Thursday, August 23, 2012

JP Rishtas

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

From: Asiya . chocaholic94@hotmail.com

Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 1:49 PM

Salaam,

I have 2 rishtas from 2 potential candidates...Both are interested in girls who are in the country. Please reply to me if anyone is looking for their daughter or sister who is already in the country:

A 32 year old Pakistani Doctor born and raised in Jeddah seeking a potential paistani spouse. His roots are originally from karachi but his forefathers moved from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia and are Saudi citizens. His parents passed away but he is willing to speak to the girl's parents and then willing to have his uncles meet and speak. He doesnt mind if hte girl's origin is punjabi or urdu speaking.

2. A 33 year old Pakistani born and raised in Saudi then went to Karachi to pursue his education (MBA) is now in Dammam working as Procurement Coordinator. His family resides in Karachi. He is willing to meet and speak to the family. He is only looking within urdu speaking families.

If anyone would like to get in touch with them, pleaes let me know and i can forward you their numbers.

Asiya.

__._,_.___

Re: Does Louis Freeh Have ANY Credibility?

Freeh has a long history of lying and covering up criminal activity by
his underlings.
---
in short, he's a lying warmonger without a military.

Freeh acquired Italian citizenship on October 23, 2009.

On Aug 23, 10:00 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> August 23, 2012Does Louis Freeh Have ANY Credibility?Posted byBill Andersonon August 23, 2012 04:50 AM
> While I have taken some criticism for my questioning the conclusions drawn in the report authored by Louis Freeh about Penn State University regarding the activities of now-convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky, the former defensive coordinator for the football team, some other voices also question the veracity of Freeh both in the Sandusky affair and things that occurred at the FBI during Freeh's tenure there. One of thosequestioners is James Bovard.
> Bovard pointed out nearly 20 years ago that Freeh not only covered up criminal behavior at the FBI, but also lied to the public about the Bureau's activities. Writing about the aftermath of the infamous Randy Weaver case, Bovard notes:One of the most disturbing aspects of Mr. Freeh s slaps on the wrist last week is his treatment of Larry Potts, Mr. Freeh s pick as acting deputy FBI director. Mr. Potts was the senior official in charge of the Idaho operation and signed off on the shoot-without-provocation orders. Despite the finding by the Justice Department that the orders violated the Constitution, Freeh recommended that the only penalty Mr. Potts face be a letter of censure -- the same penalty Mr. Freeh received when he lost an FBI cellular telephone.The other challenge to Freeh and his sanctimonious report about Penn Statecomes from the former Penn State president and otherswho say that Freeh used only the material that satisfied his predetermined narrative. Attorneys (including a former federal judge) representing former Penn State President Graham Spanier have labeled the report a "myth," and according to the New York Times:The Freeh report is wrong, it s unfair, it s deeply flawed, Spanier told The New Yorker. It has many errors and omissions.Spanier said he had spoken to many people who were interviewed for the report, and he said he felt some of their claims that did not fit Freeh s narrative were left out.Many of them described the interviews to me as a witch hunt, Spanier said. They felt like it was back in the era of McCarthyism.No doubt, many will dismiss Spanier and his lawyers as acting in a self-serving manner and will continue to claim that Freeh's credentials are "impeccable" (as a number of journalists have done). Nonetheless we already know that Freeh has a long history of lying and covering up criminal activity by his underlings. He also knew that there would be no substantial media questioning of his report, as long as he vociferously condemned Penn State University's officials. In the end, Freeh has smeared a lot of people and once again seems to have been able to get away with telling less than the truth.

--
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.

CU Model Predicts Romney Win in November. Model has predicted last eight Elections

Analysis of election factors points to Romney win, University of Colorado study says

August 22, 2012 •

Social Sciences

•

Discovery & Innovation, Discoveries & Achievements, Research Collaborations

A University of Colorado analysis of state-by-state factors leading to the Electoral College selection of every U.S. president since 1980 forecasts that the 2012 winner will be Mitt Romney.

The key is the economy, say political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver. Their prediction model stresses economic data from the 50 states and the District of Columbia, including both state and national unemployment figures as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors.

"Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble," said Bickers, also director of the CU in DC Internship Program.

According to their analysis, President Barack Obama will win 218 votes in the Electoral College, short of the 270 he needs. And though they chiefly focus on the Electoral College, the political scientists predict Romney will win 52.9 percent of the popular vote to Obama's 47.1 percent, when considering only the two major political parties.

"For the last eight presidential elections, this model has correctly predicted the winner," said Berry. "The economy has seen some improvement since President Obama took office. What remains to be seen is whether voters will consider the economy in relative or absolute terms. If it's the former, the president may receive credit for the economy's trajectory and win a second term. In the latter case, Romney should pick up a number of states Obama won in 2008."

Their model correctly predicted all elections since 1980, including two years when independent candidates ran strongly, 1980 and 1992. It also correctly predicted the outcome in 2000, when Al Gore received the most popular vote but George W. Bush won the election.

The study will be published this month in PS: Political Science & Politics, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Political Science Association. It will be among about a dozen election prediction models, but one of only two to focus on the Electoral College.

While many forecast models are based on the popular vote, the Electoral College model developed by Bickers and Berry is the only one of its type to include more than one state-level measure of economic conditions.

In addition to state and national unemployment rates, the authors looked at per capita income, which indicates the extent to which people have more or less disposable income. Research shows that these two factors affect the major parties differently: Voters hold Democrats more responsible for unemployment rates while Republicans are held more responsible for per capita income.

Accordingly -- and depending largely on which party is in the White House at the time -- each factor can either help or hurt the major parties disproportionately.

Their results show that "the apparent advantage of being a Democratic candidate and holding the White House disappears when the national unemployment rate hits 5.6 percent," Berry said. The results indicate, according to Bickers, "that the incumbency advantage enjoyed by President Obama, though statistically significant, is not great enough to offset high rates of unemployment currently experienced in many of the states."

In an examination of other factors, the authors found that none of the following had any statistically significant effect on whether a state ultimately went for a particular candidate: The location of a party's national convention; the home state of the vice president; or the partisanship of state governors.

In 2012, "What is striking about our state-level economic indicator forecast is the expectation that Obama will lose almost all of the states currently considered as swing states, including North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida," Bickers said.

In Colorado, which went for Obama in 2008, the model predicts that Romney will receive 51.9 percent of the vote to Obama's 48.1 percent, again with only the two major parties considered.

The authors also provided caveats. Factors they said may affect their prediction include the timeframe of the economic data used in the study and close tallies in certain states. The current data was taken five months in advance of the Nov. 6 election and they plan to update it with more current economic data in September. A second factor is that states very close to a 50-50 split may fall an unexpected direction.

"As scholars and pundits well know, each election has unique elements that could lead one or more states to behave in ways in a particular election that the model is unable to correctly predict," Berry said.

Election prediction models "suggest that presidential elections are about big things and the stewardship of the national economy," Bickers said. "It's not about gaffes, political commercials or day-to-day campaign tactics. I find that heartening for our democracy."

Contact:
Kenneth Bickers,             303-492-2363
bickers@colorado.edu
Michael Berry,             303-556-6244
michael.berry@ucdenver.edu
Peter Caughey, CU-Boulder media relations,             303-492-4007
David Kelly, CU Denver media relations,             303-315-6374

Quotes

"What is striking about our state-level economic indicator forecast is the expectation that Obama will lose almost all of the states currently considered as swing states, including North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida," said Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder.

--
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

THE NAME OF "ALLAH"

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 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

U.S. Census Bureau helped racially target thousands of American citizens for armed government kidnappings, camp internments

Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on ACGR's "News with Attitude"

U.S. Census Bureau helped racially target thousands of American citizens for armed government kidnappings, camp internments

by Harold

Mike Adams, the Health Ranger 8/23/2012 The U.S. Census Bureau claims you are required by law to reveal your race on their (coercive) questionnaire, and Census Bureau workers can get ridiculously adamant about stalking you until you agree to fill out such forms (http://www.infowars.com/infowars-reader-receives-threatening-letter-f...). What they don't tell you is that the data you voluntarily [...]

