Friday, July 20, 2012

**JP** Ramazan Timing


Putin Will Be Pissed: Bipartisan House Blocks Obama From Sharing Missile Defense Secrets with Russia

New post on Scotty Starnes's Blog

Putin Will Be Pissed: Bipartisan House Blocks Obama From Sharing Missile Defense Secrets with Russia

by Scotty Starnes

Obama will share our secrets because he doesn't abide by rules of law. See DOMA, No Child Left Behind, Immigration and welfare reform for a list of laws Obama has broken.

From HumanEvents:

The Fiscal 2013 Defense spending bill that passed the House 326 to 90 with bipartisan support Thursday evening included an amendment that would prohibit President Barack Obama from making good on a deal with Russia that he appeared to hint at earlier this year.

Introduced by Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), the amendment bars the administration from sharing classified missile defense information with Russia.

In late March, an inadvertent hot-mic moment caught Obama asking Russian president Dmitri Medvedev for "space" until after the election, saying he would then have more "flexibility" to address issues such as missile defense with the Russians.

Medvedev said he would transmit the president's request to Vladimir Putin, who assumed the Russian presidency in May.

"I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that the United States' critical hit-to-kill and other valuable critical missile defense technology may become pawns in a political chess game of appeasement with the Russians," Brooks said.

Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) said the amendment would bring peace of mind for those who were still suspicious about the hot-mic exchange.

"This amendment would say, 'Mr. President, you won't tell us what your secret deal is, but that secret deal better not include sharing classified information of the United States with the Russians about our missile defense,'" Turner said.

Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.), who shepherded the defense spending bill through committee, called the amendment the most critical one to be considered.

"Our national defense interests have got to be our interests, not somebody else's," he said.

Continue reading>>>

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:

Thanks for flying with

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

**JP** New Scandal in Pakistan Police


**JP** Pakistan Ghost School Scandal


ABC Attempts to Link Colorado Mass Shooter to Tea Party…Video Shows He Supports the Occupy Movement (Video)

New post on Scotty Starnes's Blog

ABC Attempts to Link Colorado Mass Shooter to Tea Party…Video Shows He Supports the Occupy Movement (Video)

by Scotty Starnes

So ABC Brian Ross attempted to link Colorad mass shooter James Willie Holmes to the Tea Party based simply on a Google search that showed links to a Colorada Tea Party site that contained the name James Holmes. ABC walked back the claim and now this video shows Holmes was linked to the Occupy movement. It is also reported that Holmes was a registered Democrat, so that explains the media's attempt to link this nutjob to the TEA Party. Not to mention, the booby-trapped apartment.

That fits in with the bomb-happy Occupy movement. The number of murders at TEA Party events = ZERO. Number of people associated with the Tea Party being arrested for possessing/making bombs =ZERO. Number of people associated with the Tea Party arrested for wanting to blow up bridges =ZERO.

Occupy has had several murders and questionable deaths. Occupy has had supporters arrested for possessing/making bombs. Occupy has had supporters arrested on terrorist charges for plotting to blow up bridges and politician's homes. So, why would Ross attempt to link Holmes with a peaceful Tea Party movement instead of the well-documented criminal Occupy movement?

H/T to Gateway Pundit


Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:

Thanks for flying with

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

**JP** Job advertisment

----- Original Message -----
From: "HOPE ORG" <>

Dear Administrator,
Please circulate the job advertisment.
Helping Organization for People,s Empowermen (HOPE) is a non profit
 organization working in KPK and FATA.Please circulate the job
 advertisement enclosed in the attachment.We shall be thankful for u.
Best Regards
Zahid Wazir
 Deputy Executive Director
 Helping Organization for People's Empowerment- HOPE
 Cell # : 0300 5897881-03339888768.
Head Office: House # TF 107, Deans Trade Center Peshawar Cantt KP.


Assalamu'alaikum Wa Rahmatullah e Wa Barakatuhu,




Thanks & Best regards,
Imran Ilyas
Cell: 00971509483403

****People oppose things because they are ignorant of them****

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
For more options, visit this group at
You can also visit our blog site : &
on facebook

DHS adds high-powered battle rifles to its arsenal

New post on Fellowship of the Minds

DHS adds high-powered battle rifles to its arsenal

by Dr. Eowyn

On May 7, 2012, I did a post on a rumor that the Obama administration is preparing for civil war.

Interviewed on a radio program, a private investigator claims that his contact in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) told him that the Obama administration expects and is preparing for civil war in America.

If true, maybe now we know why:

Now comes news that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is adding high-powered battle rifles to its arsenal. The manufacturer's suggested retail price for each Colt LE901 rifle is more than $2,000.

Kurl Nimmo reports for, July 13, 2012, that on July 5, DHS announced on the website that it plans to buy thirty-six Colt LE901 rifle systems. The latest DHS purchase follows a solicitation issued on July 13 for the purchase of .223 Caliber Remington Enhanced Performance Ammunition in excess of $500,000. The Colt assault weapons are designed to accept the .223 ammunition.

"The 901 is much more than your typical assault rifle," notes the Prepper Podcast Radio Network website. The weapon will allow "the DHS/FEMA foot soldier to go from an assault rifle to picking off 'terrorists' at a distance by only changing the upper receiver."

