.  Despite lavishing more personal cash on the race than any candidate in Florida history, Scott won by less than 100,000 votes, falling short of 50% of the total.  He was only the second Florida governor to take office without the backing of a majority of the electorate.

If some virulent political rhetoric was credited with bringing victory to candidates at the time, its effect in retrospect looks more questionable and less impressive.  Take the victorious campaign of Republican Allen West for Florida's 22nd Congressional District.  A Tea Party favorite quick to exploit anti-Muslim fears, he was also a veteran of the Iraq War and had been fined by the Army for the beating and threatened killing of an Iraqi prisoner.

During the campaign, he made numerous statements linking Islam with terrorism and weighed in loudly on the proposed Manhattan Islamic center more than 1,000 miles away.  In an open letter to his opponent, two-term incumbent Democrat Ron Klein, he noted that "the mosque symbolizes a clear victory in the eyes of those who brought down the twin towers." Klein then caved and joined West in opposing the cultural center, claiming that Ground Zero should only be "a living memorial where all Americans can honor those who were killed on September 11, 2001."

In the election, West reversed the results of his 2008 race against Klein and ever since, his victory has been seen as one of the triumphs of anti-Muslim trash talking.  A look at the numbers, however, tells a slightly different story. For one thing, West, too, had a significant financial advantage.  He had already raised more than $4 million as the campaign began, more than four times his total in 2008 and twice as much as Klein. Much of West's funding came from out-of-state donors and conservative PACs. For all that money, however, West won the election by not "losing" as many votes as Klein did (when compared to 2008). In 2010, West won with about 115,000 votes to Klein's 97,000; in 2008, when Klein had the funding advantage and a presidential year electorate at his back, he beat West, 169,000 to 140,000.

Off-year elections normally mean lower turnouts, which clearly worked to West's advantage. His victory total amounted to about a third of the 2008 total vote. And there's the point. The motivated, far-right base of the Republican Party/Tea Party can, at best, pull in about a quarter to a third of the larger electorate. In addition, West became the Definer: He blocked out the issues, agitated his base, and got people to the polls. Klein ceded the terms of the debate to him and failed to galvanize support. Did anti-Muslim rhetoric help West? Probably. Can it work in a presidential election year when substantial turnout ensures that the base won't rule? Unlikely.

Nevertheless, candidates on the right are already ramping up the rhetoric for 2012. Herman Cain, the pizza king who would be president, is but one obvious example. He says he may not know much, but one thing he knows for sure: when he's elected, no Muslims will find their way into his administration.

As he put it in an interview with Christianity Today, "Based upon the little knowledge that I have of the Muslim religion, you know, they have an objective to convert all infidels or kill them."  Cain told the website Think Progress that he'd brook no Muslim cabinet members or judges because "there is this creeping attempt, there's this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government."

Before a national television audience at a recent Republican presidential debate, however, Cain proceeded to say that he really hadn't said what he had, in fact, said. This is called a "clarification." What he meant, Cain reassured television viewers, was that he would only bar disloyal Muslims, the ones "trying to kill us."

It almost seems as if candidates defeated in 2010 when using over-the-top anti-Muslim rhetoric are expecting a different outcome in 2012. Lawyer Lynne Torgerson in Minnesota is a fine example of this syndrome. In 2010, she decided to take on Keith Ellison, the first Muslim member of Congress, pounding him relentlessly for his supposed "ties" to "radical Islamism." 

"And what do I know of Islam?" she wrote on the "issues" page of her 2010 campaign website.  "Well, I know of 911." Alas for Torgerson, the strategy didn't work out so well. She was crushed by Ellison, garnering only 3% of the vote. Now, Torgerson is back, her message even more extreme. Ellison is no longer simply tied to "radical Islamism," whatever that may be; he has apparently used his time in Congress to become a "radical Islamist" pushing, she claims, nothing less than the adoption of  "Islamic Sharia law."