New Film “The Unvetted” Exposes Obama’s Communist Cover-up

Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on ACGR's "News with Attitude"

New Film "The Unvetted" Exposes Obama's Communist Cover-up

by Harold

Right Side News 8/23/2012 A new film from America's Survival, Inc. documents what journalist Cliff Kincaid calls "one of the most extraordinary cover-ups in American history --how a presidential candidate with a covert connection to a major Communist Party operative was protected by the major liberal and conservative media." Kincaid is the president of America's [...]

Does Louis Freeh Have ANY Credibility?

August 23, 2012
Does Louis Freeh Have ANY Credibility?
Posted by Bill Anderson on August 23, 2012 04:50 AM

While I have taken some criticism for my questioning the conclusions drawn in the report authored by Louis Freeh about Penn State University regarding the activities of now-convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky, the former defensive coordinator for the football team, some other voices also question the veracity of Freeh both in the Sandusky affair and things that occurred at the FBI during Freeh's tenure there. One of those questioners is James Bovard.

Bovard pointed out nearly 20 years ago that Freeh not only covered up criminal behavior at the FBI, but also lied to the public about the Bureau's activities. Writing about the aftermath of the infamous Randy Weaver case, Bovard notes:

One of the most disturbing aspects of Mr. Freeh's slaps on the wrist last week is his treatment of Larry Potts, Mr. Freeh's pick as acting deputy FBI director. Mr. Potts was the senior official in charge of the Idaho operation and signed off on the shoot-without-provocation orders. Despite the finding by the Justice Department that the orders violated the Constitution, Freeh recommended that the only penalty Mr. Potts face be a letter of censure -- the same penalty Mr. Freeh received when he lost an FBI cellular telephone.

The other challenge to Freeh and his sanctimonious report about Penn State comes from the former Penn State president and others who say that Freeh used only the material that satisfied his predetermined narrative. Attorneys (including a former federal judge) representing former Penn State President Graham Spanier have labeled the report a "myth," and according to the New York Times:

"The Freeh report is wrong, it's unfair, it's deeply flawed," Spanier told The New Yorker. "It has many errors and omissions."

Spanier said he had spoken to many people who were interviewed for the report, and he said he felt some of their claims that did not fit Freeh's narrative were left out.

"Many of them described the interviews to me as a witch hunt," Spanier said. "They felt like it was back in the era of McCarthyism."

No doubt, many will dismiss Spanier and his lawyers as acting in a self-serving manner and will continue to claim that Freeh's credentials are "impeccable" (as a number of journalists have done). Nonetheless we already know that Freeh has a long history of lying and covering up criminal activity by his underlings. He also knew that there would be no substantial media questioning of his report, as long as he vociferously condemned Penn State University's officials. In the end, Freeh has smeared a lot of people and once again seems to have been able to get away with telling less than the truth.

xians beware!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiQNjYXBLrE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YitXYsK5Ze4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnsxDxClTDU&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0kiSGKbljs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4f74CfV2Uc&feature=related

--
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.

Liberals Need to Start Holding Obama Responsible for His Policies

Liberals Need to Start Holding Obama Responsible for His Policies
By Conor Friedersdorf
Aug 22 2012, 8:30 AM ET 382

An interview with novelist Paul Auster shows how the left is incapable of attributing any blame for policies they dislike to the president.

A spot-on Election 2012 parody recently published at Reason begins as follows: "The past several weeks have made one thing crystal-clear: Our country faces unmitigated disaster if the Other Side wins." I though of it upon reading a Salon interview with novelist Paul Auster, whose foray into political commentary sums up what frustrates me about a certain kind of liberal. His remarks presume extraordinary bad faith on the part of right-wing Republicans while ascribing the best intentions to President Obama. The GOP-bashing makes Auster seem unserious. Really? Comparing the opposition to jihadists? Tom Friedman could craft a better metaphor.

But a second mistake bothers me more, for Auster seems to care about the rule of law and human rights. He's tangled with a lot of powerful people in proactive attempts to defend civil liberties. His devotion to Obama therefore exacts a high opportunity cost.