This how Outdoor Life describes the Colt LE901 rifle:

"Colt Defense LLC offers the LE901-16S, a modular, multi-caliber rifle, built with both the modern hunter and the tactical professional in mind.  It's modular, in that the rifle can be easily changed from a .308 Winchester (7.62x51 NATO) to a .223 Remington (5.56x45 NATO) by switching out the upper assemblies and buffer systems ... In the classic .308 Winchester, the LE901-16S is a great choice for the big-game hunter.  Change over to the .223 upper assembly and you have a fine caliber for mid-sized game and varmints, as well as the top choice for a law enforcement officer's tactical rifle ... It weighs 9.4 pounds and measures 37.5 inches with the stock extended. It has an effective range of 700 meters in .308. Exceptional accuracy comes by way of the free floated, 16-inch, chrome-lined barrel and one-piece monolithic upper receiver ... All operating controls on the LE901-16S are ambidextrous, including the magazine release, bolt catch and fire control selector ... Currently offered in black, though other finishes are planned for later this year.

 MSRP: $2,129"

In June, listed a "Personal Defense Weapons Solicitation" issued by DHS calling for 5.56x45mm NATO select-fire firearms "suitable for personal defense." The due date for the solicitation is mid-October of 2012.

The American Dream blog had this comment about DHS's purchase of ammunition: "I could understand if the U.S. military was ordering ammunition in this quantity. When you fight wars you can go through ammunition very rapidly. But the Department of Homeland Security is only supposed to be shooting at people very rarely."

Also in April, Paul Joseph Watson reported on the DHS purchasing bullet resistant guard booths. "The purpose behind the bullet proof booths is unknown, but the DHS has publicly announced that it plans to increase the number of unannounced checkpoints manned by TSA VIPR teams and other federal agents beyond the 9300 that were set up last year alone," Watson wrote at the time.

Kurt Nimmo concludes with this unsettling observation:

"It looks like DHS and the feds are gearing up for something big. A growing chorus of urgent voices are warning that the economy will finally implode this year and the result with be social chaos."


Dr. Eowyn | July 20, 2012 at 5:04 am | Tags: civil war | Categories: Insanity, Military, Terrorism, Uncategorized, United States | URL:

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:

Thanks for flying with

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

Facebook Virus




The Snopes article has some more information . . . .




original message:



Olympic In the coming days, you should be aware.....Do not open any message with an attachment called: Invitation FACEBOOK, regardless of who sent it. It is a virus that opens an OlympIc torch that burns the whole hard disc C of your computer. This virus will be received from someone you had in your address book. That's why you should send this message to all your contacts. It is better to receive this email 25 times than to receive the virus and open it. If you receive an email called: Invitation FACEBOOK, though sent by a friend, do not open it and delete it immediately. It is the worst virus announced by CNN. A new virus has been discovered recently that has been classified by Microsoft as the most destructive virus ever. It is a Trojan Horse that asks you to install an adobe flash plug-in. Once you install it, it's all over. And there is no repair yet for this kind of virus. This virus simply destroys the Zero Sector of the Hard Disc, where the vital information of their function is saved.



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

Re: Zimmerman shooting not a hate crime

my voracity is high enough that I don't
have to go citing sources
when you make the statement that 40% of the blacks in prison are there
crimes they never committed you do.
I checked the DOJ records and haven't found anything close to 40%
being true.
It is true, however, that blacks make up about 40% of the prisoners.

If you are a bigot, plainol..., no mere statistics
being cited can help you.
everyone is a bigot to some degree ... but that doesn't change facts
about black crime.

the enforcement of our laws is what separates Americans from the other
animals on the planet.