Sharia is the New Mosque at Ground Zero

Sharia has become 2012's Mosque at Ground Zero, with about 20 states considering laws that would ban its use and candidates shrilly denouncing it -- a convenient way, presumably, to keep harping on nonexistent, yet anxiety-producing, "threats." Since no one knows what you're talking about when you decry Sharia, it's even easier than usual to say anything, no matter how bizarre or duplicitous.

So be prepared to hear a lot about "Sharia" between now and November 2012.

Going forward a few things seem clear. For one, the Islamophobic machinery fueled by large rightwing foundations, PACs, individuals, and business interests will continue to elaborate a virtual reality in which Muslim and Islamic "threats" lurk around every American corner and behind every door. It is important to realize that once you've entered this political landscape, taking down anti-Muslim "facts" with reality is a fool's errand.  This is a realm akin to a video game, where such "facts" are dispatched only to rise again like so many zombies. In the world of Resident Evil, truth hardly matters.

But bear in mind that, as the 2010 election results made clear, that particular virtual reality is embraced by a distinct and limited American minority.  For at least 70% of the electorate, when it comes to anti-Muslim slander, facts do matter. Failure to challenge the bogus rhetoric only allows the loudest, most reckless political gamer to set the agenda, as Ron Klein discovered to his dismay in Florida.

Attacks on the deadly threat of Sharia, the puffing up of Muslim plots against America, and the smearing of candidates who decline to make blanket denunciations of "Islamism" are sure to emerge loudly in the 2012 election season. Such rhetoric, however, may prove even less potent at the polls than the relatively impotent 2010 version, even if this reality has gone largely unnoticed by the national media.

For those who live outside the precincts where right-wing virtual reality reigns supreme, facts are apparently having an impact.  The vast majority of the electorate seems to be viewing anti-Muslim alarms as a distraction from other, far more pressing problems: real problems.

http://aep.typepad.com/american_empire_project/2011/07/islam-baiting-doesnt-work.html#more

The Pentagon’s Fake Jihadists


The Pentagon's Fake Jihadists
by Tom Engelhardt

Could the Pentagon Be Responsible for Your Death?
The Military's Marching Orders to the Jihadist World

Put what follows in the category of paragraphs no one noticed that should have made the nation's hair stand on end. This particular paragraph should also have sent chills through the body politic, launched warning flares, and left the people's representatives in Congress shouting about something other than the debt crisis.

Last weekend, two reliable New York Times reporters, Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker, had a piece in that paper's Sunday Review entitled " After 9/11, an Era of Tinker, Tailor, Jihadist, Spy." Its focus was the latest counterterrorism thinking at the Pentagon: deterrence theory. (Evidently an amalgam of the old Cold War ideas of "containment" and nuclear deterrence wackily reimagined by the boys in the five-sided building for the age of the jihadi.) Schmitt and Shanker's article was, a note informed the reader, based on research for their forthcoming book, Counterstrike: The Untold Story of America's Secret Campaign Against Al Qaeda.

And here's the paragraph, buried in the middle of their piece, that should have stopped readers in their tracks:

"Or consider what American computer specialists are doing on the Internet, perhaps terrorist leaders' greatest safe haven, where they recruit, raise money, and plot future attacks on a global scale. American specialists have become especially proficient at forging the onscreen cyber-trademarks used by Al Qaeda to certify its Web statements, and are posting confusing and contradictory orders, some so virulent that young Muslims dabbling in jihadist philosophy, but on the fence about it, might be driven away."

The italics are mine, and as the authors urge us to do, let's consider for a moment this tiny, remarkably bizarre window into military reality. As a start, just where those military "computer specialists" are remains unknown. Perhaps they are in the Pentagon, perhaps somewhere in the National Counterterrorism Center, but whoever and wherever they are, here's the question of the week, possibly of the month or the year: Just what kind of "orders" can they be posting "so virulent that young Muslims dabbling in jihadist philosophy, but on the fence about it, might be driven away"?