What follows is the relevant excerpt from his interview. The boldfaced questions are posed by David Daley, Salon's executive editor. Below them are the novelist's answers. My commentary follows.

There's another passage I wanted to ask about. You write of having "manifold grievances against the evils and stupidities of modern American life," and of the "ascendancy of the right, the injustices of the economy, the neglect of the environment, the collapsing infrastructure, the senseless wars, the barbarism of legalized torture and extraordinary rendition." That is the sound of someone who must have complicated thoughts about President Obama.

They are complicated.

That you understand completely the magnitude of the problems he inherited, and the intransigence of the opposition he deals with ...

I know all this.

But also thought there were things he would do, or never do --

Like not close Guantanamo Bay.

And drone strikes that he's personally overseeing.

Listen, when I voted for him, I knew I was voting for a moderate. His politics are not my politics, but he's a hell of a lot closer to me than any of the others, so I'm vehemently behind him. I desperately want him to win. Has he disappointed me? Of course he's disappointed me. Do I think he's rather inept politically? Yes. I think he could've out-maneuvered those right-wingers. But he had this knighted notion that he could somehow bring everyone together, and he didn't know that he was dealing with insane people. I think of the right-wing Republicans as jihadists; they're as crazy as those people. They want to destroy the country that we want to save. And you know they're not doing it with machine guns and bombs, but they're doing it by electing insane people to enact insane legislation that is going to do as much damage to us as bombs would in the long run. So that's my position. I'm for Obama, I wish he were different, but I know that, under the circumstances, he can't be different. Anybody farther to the left would never have a chance of winning.

So I'm respectful of Obama, but I think he's a strange double-person, warm and cold, compassionate and indifferent, tough and soft, all at the same time. And I don't really understand who he is.

What I most want Auster and liberal who think like him to explain is why they think Obama "can't be different ... under the circumstances," and their unsupported assertion that if he moved farther to the left he "would never have a chance of winning." I can see why that would be comforting to a liberal who "desperately" wants a guy as illiberal as Obama to be reelected.

But the facts suggest none of it is true.

Barack Obama did win in 2008 running on a platform more liberal than the one he has pursued in the interim. Perhaps he couldn't move any farther left on immigration or health care and stay viable. But on national security, executive power, and civil-liberties issues, he campaigned and won handily repudiating Bush-era policies, only to govern to the "right" of the Bush Administration.

There wasn't a political imperative to do so. And I'm tired of that truth being obscured.

If liberals are going express horror at the GOP agenda as they enthusiastically support Obama's reelection, it's time for them to own his policies and stop trying to blame them on George W. Bush, or intransigent Republicans, or the financial crisis, or corporate campaign donations, or the desire to compromise, or an electorate that wasn't ready for the allegedly "knighted" Obama.

Barack Obama wasn't pressured to be executioner-in-chief. He asserted himself as arbiter of which human beings to kill without trial, at times far from any battlefield, sometimes without even knowing their identities. He decided to limit congressional oversight and totally exclude the judiciary.

House Speaker John Boehner didn't define militants as all men of military age that American drones kill. The Obama Administration did that.

Voters didn't clamor for an unprecedented war on whistleblowers. The Obama Administration decided to wage it.

An intransigent Congress didn't force the Obama Administration to make frequent use of the state-secrets privilege, or to keep Bradley Manning in solitary confinement, or to keep secret the legal memo that outlines the theory behind his extrajudicial assassination of American citizens.

No one made Obama violate the War Powers Resolution in Libya.

The president wouldn't suffer politically if he ordered the CIA to stop firing on rescuers who rush to the scene of drone strikes, or instructed the NSA to stop spying on the communications of American citizens suspected of no wrongdoing, or stopped turning military equipment over to police.

The American public wasn't clamoring for the naked body scans and genital pat-downs at the airport.
If liberals like Auster think that President Obama is preferable to Mitt Romney, even given all his flaws, they've got a plausible argument. But when liberals who describe the right's transgressions against civil liberties during the Bush era as horrific -- a label that is absolutely justified -- and nevertheless describe Obama as man with "knighted" notions, think his major problem is political ineptness, talk of respect for him, and desperately want him to win, I can't understand it.