On Jul 19, 8:10 pm, NoEinstein <> wrote:
> Dear plainol...:  Unlike most, my voracity is high enough that I don't
> have to go citing sources at the drop of a hat.  Almost every day,
> now, a black who has spent decades in jail for "raping" a white woman
> is set free because the DNA doesn't match.  I wrote my New
> Constitution SPECIFICALLY to make certain that no person of any race
> ever goes to jail or is put to death for a crime they didn't
> commit!!!!!  I once, single handedly, got a black man freed from a
> second degree murder of another black charge.  I did so by showing
> that the 36" long 2 x 4 that was the purported murder weapon could not
> have been wielded in the confines of an open screen door to a duplex.
> I was able to prove to everyone's satisfaction in the jury that all of
> those biased witnesses in that duplex could not have witnessed the
> crime!  Such fact easily showed that it was the dead man was the
> aggressor, who came out of the apartment and threatened the other man
> with a knife.  The blow to the head was a sideways blow delivered in
> self defense.  If you are a bigot, plainol..., no mere statistics
> being cited can help you.  — J. A. Armistead —  P. S.:  When the judge
> realized our verdict, he said, with much anger: "Jury Dismissed!"  At
> that, I knew my calling was clear:  Make our God Damned "justice
> system" just!
> On Jul 18, 4:42 pm, plainolamerican <> wrote:
> > a minimum of 40% of the blacks in prison are there for
> > crimes they never committed
> > ---
> > cite source
> > The only "damn" racists, here, are the whites who don't
> > value the civil liberties of ALL Americans.
> > ---
> > most white do value civil liberties ... even among racist minorities
> > who use their skin color for an advantage through affirmative action
> >   If there is anything that
> > I am, it is color blind.
> > ---
> > poor feller ... does your wife dress you?
> > Everyone is a racist to some degree. Those who deny it are also liars.
> > On Jul 18, 1:07 pm, NoEinstein <> wrote:> Dear Keith:  If you were walking through a 7-11 parking lot and saw a
> > > piece of jewelry lying on the pavement, you would pick it up, right?
> > > In the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution (and in my New
> > > Constitution, as well), unreasonable searches and seizures are
> > > prohibited.  Possessing jewelry is NOT a capital crime!  And nothing
> > > that Zimmerman did was the result of his being privy to the contents
> > > of that bag.  Most of you are implying that since whites are fed up
> > > with crime, that every person who MIGHT be guilty of petty theft can
> > > be shot and killed.  I particularly take issue with your making the
> > > spurious statement that there is no evidence for what I just
> > > explained.  FOX News repeatedly ran video of Zimmerman getting out of
> > > the police car, in handcuffs.  He didn't seem to be in any pain; and
> > > the (distant) view of his head showed no apparent injuries.  Having
> > > his injuries be SEEN was crucial to the majority bigot position at
> > > FOX.  That network got police to release a photo made just after the
> > > police had arrived on the scene.  That photo, taken from about three
> > > feet away, and on axis with his right mastoid bone (behind the ear),
> > > clearly shows FLOWING blood, trailing vertically, without any
> > > smudges.  Since the body tries to seal off bleeding, automatically, it
> > > is probable that Zimmerman had self-inflicted ALL of those short
> > > lacerations to his head no more than a minute before the police got
> > > there.  If you, or anyone, doubt my voracity, you had better get
> > > prepared to see the PROSECUTION have forensic experts confirm
> > > everything that I have said and reasoned.
> > > Lastly, when a minimum of 40% of the blacks in prison are there for
> > > crimes they never committed, it is understandable that the Black
> > > "establishment" would be most insistent that justice be done in the
> > > Martin case.  The only "damn" racists, here, are the whites who don't
> > > value the civil liberties of ALL Americans.  If there is anything that
> > > I am, it is color blind. If everyone would be like me, and take the
> > > high moral ground, there wouldn't be so much unjustified hatred in the
> > > world.  Consider being like that, Keith.  — J. A. Armistead —
> > > On Jul 17, 12:58 pm, Keith In Tampa <> wrote:
> > > > I'm not sure how John came to the conclusions that he has come to.   There
> > > > is nothing as of yet on the record that establishes such a scenario, and
> > > > all of Armistead's "theories"  are just that,  "speculative theory".
> > > > What we do know, is that Trayvon Martin was a young black male, dressed in
> > > > dark, non-descript clothing, (save for the dark "Hoodie" that he was
> > > > sporting) and at the time that he was shot, was found with jewelry that was
> > > > not his; in a neighborhood which had been having frequent home
> > > > invasions/burglaries.
> > > > We know that law enforcement looked at this case for a month,  and could
> > > > not come up with any conclusive evidence that this was in fact anything
> > > > more than a tragic scenario but nevertheless, a tragic scenario that was
> > > > self defense.  We then had numerous race baiters flock to the scene in
> > > > Central Florida,  their sole purpose was to stir up trouble, and "race
> > > > bait".  We have seen mainstream media even attempt to modify the actual
> > > > recordings of Zimmerman, and portray Martin as some sweet cherub teenager
> > > > who was non-threatening, when in fact,  Mr. Martin was a thug who had been
> > > > suspended from his school for drugs; whose moniker was "No_Limit_Nigga"  on
> > > > Twitter;  who had unaccountable jewelry on his person at the time of the
> > > > incident.
> > > > On the other hand,  contrary to the media hype,  Mr. Zimmerman is far from
> > > > "White";  Mr Zimmerman and his wife tutored underprivileged black youths at
> > > > their home;  and there is nothing whatsoever to date that would suggest
> > > > that Mr. Zimmerman shot this man because he is a racist, or under the
> > > > scenario that John Armistead has surmised and attempted to portray.
> > > > I think a more likely scenario, is that after being told not to pursue
> > > > Martin by law enforcement,  Martin circled around,  and confronted
> > > > Zimmerman.   Martin asked him,  "Are you followimg me?"  and when Zimmerman
> > > > replied, "No",  Martin said something to the effect of,  "Well you got me
> > > > now", when Martin attacked him, and they tumbled to the ground.
> > > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 6:23 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <>wrote:> Einstein... I guess Zimmerman is afraid of his Grandfather... a proud
> > > > > BLACK man... Zimmerman thinks his Grandfather is a thief and all the
> > > > > other negatives that you have implied...
> > > > > The race card does NOT fly when you need it to, does it?
> > > > > Poor Martin was shot after he elevated a tense VERBAL confrontation
> > > > > into a physical one..Why would any reasonable person do this??.... if
> > > > > I were 5'7" and weighed in at a chubby 190 and was attacked physically
> > > > > by a 6'1" physically fit individual I would fear for my well being
> > > > > just as Zimmerman did... thus a legal shooting.
> > > > > On Jul 17, 10:03 am, NoEinstein <> wrote:
> > > > > > OK, Bruce:  What you are saying is that Zimmerman PROFILED anyone
> > > > > > wearing a hoodie as being a crook who could be shot on sight with
> > > > > > impunity.  If 80% of teenage males are slender, then 80% of those,
> > > > > > regardless of their race, can be tried, convicted, and executed by the
> > > > > > shooter without any formal auspices being stated.  Committing unarmed
> > > > > > robbery isn't a capital crime.  But shooting someone to death when
> > > > > > one's life isn't in danger can be a capital crime.  To wit: Once there
> > > > > > was a case where a neighborhood was having a lot of break-ins.  A home-
> > > > > > owner rigged a shotgun to automatically shoot and kill anyone breaking
> > > > > > through his window.  That man is now serving life in prison.  Learn to
> > > > > > think, Bruce.  People who do so seldom get labeled as bigots.  — J. A.
> > > > > > Armistead —
> > > > > > On Jul 16, 6:57 pm, Bruce Majors <> wrote:
> > > > > > > Someone had been breaking into houses s in the neighborhood, including
> > > > > > > houses with women and children in them.
> > > > > > > The person doing it had been seen and he looked more like Trayon than
> > > > > he
> > > > > > > did some frail white guy
> > > > > > > I have also heard trayvon n had jewelry on him at the time he was shot
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > his backpackOn Monday, July 16, 2012, NoEinstein wrote:
> > > > > > > > Bruce:  If when Zimmerman was standing five feet from Martin, and
> > > > > > > > before any "defensive" blows were exchanged, Zimmerman had realized
> > > > > > > > that Martin was a frail white guy, he never would have PRESSED his
> > > > > > > > latent hatred for the blacks he had automatically assumed wear
> > > > > > > > hoodies.  Martin, sensing the hatred in Zimmerman's look and tone
> > > > > > > > probably asked two questions: "Why are you following me?"  And "By
> > > > > > > > what "authority" are you doing that?".  When (I'll bet) Zimmerman
> > > > > > > > PATTED the loaded gun in his pocket as being his authority, without
> > > > > > > > ever mentioning that he was just doing "routine" apartment security,
> > > > > > > > Martin knew his life was being threatened by a LUNATIC.  He did the
> > > > > > > > only thing he could to defend himself—knock Zimmerman down and punch
> > > > > > > > him.
> > > > > > > > All of the injuries to Zimmerman's head were short lacerations.  If,
> > > > > > > > as Zimmerman purports, his head was pounded against the pavement, at
> > > > > > > > least...
> read more »