And even if our computer experts really were capable of turning wavering young Muslims back from the shores of jihadism – and personally I wouldn't put my money on the Pentagon's skills in that realm – what about young Muslims (or older ones for that matter) who weren't on that fence and took those "orders" seriously? What exactly are they being "ordered" to do?

Talk about a potential Frankenstein situation – and all we can do is ask questions. Just what monsters, for example, might the military's computer specialists be helping to forge? And who exactly is supervising those "specialists" and their vituperative messages? (Especially since they are unlikely to be in English, and we already know that Arabic, Pashto, Dari, and Farsi speakers at the higher levels, or even lower levels, of the Pentagon are, at best, few and far between.)

Keep in mind that we already have an example of a similarly wacky program lacking meaningful oversight that went awry, hit the headlines, and resulted in the perfectly real deaths of at least one U.S. Border Patrol agent and undoubtedly many more Mexicans. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives launched its now infamous gun-tracking program in Arizona in late 2009, under the moniker "Operation Fast and Furious" (a reference to a series of movies about street car racers). It was meant to track cross-border gun sales to Mexico's drug cartels by actually letting perfectly real weapons cross the border – more than 2,000 of them, as it turned out. ATF agents, according to a Washington Post report, would be "instructed not to move in and question the [gun runners] but to let the guns go and see where they eventually ended up." And so they did for more than a year and, not exactly surprisingly, those weapons ended up "on the street" and in the ugliest of hands.

The Daily Show's Jon Stewart asked an apt question about the program: "The ATF plan to prevent American guns from being used in Mexican gun violence is to provide Mexican gangs with American guns. If this is the plan that they went with, what plan did we reject?"

Assumedly, the same question could be asked of the military's online anti-jihadist program, involving as it evidently does messages believed to be too extreme for wavering young Muslims with an interest in the jihadi "philosophy." Shouldn't someone start asking whether those Pentagon's "orders" to jihadis might not turn out to be the online equivalent of so many loose guns?

After all, what are those specialists ordering them to do? And if actual jihadis actually tried to follow those "confusing and contradictory orders," possibly being confused and contradictory kinds of guys, if they took them seriously and interpreted them in ways not predicted by their putative Pentagon handlers, is there a possibility that anyone could die as a result? And if such messages turn off some prospective jihadis, isn't it possible that they might turn on others? And could they, for instance, have been ordered to commit confused and contradictory acts that might end up involving Americans?

Really, someone should blow Schmitt and Shanker's paragraph up to giant size, tack it up somewhere in the Capitol, and call for a congressional investigation. If the ATF could do it, why not the Pentagon? And honestly, is this how Americans want to see their tax dollars spent?

Read the Schmitt and Shanker piece and you'll get a sense of what Shakespeare might have called the "oerweening pride" rife in the Pentagon when it comes to their skills and their ability to put one (or two, or three) over on the jihadist community. So pleased with themselves were they, that they evidently couldn't help bragging to the two reporters about their skills. The old phrase "too smart for your own good" comes to mind. It's enough to make you worry, even based on so little information (which the new book from the two reporters may significantly amplify).

And by the way, if you want another unsettling analogy, when it comes to off-the-wall ideas for "deterring" jihadist networks, check out the major record companies and their efforts to deter communities and individuals from illegally downloading music. The Recording Industry Association of America, representing the four major record labels, decided to make a cautionary example of Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a Minnesota mom, by suing her "for illegally downloading and sharing 24 songs on the peer-to-peer file-sharing network Kazaa in 2006." So far, the organization has dragged her through three trials, getting terrible publicity. Even if they win and leave her in hock for the rest of her life, do you think for one second that they will have made a dent in the world of illegal downloads or deterred anyone? Just ask your kid.

Don't think deterrence here, think blowback.