Is his manner so agreeable that his actions count for nothing?

If Mitt Romney is elected, I foresee a liberal establishment that suddenly rediscovers the problems with executive power, the alarming precedents being set in the War on Terrorism, and the legal arguments against various national security policies. Whereas if Obama wins a second term, I fully expect many liberals to keep on presuming that he is a well-intentioned man who must be doing the best he can on these issues (given Republican intransigence and political constraints).

It took conservatives until several years into George W. Bush's second term to see that their champion wasn't in fact doing as well as could be expected given the circumstances. Liberals have a chance to confront the excesses of the man they've empowered sooner. The facts are right there.

Seeing them is uncomfortable but vital.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/liberals-need-to-start-holding-obama-responsible-for-his-policies/261399/

Re: JP Nange-Sahafat

its fake news .........

Nisar Awan

The Sign of Sincerity

{{ Sakht raton mein bhi safar asaan lagta hai,

Yeh meri Maan ki duaayon ka assar lagta hai."}}

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Shazia Haris <shaziah7@gmail.com> wrote:

its simply sad and reflection of our society, wondering whats becoming of our psychological makeup!

2012/8/19 aijaz ghauri <modelaluminium@gmail.com>

i am totally agree with aslam sb,

2012/8/18 Mohammed Aslam <aslam1950@gmail.com>

Hasan Nisar is not worth being called a Pakistani or a journalist

In fact most journalists affiliated with the Jang group are all in the same class.

If Jang is sold out to India and to the USA, then what else can we expect of the journalists associated with it.

The Jang group is also the one which rehired (Dr) Amir Liaquat Hussain even after the real self of Amir Liaquat was exposed through his comments about Pakistan and Islam.

The entire nation knows about the real Amir Liaquat and the Jang group.

We should listen to those who are saying that by listening to Geo or by reeadin Jang, we are promoting anti Islam and anti Pakistani forces.

We must at least stop buying the things advertised on Geo and in Jang immediately, othersise we'll also be supporting the anti Islam and anti Pakistan forces

2012/8/17 hafeez rehman <hrehman11@gmail.com>

حسن نثار کی اپنے صحافتی بھائی سے بچگانہ اور اوچھی حرکتیں

پچھلے دنوں ایک ہوٹل میں افطاری کی تقریب میں کسی بات پر اپنے آپ کو پاکستانی صحافت کا عظیم دانشور اور ترقی پسند صحافی کہنے والے لالچی حسن نثار نے اپنے ایک صحافی بھائی کے ساتھ بدتمیزی پر اس کے کپڑے پھاڑ دیئے ۔ تقریب میں حسن نثار اور دوسرے صحافی نے گلاس اور چائے کے کپ سے ایک دوسرے پر وار کئے جبکہ نامعلوم صحافی نے حسن نثار کو ٹانگوں میں گھسا کر خوب مکے بازی کا مظاہر ہ کیا جس سے حسن نثار تھوڑی دیر کیلئے ساری صحافت اور دانشوری بھول گئے جبکہ مذکورہ کانفرنس ادھوری ہی رہ گئی ۔

کیا ایسے ہی لوگوں نے قوم کی رہنمائی کرنی ہے جو ذرا ذرا سی باتوں پر ایک دوسرے کے کپڑے پھاڑتے ہوئے ایک دوسرے کو ننگا کر رہے ہیں۔

اگر کسی بھائی کے پاس اس روشن واقعے کی ویڈیو ہو تو براہ مہربانی یو ٹیوب پر جاری کردے اس کی مہربانی ہو گی۔

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

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

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

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

Grade School Wisdom

FREE Emoticons for your email - by IncrediMail




	Click Here!