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see

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

Uncle Sam Is a Sugar Daddy

Uncle Sam Is a Sugar Daddy
By Laurence M. Vance, July 19, 2012

When the government of a foreign country tells companies in a particular industry how much of its product it can sell; guarantees minimum prices; provides nonrecourse loans; restricts imports of foreign product; buys up excess product; and seeks to stabilize, support, and protect the industry, it is denounced as socialism or central planning.

But when the same thing occurs in the United States, it is called the U.S. Department of Agriculture sugar program.

Sugar has long been one of the most controversial and complex aspects of U.S. Agricultural policy because of the many different groups that are affected by it: producers, processors, refiners, harvesters, manufacturers of products containing sugar, foreign sugar suppliers, sugar brokers and traders, employees of processors and refiners, trade groups, and, of course, consumers who purchase sugar from grocery shelves.

The first U.S. Tariff on imported sugar was imposed in 1789. In 1842, the sugar tariff became purely protective when refined sugar began to be subjected to a higher tariff than raw sugar, to promote the expansion of domestic raw-sugar production and a domestic refining industry. In 1934, a federal sugar program was enacted as part of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.

As explained by
Jose Alvarez and Leo C. Polopolus, two economists associated with the University of Florida, the first Sugar Act, the Jones-Costigan Act, had six main features:
  1. The determination each year of the quantity of sugar needed to supply the nation's requirements at prices reasonable to consumers and fair to producers;
  2. The division of the U.S. Sugar market among the domestic and foreign supplying areas by the use of quotas and subordinate limitations on offshore direct consumption sugar;
  3. The allotment of those quotas among the various processors in each domestic area;
  4. The adjustment of production in each domestic area to the established quota;
  5. The levying of a tax on the processing of sugar cane and sugar beets, the proceeds of which were to be used to make payments to producers to compensate them for adjusting their production to marketing quotas to increase their income; and
  6. The equitable division of sugar returns among beet and cane processors, growers, and farm workers.

The Sugar Act of 1937 added an excise tax that was unrelated to government payments to growers and adjusted quota allocations. It was extended several times until superseded by the Sugar Act of 1948, which only changed the method of establishing quotas. It was amended and extended several times before expiring in 1974.

An interim price-support program was instituted by the secretary of Agriculture in 1977 that allowed processors to receive the difference between a price objective and a defined average market price. In return, processors were required to pay a certain amount to producers of sugar beets and sugar cane. The Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 contained a loan or purchase program in which sugar could be used as collateral. Sugar processors could default on their loan and forfeit their sugar to the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) if the market price for sugar was not high enough.

The Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 mandated a price-support program for sugar through 1985. It included a "market stabilization price" for raw cane sugar above the purchase or loan rate to discourage the sale or forfeiture of any sugar to the CCC. Import duties were increased and a system of country-by-country import quotas was established.

The Food Security Act of 1985 basically left in place the major provisions of the previous farm bill.