Honestly, if Schmitt and Shanker's claim is accurate, you should be shaking in your boots. And someone on Capitol Hill should be starting to ask some relevant questions, including this one: Could "computer specialists" in the employ of the Pentagon be responsible for your death in a future terrorist attack?

http://aep.typepad.com/american_empire_project/2011/08/could-the-pentagon-be-responsible-for-your-death-.html#more

It’s official -- Jon Stewart wins the Iowa Straw Poll


It's official -- Jon Stewart wins the Iowa Straw Poll
Published: 18 August, 2011, 14:34
August 2011

Jon Stewart's now viral analysis of the media exclusion of Ron Paul is an example of how comics make us laugh by stating the truth.This was definitely a "Look, the Emperor has no clothes," moment for America – the emperor in this case being the national media in general and "fair and balanced" Fox News Channel specifically. Look at the numbers and see how Jon Stewart's views jumped on the day he stated the obvious to the delight of the nation.

Years ago, in television, it was a rule of thumb that when you received a letter it represented a thousand people who felt the same way. Today, the national media has decided that it is all reversed for Ron Paul supporters on the internet. They believe that 1,000 Ron Paul emails really only represent one. That it just so happens that all the Ron Paul people are techno savvy and supporters of the other candidates struggle in that area. And so the growing numbers of people who vote or express their support for Dr. Paul in emails must in reality be fewer than they appear.

And for those handful of Americans who missed Jon Stewart's analysis of the Iowa Straw Poll, here you go.
http://rt.com/files/news/blogs/contrarian-view/jon-stewart-straw-poll/video-youtube-user-lonelantern.mp4?download=1


http://rt.com/news/blogs/contrarian-view/jon-stewart-straw-poll/

FBI Organizes Almost All Terror Plots in the US


FBI Organizes Almost All Terror Plots in the US

Russia Today

The Federal Bureau of Investigation employs upwards of 15,000 undercover agents today, ten times what they had on the roster back in 1975.

If you think that's a few spies too many -- spies earning as much as $100,000 per assignment -- one doesn't have to go too deep into their track record to see their accomplishments. Those agents are responsible for an overwhelming amount of terrorist stings that have stopped major domestic catastrophes in the vein of 9/11 from happening on American soil.

Another thing those agents are responsible for, however, is plotting those very schemes.

The FBI has in recent years used trained informants not just to snitch on suspected terrorists, but to set them up from the get-go. A recent report put together by Mother Jones and the Investigative Reporting Program at the University of California-Berkley analyses some striking statistics about the role of FBI informants in terrorism cases that the Bureau has targeted in the decade since the September 11 attacks.

The report reveals that the FBI regularly infiltrates communities where they suspect terrorist-minded individuals to be engaging with others. Regardless of their intentions, agents are sent in to converse within the community, find suspects that could potentially carry out "lone wolf" attacks and then, more or less, encourage them to do so. By providing weaponry, funds and a plan, FBI-directed agents will encourage otherwise-unwilling participants to plot out terrorist attacks, only to bust them before any events fully materialize.

Additionally, one former high-level FBI officials speaking to Mother Jones says that, for every informant officially employed by the bureau, up to three unofficial agents are working undercover.

The FBI has used those informants to set-up and thus shut-down several of the more high profile would-be attacks in recent years. The report reveals that the Washington DC Metro bombing plot, the New York City subway plot, the attempt to blow up Chicago's Sears Tower and dozens more were all orchestrated by FBI agents. In fact, reads the report, only three of the more well-known terror plots of the last decade weren't orchestrated by FBI-involved agents.

The report reveals that in many of the stings, important meetings between informants and the unknowing participants are left purposely unrecorded, as to avoid any entrapment charges that could cause the case to be dismissed. Perhaps the most high-profile of the FBI-proposed plots was the case of the Newburgh 4. Around an hour outside of New York City, an informant infiltrated a Muslim community and engaged four local men to carry out a series of attacks. Those men may have never actually carried out an attack, but once the informant offered them a plot and a pair of missiles, they agreed. Defense attorneys cried "entrapment," but the men still were sentenced to 25 years apiece.