The sugar program in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 amended the Agricultural Act of 1949 regarding the sugar price-support program and disaster payments. A two-tiered tariff scheme was established, as well as marketing controls on domestic sugar if imports were projected to fall below a certain level.

The sugar program in the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 retained the import quota system while eliminating marketing controls on domestic sugar. It directed the secretary of Agriculture to make recourse loans available to processors of domestically grown sugar cane and sugar beets at 18¢ per pound and 22.9¢ per pound, respectively, to be reduced if foreign subsidy reductions exceed the GATT Uruguay Round Agreement commitments.

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 directed the secretary of Agriculture to operate the sugar program at no cost to the federal government by avoiding sugar forfeiture to the CCC. It directed the CCC to establish a sugar-storage and handling-facility loan program for processors of domestically produced sugar cane and sugar beets. It also directed the U.S. Trade representative to determine the annual cane-sugar quota used by each supplying country and permit reallocation of the unused quota among such countries.

The most recent federal sugar program is found in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. It eliminates imported sugar-quota reallocation provisions and the authority of the secretary of Agriculture to adjust loan rates on the basis competing countries' subsidy reductions. It provides that if a producer agrees to reduce production of sugar beets or sugar cane already planted, such sugar beets or sugar cane may not be used for any commercial purpose other than bioenergy feedstock. It subjects to reporting requirements certain sugar, molasses, and syrup importers, sugar-cane and sugar-beet processors, and cane-sugar refiners. It directs the secretary of Agriculture to collect information on the production, consumption, and trade of sugar and high-fructose corn syrups in Mexico. It also directs the secretary of Agriculture to establish the overall quantity of sugar to be allocated for a crop year at a level to ensure that raw and refined sugar prices exceed loan forfeiture levels. And finally, the 2008 sugar program in the farm bill sets forth provisions respecting allocation assignment in the sale of sugar-beet-processor factories and allocation for new entrants opening a new factory or reopening or acquiring an existing factory.

The 2008 farm bill expires at the end of this year. Late last month, the Senate passed a new farm bill, the 1091-page Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012 (
S.3240). The sugar program is mentioned in Title I ­ COMMODITY PROGRAMS, Subtitle C ­ Sugar, Section 1301. But all the bill does is continue the current program until 2017. Five times the bill states to amend "2012" in previous legislation and substitute "2017."

The House's version of the farm bill, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2012 (
H.R.6083), was just approved by the House Committee on Agriculture. It is virtually the same as the companion Senate bill with respect to the sugar program.

That means that the
sugar program found in Title 7, Chapter 100, Subchapter IV, Part B, Section 7272 of the U.S. Code will continue as is. The secretary of Agriculture will continue to make loans available to processors of domestically grown sugar cane at a rate equal to 18.75¢ per pound for raw cane sugar and to processors of domestically grown sugar beets at a rate equal to 128.5 percent of the loan rate per pound of raw cane sugar. It also means,
A sugar cane processor, cane sugar refiner, and sugar beet processor shall furnish the Secretary, on a monthly basis, such information as the Secretary may require to administer sugar programs, including the quantity of purchases of sugar cane, sugar beets, and sugar, and production, importation, distribution, and stock levels of sugar.
As a condition of a loan made to a processor for the benefit of a producer, the Secretary shall require each producer of sugar cane located in a State (other than the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) in which there are in excess of 250 producers of sugar cane to report, in the manner prescribed by the Secretary, the sugar cane yields and acres planted to sugar cane of the producer.
The Secretary may require each producer of sugar cane or sugar beets not covered by subparagraph (A) to report, in a manner prescribed by the Secretary, the yields of, and acres planted to, sugar cane or sugar beets, respectively, of the producer.
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall require an importer of sugars, syrups, or molasses to be used for human consumption or to be used for the extraction of sugar for human consumption to report, in the manner prescribed by the Secretary, the quantities of the products imported by the importer and the sugar content or equivalent of the products.

Uncle Sam is a sugar daddy, and the U.S. sugar industry has a sweet deal.

No-cost loans and guaranteed minimum prices benefit sugar producers and processors even as tariff-rate quotas protect them from foreign competition. At least 85 percent of sugar sold in the United States must come from domestic sugar processors. To avoid price slumps, the government can buy up excess sugar and sell it to ethanol producers ­ even at a loss.

But that's not all. Politicians who receive campaign contributions from the sugar industry benefit as well. The high-fructose corn-syrup industry also benefits from inflated sugar prices, as it makes their sweetener more attractive to food producers. The USDA and the CCC work to stabilize, manage, and ensure the profitability of the sugar industry ­ to the detriment of American food manufacturers and consumers.

In looking at the past and current sugar programs contained in the various farm bills, there are several things that come to mind: protectionism, socialism, corporate welfare, crony capitalism, economic fascism. But I think the best way to describe the U.S. sugar program is Soviet-style central planning.

That is shocking to Americans, who have been conditioned to believe that the United States has a capitalistic economic system with free trade, competition, a free market, and limited government interference.

Can you imagine the economic warfare that would characterize the American economy if the production and sale of every good were micro-managed and every industry were protected like sugar and the sugar industry? Can you imagine the government guaranteeing to every business and industry a minimum price on every product they sold? Can you imagine the trade war that would occur between the United States and other countries if every imported good were subject to protective tariffs like sugar?