"The problem with the cases we're talking about is that defendants would not have done anything if not kicked in the ass by government agents," Martin Stolar tells Mother Jones. Stolar represented the suspect involved in a New York City bombing plot that was set-up by FBI agents. "They're creating crimes to solve crimes so they can claim a victory in the war on terror." For their part, the FBI says this method is a plan for "preemption," "prevention" and "disruption."

The report also reveals that, of the 500-plus prosecutions of terrorism-related cases they analyzed, nearly half of them involved the use of informants, many of whom worked for the FBI in exchange for money or to work off criminal charges. Of the 158 prosecutions carried out, 49 defendants participated in plots that agent provocateurs arranged on behalf of the FBI.

Experts note that the chance of winning a terrorism-related trial, entrapment or not, is near impossible. "The plots people are accused of being part of -- attacking subway systems or trying to bomb a building -- are so frightening that they can overwhelm a jury," David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor, tells Mother Jones. Since 9/11, almost two-thirds of the cases linked to terrorism have ended with guilty pleas. "They don't say, 'I've been entrapped,' or, 'I was immature,'" a retired FBI official remarks.

All of this and those guilty pleas often stem for just being in the right place at the wrong time. Farhana Khera of the group Muslim Advocate notes that agents go into mosques on "fishing expeditions" just to see where they can get interest in the community. "The FBI is now telling agents they can go into houses of worship without probable cause," says Khera. "That raises serious constitutional issues."

From the set-up to the big finish, the whole sting operation is ripe with constitutional issues such as that. A decade since 9/11, however, the FBI is reaching through whatever means it can pull together to keep terrorists – or whom they think could someday become one – from ever hurting America.

http://rt.com/usa/news/fbi-terror-report-plot-365/

Fwd: [LA-F] DNA study deals blow to theory of European origins


24 August 2011 Last updated at 00:15

DNA study deals blow to theory of European origins

By Paul Rincon Science editor, BBC News website
Paintings at Chavet cave, France SPL
Did Palaeolithic hunters leave a genetic legacy in today's European males?

A new study deals a blow to the idea that most European men are descended from farmers who migrated from the Near East 5,000-10,000 years ago.

The findings challenge previous research showing that the genetic signature of the farmers displaced that of Europe's indigenous hunters.

The latest research leans towards the idea that most of Europe's males trace a line of descent to stone-age hunters.

But the authors say more work is needed to answer this question.

The study, by an international team, is published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Archaeological finds show that modern humans first settled in Europe from about 40,000 years ago - during a time known as the Palaeolithic.

These people survived an Ice Age some 20,000 years ago by retreating to relatively warm refuges in the south of the continent, before expanding into northern Europe again when the ice melted.

But just a few thousand years after Europe had been resettled by these hunter-gatherers, the continent underwent momentous cultural change. Farmers spread westwards from the area that is now Turkey, bringing with them a new economy and way of life.

The extent to which modern Europeans are descended from these early farmers versus the indigenous hunter-gatherers who settled the continent thousands of years previously is a matter of heated debate.

The results vary depending on the genetic markers studied and are subject to differing interpretations.

Family tree

The latest study focused on the Y chromosome - a package of DNA which is passed down more or less unchanged from father to son.

The Y chromosomes carried by people today can be classified into different types, or lineages, which - to some extent - reflect their geographical origins.

More than 100 million European men carry a type called R-M269, so identifying when this genetic group spread out is vital to understanding the peopling of Europe.

R-M269 is most common in western Europe, reaching frequencies of 90% or more in Spain, Ireland and Wales.

Neolithic pottery
The Neolithic was a time of momentous cultural change in Europe

But while this type reaches its highest distribution on the Atlantic fringe, Patricia Balaresque and colleagues at the University of Leicester published a paper in 2010 showing that the genetic diversity of R-M269 increases as one moves east - reaching a peak in Anatolia (modern Turkey).

Genetic diversity is used as a measure of age; lineages that have been around for a long time accumulate more diversity. So this principle can be used to estimate the age of a population.