So why is sugar so different from any other commodity? Unfortunately, it's not. The truth is that "agriculture," according to the National Agricultural Law Center, "is one of the most heavily regulated components of the U.S. economy, with virtually every aspect of agricultural production, processing, distribution and marketing regulated in some manner by the federal, state or local governments."

To justify the necessity of intervention in the economy, the government makes agriculture the great exception. The Agricultural Organic Act that established the USDA on May 15, 1862, authorized the agency to conduct research and development related to "agriculture, rural development, aquaculture and human nutrition in the most general and comprehensive sense of those terms." From its humble beginnings, the USDA has grown to such gargantuan proportions that it
now claims to touch "the lives of every American, as well as people across the globe."

It would be bad enough if it were only agriculture that the government had control of. But the simple fact is that the government sees exceptions everywhere in the economy ­ from health care to transportation. From education to air-traffic control, and even the amount of water that toilets are allowed to flush.

The federal government has absolutely no constitutional authority to have anything to do with sugar because it has absolutely no constitutional authority to have anything to do with agriculture. And yet the farm bills with their sugar programs continue. Don't look for Republicans in the House to put an end to the Department of Agriculture or even the sugar program.

Yes, Republicans talk about free markets and limited government, but when it comes time to vote in Congress on another farm bill they reveal that they are just as devoted to economic interventionism as Democrats.

Only 4 out of 26 Republicans on the House Committee on Agriculture
voted against the new farm bill. Sixteen Republicans in the Senate voted for the new farm bill while 30 voted against it.

It almost sounds as though a majority of Senate Republicans favor economic freedom. Almost. It should be remembered that the Senate and the presidency are currently controlled by the Democrats. A look back at Republican votes on previous farm bills shows that when Republicans control the whole Congress or there is a Republican in the White House (or both), there is much less opposition by Republicans to farm bills.

When the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (
H.R.2419) was passed under a Republican president, a majority of Republicans in the Democratic-controlled House and Senate voted for it (35-13 Republicans in the Senate and 100-91 Republicans in the House). Although George W. Bush vetoed the bill, it wasn't because he opposed a farm bill on principle. In his veto message he even said, "For a year and a half, I have consistently asked that the Congress pass a good farm bill that I can sign." Congress overrode Bush's veto by similar margins.

In May 2001, when the Republicans were the majority party in Congress and held the presidency, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (
H.R.2646) was passed. The Republican vote was 20-28 in the Senate and 141-73 in the House.

When the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (
H.R.2854) was passed, Bill Clinton was president, but the "Republican Revolution" had given Republicans complete control of both houses of Congress for the first time since the early 1950s. So the Republicans never gave Clinton a farm bill, right? They not only gave him a farm bill, only 27 Republicans in the House and 1 in the Senate voted against it.

Did farm bills cease during the six years in the 1980s when Ronald Reagan was president and the Republicans controlled the Senate? Of course not.

Uncle Sam is a sugar daddy no matter which party is pulling the strings.

Efforts to repeal or roll back the sugar program failed when the farm bill passed the Senate last month. An
amendment to the House version of the farm bill that would have reformed the sugar program was offered by vice chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) but likewise failed. American sugar companies and their trade associations have spent millions on campaign contributions and lobbying to protect the sugar industry. They are opposed by the National Association of Manufacturers and food giants such as Mars and Kraft Foods, who have likewise spent millions.

It's time to end the sugar industry's sweet deal. No industry should be protected. No industry should be insulated from competition. No industry should be guaranteed profitability. And no industry should be centrally planned by Uncle Sam.

RE: **JP** Ramazan Timing

brother in your email the Sehri timings are incorrect.


Subject: **JP** Ramazan Timing
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:02:02 -0700


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
For more options, visit this group at
You can also visit our blog site : &
on facebook