When the Leicester team estimated how old R-M269 was in different populations across Europe, they found the age ranges were more compatible with an expansion in Neolithic times (between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago).

The team's conclusions received support from papers published in August 2010 and in June this year. But one study which appeared last year backed the idea of a more ancient, Palaeolithic origin for R-M269.

Age estimates

Now, a team including Cristian Capelli and George Busby at Oxford University have explored the question.

Their results, based on a sample of more than 4,500 men from Europe and western Asia, showed no geographical trends in the diversity of R-M269. Such trends would be expected if the lineage had expanded from Anatolia with Neolithic farmers.

Furthermore, they suggest that some of the markers on the Y chromosome are less reliable than others for estimating the ages of genetic lineages. On these grounds, they argue that current analytical tools are unsuitable for dating the expansion of R-M269.

Neolithic skeletons, the Valdaro lovers from Italy
Studies of DNA from ancient remains could shed more light on European origins

Indeed, Dr Capelli and his team say the problem extends to other studies of Y-chromosome lineages: dates based on the analysis of conventional DNA markers may have been "systematically underestimated", they write in Proceedings B.

But Dr Capelli stressed that his study could not answer the question of when the ubiquitous R-M269 expanded in Europe, although his lab is carrying out more work on the subject.

"At the moment it's not possible to claim anything about the age of this lineage," he told BBC News, "I would say that we are putting the ball back in the middle of the field."

The increasing frequency of R-M269 towards western Europe had long been seen by some researchers as an indication that Palaeolithic European genes survived in this region - alongside other clues.

A more recent origin for R-M269 than the Neolithic is still possible. But researchers point out that after the advent of agriculture, populations in Europe exploded, meaning that it would have been more difficult for incoming migrants to displace local people.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14630012
--  Mario Huet Libertarian Alliance Forum List Administrator  ********************************************** Words cannot picture her; but all men know    That solemn sketch the pure sad artist wrought  ********************************************** James Thomson, The City of Dreadful Night 

--
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: **JP** attention 2 Editorial staff

Yes Imran Khan appears to be the right person in the absence of any loyal, honest, sincere leader in the country.
 
However, there are some spots that has to be cleared before he takes the road tot he Prime Minister's House.
1. Why did he marry in a jewish family
2. Why did he not tell the truth about Sita White and the child?