**JP** عدالت کی توہین کا سرٹیفکیٹ

عدالت کی توہین کا سرٹیفکیٹ
ذاکر حسین
-سر پھٹنے لگتاہے جب عوام کے مسائل اور اسلام آباد میں ہونے والی حکومت کی ترجیحات کارکردگی اور پھرتیوں کو دیکھتے ہیں تو۔ کبھی کبھی دل چاہتا ہے کہ کاش !کوئی ایسی جگہ میسر ہو جہاں نہ اخبار ہو نہ ٹی وی چینلز نہ ریڈیو نہ انٹر نیٹ۔تاکہ معلوم ہی نہ ہو سکے کہ اسلام آباد میں کیا ہو رہا ہے۔ کیا ایسا نہیں لگتا کہ پیپلز پارٹی کا صرف ایک ہی ایجنڈا ہے کرپشن اور اسکا تحفظ۔ بلکہ زرداری صاحب کے چھ کروڑ ڈالر کا تحفظ۔پھر انکے اتحادی بھی ہیں جو اپنے مفادات اور مصلحتوں کے پیش نظر ان کے غلام بنے ہوئے ہیں ۔قربان جائیں پیپلز پارٹی کے اُن رہنماؤں اور ان کے اتحادیوں پر جو عوام کے سامنے تو اختلافات دکھاتے ہیں لیکن جب فیصلہ کن موقعہ آتا ہے تو ایوان صدر کی دہلیز پر سجدہ ریز ہو جاتے ہیں۔کل کا مورخ جب اس وقت کی تاریخ لکھے گا توکیا ان مفاد پرست اتحادیوں کوبخش دے گا۔ کیا دنیاکا کوئی غیر جانبدار قانونی مبصر ثابت کر سکتا ہے کہ ایسی کون سی انتہائی ضروری قانونی پیچیدگی پیش آ گئی تھی جس کو دور کرنے کے لیے انتہائی عجلت میں توہین عدالت کا قانون بنانا پڑا ۔ ایسا قانون جس پر پیپلز پارٹی کے اپنے ہی قانون دان متفق نہیں ۔ جس کے بارے میں فخرالدین جی ابراہیم جیسے معتبر اور غیر جانبدار قانونی مبصر کو کہنا پڑا کہ اس قانون کو سمجھنے کے لیے چار فخرالدین جی ابراہیم چاہیں ۔پھر ایسا قانون بنانے والی پارلیمنٹ اوور پارلیمنٹ کے اراکین کیا معزز کہلانے کی حق دار ہیں؟کون کرے گا ان کی عزت۔ ماہرین کے مطابق یہ قانون ہے بھی آرٹیکل 204کے متضاد۔اس لیے عدالت اسے منسوخ کر دے گی۔یعنی پیپلز پارٹی کو پھر سوپیاز کے ساتھ سو جوتے کھانا پڑیں گے۔ پھریہ اسلام کے روح اور تعلیمات کے بھی منافی ہے۔کیا یہ وزراحضرت علی ؓ سے زیادہ سوجھ بوجھ علم والے اور معتبر ہیں جن کے خلاف ان کی ہی خلافت کے دوران فیصلہ آیا تھا قاضی کا تو ایک لفظ تک نہیں کہا تھا حالانکہ یہ سچے تھے لیکن اپنے دعویٰ کو ثابت کرنے کے گواہ پیش نہیں کر سکے تھے اپنے بیٹے کے سوا۔جبکہ بیٹے کی گواہی کو قبول نہیں کیا تھا قاضی نے باپ کے حق میں۔ اس قانون کے بننے سے کس کو فائدہ پہنچے گا'اگر یہ بنیادی حق ہے تو صرف وزیر اعظم 'وزرا وغیرہ کو ہی کیوں حاصل ہے ۔ مجھے اور آپ کو کیوں نہیں۔دنیا کا کون سے آدمی ایسا ہے جس کے خلاف فیصلہ آئے تو اس کو دکھ نہ ہو۔اس کا پھر یہ مطلب ہوا کہ جس کے خلاف بھی فیصلہ آئے وہ ججوں کے خلاف پریس کانفرنسیں شروع کر دے۔نعرے بازی پر اُتر آئے۔ اگر یہ رسم چل نکلی تو بعید نہیں کہ ججوں کے خلاف جلسے جلوس ریلیاں نکلناشروع ہو جائیں۔کوئی بھی طاقتور چند ہزار کا جلوس لے کر اسلام ٓباد پہنچ جائے گا۔ہم کہا ں جارہے ہیں یا لے جایا جا رہا ہے۔ پھر شائستہ الفاظ یا انداز کی تعریف کون کرئے گا ۔اس کی حدود کون متعین کرے گا۔سو کے قریب لگ بھگ وزیروں کی فوج کو کھلا لائسنس دے دیا گیا ہے عدلیہ کے فیصلوں کا تمسخر اُڑانے کا۔ اس بات کی بھی کیا گارنٹی ہے کہ یہ سلسلہ یہاں تک ہی رہے گا۔کل صوبائی وزرا کو بھی یہ چھتری مہیا کی جائے گی پھر تمام منتخب اراکین ۔ بعید نہیں کہ پھر سرکاری ملازمین کو بھی اس لسٹ میں شامل کر دیا جائے۔ کیا حکومت کے پاس یہی ایک کام رہ گیا تھا کرنے کو۔کیا اس قانون کے پاس ہونے سے ملک کو لوڈ شیڈنگ سے نجات مل گئی ہے۔ یا کرپشن میں پاکستان آخری نمبر پر چلا گیا ہے یاپاکستان کے ساٹھ ارب ڈالر کے بیرونی یا کھربوں کے اندرونی قرضے کم ہوئے ہیں یا ہوںگے۔ یا وطن عزیز کی معاشی گروتھ ریٹ آٹھ دس فیصد ہو گئی ہے یا ہو جائے گی ۔ یا تجارتی خسارہ کم ہوا ہے یا ہوگا یا بجٹ خسارے سے نکل کر سرپلس میں ہوجائے گا۔یا بند انڈسٹریز پھر سے چل پڑیں گی یا نئے کارخانے لگیں گے یا بے روزگاروں کو حکومت اس قانون کے بعد روزگار مہیا کرنے کے قابل ہو جائے گی یاوہ شرح خواندگی 95 فیصد کر سکیں گے یا غریب کے کچن کا خرچہ آدھا کر دیں گے۔یا عوام کو دہشت گردوں سے نجات مل جائے گی یا کم از اکم اسٹریٹ کرائمز کو ہی ختم کر دیں گے۔ آخر ایسا کون سے کام ہے جو عوام کے ووٹوں سے منتخب ہونے والے اراکین اس قانون کے ذریعے عوام کے مفاد میں کریں گے جو پہلے ممکن نہیں تھا۔ عوام کے ووٹوں سے منتخب ہونے والے اراکین ملک میں روزانہ 8 ارب ر وپے کی ہونے والی کرپشن کی روک تھام کیوںنہیں کرتے ۔قومی قرضے 12 کھرب کے ہو چکے ہیں ان کا تدارک کیوں نہیں کرتے ۔پی آئی اے کا خسارہ 120 ارب کا ہو چکا ہے 'ریلوے کی120 مسافراور تمام مال گاڑیاں بند نہ ہو چکی ہوہیں خسارہ40 ارب روپے تک ہو گیا ہے اس کا کوئی حل کیو ں نہیں نکالتے۔ پاکستان اسٹیل جو ان کی حکومت سے پہلے چوبیس ارب روپے سالانہ منافع کما رہی تھی کیسے 110ارب روپے کی مقروض ہوئی ۔ پانچ سو ارب روپے چند بڑے سرکاری اداروں کو چلانے کے لیے ہر سال کیوں دینا پڑتے ۔ان کے دور میں حاجیوںتک کو کیوں لوٹا گیا ۔کیا توہین عدالت کا قانون بننا سرکاری اداروں کو تباہ ہونے سے بچانے سے زیادہ ضروری تھا۔ جس طرح یہ چٹان بن گے ہیں زرداری صاحب کے مفاد کے لیے اگر اتنی کمٹمنٹ پاکستان اور اس کے عوام کے مفاد سے شو کرتے تو آج ملک بجلی کے بحران کی وجہ سے اندھیروں میں ڈوبا نہ ہوتا۔ ہائیڈروپاور پلانٹ کے لیے منگوائی جانے والی مشینری چار سالوں سے کراچی کی بندر گاہ پر پڑی زنگ آلودہ نہ ہورہی ہوتی ۔ 23ارب روپے تھرکول اورہائیڈرو پراجیکٹ کے بجائے رینٹل پاور میں نہ لگا تے ۔اگر یہ 23ارب روپے رینٹل پاور کے بجائے تھرکول میں لگا دیتے تو آج ہمیں اس سے دس بارہ ہزار میگا واٹ سستی ترین بجلی مل رہی ہوتی جس سے ہماری کل پیداوار بیس ہزار میگا واٹ تک پہنچ چکی ہوتی ۔جس کی وجہ سے آج کوئی کارخانہ بجلی نہ ہونے کی وجہ سے بند نہ ہوتا۔یہ سستی بجلی اگر کسانوں کو مفت دی جاتی تو زرعی پیداوار میں ہم نہ صرف خود کفیل ہوتے بلکہ ایکسپورٹ کر کے اربوں ڈالر زرمبادلہ بھی کماتے اور ہزاروں کسانوں کو روزگار بھی ملتا۔اگر تھرکول سے حاصل ہونیوالی سستی بجلی کارخانوں کو مہیا کی جاتی تو وہ گیس کی ضرورت سے آزاد ہو جاتے جس سے گھروں کے چولہے جلتے۔تمام ٹریفک کو سی این جی لاکر سالانہ اربوں ڈالر کا پٹرول درآمد کرنے سے بچ جاتے۔اس تھر کول سے بجلی کے ساتھ ساتھ گیس ڈیزل اور پٹرول وافر مقدار میں الگ ملتا۔لیکن ان کے نزدیک آزاد عدلیہ کو قابو کرنا ان سے زیادہ اہم ہے۔ کیا اگر یہ عوام کے ووٹوں سے منتخب ہیں تو پھر انھیں احساس کیوں نہیں کہ اٹھارہ کروڑآبادی میںسے 60 فیصد لوگ خط غربت سے نیچے زندگی گزارتے ہیں۔لگ بھگ3کروڑ رات کو بھوکے سوتے ہیں ۔ تقریباً 6کروڑ آبادی کی ساری بھاگ دوڑدو وقت کی روٹی تک محدود ہے ۔ کوئی ساڑھے 6 کروڑآبادی پینے کے صاف پانی سے محروم ہیں۔شہروں کی 80 فیصد سے زائد آبادی سیوریج ملاپانی پیتے ہیں ۔پانچ کروڑ شہریوں کو صحت و صفائی کی سہولتوںسے محروم ہیں۔کوئی ایک لاکھ پاکستانی ایڈزAID) / HIV)
تقریباً16لاکھ ٹی بی کے مریض ہیں ۔ہر سال کوئی 27ہزارخواتین زچگی کے دوران مرتی ہیں۔ پاکستان شرح خواندگی میں160 ویں، انسانی حقوق اور ترقی کے معیار سےایک سو پنتالیسویں نمبرپر ہے ہمارے 70فیصدبچے میٹرک تک کی تعلیم سے بھی محروم ہیں ۔ایسا ہرگز نہیں کہ انھیںاس کی خبر نہیں ۔ بس یہ کام ان کے نزدیک اتناضروری نہیں جتنا ایک فرد کی کرپشن بچانا ہے۔لیکن افسوس!کہ یہ پھر بھی خود کو عوام کا نمائندہ کہتے ہیں ۔عوام کی خدمت کا دعویٰ کرتے ہیں۔اور ہم عوام بھی انھیں کو ہی بار بار ووٹ دیتے ہیں۔