Regards
2011/8/20 MUHAMMAD WAJI- US- SAMA <m.wajiussama@gmail.com>


--
*Assalam o Alaikum.
sir new column send kar rha hon umed he pasad aye ga
عمران خان توجہ فرمائیں!
شمشیر حق۔۔۔محمد وجیہہ السماء عرفانی
m.wajiussama@gmail.com
ہمارے ملک میں اب تک سینکڑوں جماعتیں وجود میں آ چکی ہیں کو ئی سربراہ کسی جماعت کے ممبر کو اپنی جماعت سے نکالتا ہییا وہ خود اپنی مرضی سے پارٹی سے نکل جا تا ہے۔تو پارٹی آفس سے نکلنے سے پہلے اپنی جماعت کی بنیاد رکھ چکا ہوتا ہے اور اسی طرح ہمارا ملک کئی ایک سیاسی پارٹیوں کا مرکز بن گیا کئی ایک پارٹیاں تو ایسی بھی ہیں کہ جن کا کو ئی منشور نہیں ہے بس دنیا کو دھوکا دینے کے لئے کچھ صفحات پر الٹے سیدھے الفاظ لکھ کر بیوقوف بنا یا جارہا ہے اور ان الفاظ کو ہی اس پارٹی کا'' منشور'' کہا جا تا ہے۔ اس سا ری بھیڑ میں دیکھیں تو تحریک انصاف کا وجود اپنی الگ شناخت رکھتا ہے اس کو عمران خان کی قیادت میسر ہے ۔ عمران خان پاکستان کے بے باک اور صاف گو سیاستدان ہو نے کے ساتھ ساتھ محب وطن لیڈر بھی ہیں جن پر آج تک کو ئی کرپشن کا کیس سا منے نہیں آیا اور اس پارٹی نے پاکستان پر آ نے والی ہر آفت میں ہر اول دستہ کا کردار بخوشی نبھایا۔تحریک انصاف نے شروع دن سے ہی عوام کے دکھ کو ا پنا دکھ سمجھا ہر حکمران کے برے کاموں کو دنیا ،عوام اور خود حکمران کو اس کے کالے کرتوتوں کے بارے میں بتا یا اور آ ج بھی وہ اس کا م میں مگن ہے۔تحریک انصاف ہی عوامی حلقوں میں انقلاب کے لئے متحرک تنظیم نظر آتی ہے کیو نکہ اگر پیپلز پارٹی کو دیکھا جا ئے تو اس پر بھی یہ الزام آج تک موجود ہے کہ اس نے خود اپنے منشور روٹی، کپڑا اور مکان پر عمل نہیں کیاجب کہ مسلم لیگ ن بھی عوامی حلقوں میں بنیادی سہولیات فراہم کر نے میں ابھی تک ناکام ہے خصوصا سکولوں، کالجوں و دیگر سرکاری اداروں سمیت جنرل بس سٹینڈ پرٹائلٹ باتھ رومز اور بیٹھنے کے لئے سہولیات موجودنہیں اگر مسلم لیگ ن چا ہتی تو واٹر فلٹر یشن پلانٹ سب سے پہلے جنرل بس سٹینڈ پر لگواتی جس سے ہرراہگیر مستفید ہو تا ۔ مسلم لیگ ق اپنے دور حکومت میں تاریخی ترقیاتی کاموں کی وجہ سے پورے پاکستان میں مقبول ہو ئی لیکن مسلم لیگ ق کے اندرونی اختلافات کی وجہ سے پارٹی اپنی مقبولیت کو برقرار نہ رکھ سکی خصوصا مسلم لیگ خود بھی دیگر اپوزیشن جماعتوں کے ساتھ مل کر سابق صدر پرویز مشرف کے خلاف ہو گئی جس کی وجہ سے خود مسلم لیگ ق کے راہنما ان سے علیحدہ ہو گئے ہم یہاں پارٹیوں کے اندرونی معاملات میں دخل اندازی نہیں کر نا چاہتے لیکن حقیقت اس سے بر عکس نہیں ۔ایسے حالات میں تحریک انصاف ہی وہ واحد پارٹی ہے جسے پاکستانی عوام چانس دینے پر سب سے زیادہ غوروفکر میں ہیں۔ کیو نکہ تحریک انصاف ایک طرف تو وہ عوام کا دکھ سکھ بے حس حکمرانو ں کے سامنے لا رہی ہے تو دوسری طرف جب سے تحریک انصاف بنی اور اس کی ترقی میں دن بدن اضافہ ہورہا ہے۔ یہ بات دوسری پارٹیوں کے لئے درد سر بنی ہو ئی ہے جن کے ممبران کی سیا ست اپنے پارٹی کے بڑوں کی خواہشات اور اپنے ذاتی مفادات تک ہو تی ہے ان فصلی بیٹروں کوتحریک انصاف سے اتنی تکلیف ہے کہ وہ اس سے جان چھڑانا چاہ رہے ہیں اس کی بڑھوتری ہی ان لوگوں کے لئے پریشانی کا سبب بنی ہوئی ہے جو لوگ گھاٹ گھاٹ کا پا نی پینے کے عادی ہیں اور جو کئی عشروں سے پاکستانی سیاست و پاکستانی سرکار پر ڈھیر ے جمائے بیٹھے ہیں۔ اس کا نٹے سے جان چھڑانا چا ہ رہے ہیں اور اس کانٹے سے جان چھوڑنے کے لئے اس کا صاف اور بہترین حل یہ نکالا گیا کہ اپنے بھا ئی، عزیر، کزن، و دیگر رشتہ داروں کو تحریک انصاف کی ممبر شپ لے دی گئی جس کا فائدہ ان لوگو ں کو ہواکیو نکہ ان کو کس بھی طرف سے ٹف ٹائم بھی نہیں ملے گا اور نہ کو ئی ان پر تنقید کر ے گا یعنی ''سانپ بھی مر جائے گا اور لاٹھی بھی نہیں ٹوٹے گی ''کے محاورے پر بڑے احسن انداز میں عملداآمد کیا گیا ہے۔اسی طرح پاکستانی سیاست میں باپ، بیٹے کزن، رشتہ داروں کی مثالیں موجود ہیں تو دیگر سیاسی جماعتوں میں اپنے اپنے رشتے داروں کو بٹھا نا کو ئی بڑی بات نہیں ۔اس کے ساتھ ساتھ تحریک انصاف کے لئے ایک اور مشکل یہ بنی ہو ئی ہے کہ اس میں ایسے لوگوں کو ذمہ داریاں سو نپی جا رہی ہیں جن کا کبھی عوامی حلقوں میں اثرورسوخ یا رابطہ نہیں رہا نہ ان کا عوام کی بھلائی میں کو ئی کردار ہے نہ وہ عوامی مسائل کے لئے عوام کے ساتھ چلنا اپنے لئے اعزاز سمجھتے ہیں۔یہ صرف شطرنج کے مہروں کی طرح ہیں جن کو ایک جگہ سے دوسری جگہ لے جانے میں بھی کسی اور کا ہاتھ شامل ہو تا ہے ۔ اور ایسے افراد کا دوسری سیاسی پارٹیوں کو کو ئی نقصان نہیں تودوسری طرف ایسے افراد کا تحریک انصاف کو بھی ابھی تک سہی فائدہ نہیں پہنچا ۔ایسے افراد کو پارٹی سے علیحدہ کر نے کی بجا ئے ان کی ذمہ داری بدل دی جا ئے کیونکہ کبھی کبھی کھوٹا سکہ بھی چل جا تا ہے اور تحریک انصاف کوعام لوگوں خصو صا نوجوانوں پر اپنی تو جہ مرکوز کر نی چا ہیئے ان کو مواقع فراہم کر نے چا ہئیں جو اپنی تعلیم مکمل کر چکے ہیں یا کر رہے ہیں اور پارٹی کے زیادہ سے زیادہ سیمینار اور ورکر کنونشن کروائے جائیں تا کہ جن علاقوں میں ابھی تک تحریک انصاف کا پیغام نہیں پہنچ سکا وہاں پر بھی اس کا پیغام پہنچ جا ئے خصوصا دیہات جو کہ آج بھی انٹرنیٹ اور کیبل جیسی بنیادی سہولتوں سے محروم ہیں وہاں پر تحریک انصاف کا پیغام پہنچ سکے یہ پارٹی کے لئے اور عمران خان کے لئے فائدہ ہے کیو نکہ پاکستانی عوام کا شروع سے یہ رویہ رہا ہے کہ ایک حکومت ناکام ہو ئی تو دوسری کو آزمائش کا موقع دے دیتے ہیں اب چونکہ پاکستانی سیاست میں پارٹیاں بڑھ چکی ہیں اس لیئے نظریاتی ووٹر ز کے علاوہ دیگر عوامی حلقے آنیوالے وقت میں کس کو منتخب کر تے ہیں یہ الگ بات ہے لیکن میڈیا کے شعور کی وجہ سے وہی پارٹی کامیاب رہے گی جو عوامی بنیادی ضروریات اور سہولیات کو اپنا مشن بنا ئے گے اور یہ تمام خوبیاں تحریک انصاف میں موجود ہیں ۔'' باقی رہی بات بادشاہی کی تو وہ صدا اﷲتعالیٰ کی ہی رہے گی''
* *BEST REGARDS      **     
      * Muhammad Wajih Us Sama,Columnist*
                  *http://wajisama.wordpress.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


 

--
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