Re: JP Nange-Sahafat

very bad and shame behavier.
Raja Faryad

From: aijaz ghauri <modelaluminium@gmail.com>
To: joinpakistan@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, 19 August 2012, 8:38
Subject: Re: **JP** Nange-Sahafat

i am totally agree with aslam sb,

2012/8/18 Mohammed Aslam <aslam1950@gmail.com>
  Hasan Nisar is not worth being called a Pakistani or a journalist
In fact most journalists affiliated with the Jang group are all in the same class.
If Jang is sold out to India and to the USA, then what else can we expect of the journalists associated with it.
The Jang group is also the one which rehired (Dr) Amir Liaquat Hussain even after the real self of Amir Liaquat was exposed through his comments about Pakistan and Islam.
The entire nation knows about the real Amir Liaquat and the Jang group.
We should listen to those who are saying that by listening to Geo or by reeadin Jang, we are promoting anti Islam and anti Pakistani forces.
We must at least stop buying the things advertised on Geo and in Jang  immediately, othersise we'll also be supporting the anti Islam and anti Pakistan forces

2012/8/17 hafeez rehman <hrehman11@gmail.com>
  حسن نثار کی اپنے صحافتی بھائی سے بچگانہ اور اوچھی حرکتیں
پچھلے دنوں ایک ہوٹل میں افطاری کی تقریب میں کسی بات پر اپنے آپ کو پاکستانی صحافت کا عظیم دانشور اور ترقی پسند صحافی کہنے والے لالچی حسن نثار نے اپنے ایک صحافی بھائی کے ساتھ بدتمیزی پر اس کے کپڑے پھاڑ دیئے ۔ تقریب میں حسن نثار اور دوسرے صحافی نے گلاس اور چائے کے کپ سے ایک دوسرے پر وار کئے جبکہ نامعلوم صحافی نے حسن نثار کو ٹانگوں میں گھسا کر خوب مکے بازی کا مظاہر ہ کیا جس سے حسن نثار تھوڑی دیر کیلئے ساری صحافت اور دانشوری بھول گئے جبکہ مذکورہ کانفرنس ادھوری ہی رہ گئی ۔
کیا ایسے ہی لوگوں نے قوم کی رہنمائی کرنی ہے جو ذرا ذرا سی باتوں پر ایک دوسرے کے کپڑے پھاڑتے ہوئے ایک دوسرے کو ننگا کر رہے ہیں۔
اگر کسی بھائی کے پاس اس روشن واقعے کی ویڈیو ہو تو براہ مہربانی یو ٹیوب پر جاری کردے اس کی مہربانی ہو گی۔
-- 
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 : http://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 : http://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

Wargaming Termination of Tea Party Extremists

An interesting scenario, but inapposite, given that Tea Partiers to date have not even left litter at their rally sites.

Allow me to suggest a couple of more probable scenarios:

1. Cartels take over Tucson and hold it for $100 billion in hostage payments, or they will begin killing 1000 residents a day..

2. Moslems take over Dearborn and demand sovereign powers like an Indian reservation and Sharia law, or they will kill all the kaffirs within 50 miles..

3. Leftists violently seize control of San Francisco and threaten to set off a series of "dirty bombs" all over the U.S. if the U.S. does not immediately institute "MANDATORY FULL GREEN ECONOMY" and set 20% quotas for LGBT legislators, police, professors, teachers, Boy Scout leaders, and CEOs.

Of course, we know that the reason the Tea Party was chosen as the exercise target is the fact that no one thinks that the Tea Party would be offended to the point of violent reprisal. Political correctness works so much better if the target is certain to be RATIONAL, calm and peaceful.

---

Randy

********************************************************

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Beowulf <beowulf@westerndefense.net> wrote:

August 22, 2012

Wargaming Termination of Tea Party Extremists

By Cameron Reddy

Our military planners are openly discussing how to kill "Tea Party extremists" who have taken over a small town in the USA. Is this "operational lay-down" merely a "cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario," as described by The Washington Times, or is it something much more malevolent?

The military scenario appears in the July 25, 2012 issue of the respected Small Wars Journal and posits that, while Obama will be thrown out of office in 2012, ten years of race- and immigrant-bashing by "right-wing demagogues" will have whipped white Americans into gang-like attacks on non-whites.

Then, in a carefully planned operation, a Tea Party-inspired militia occupies the city hall in Darlington, South Carolina, disbands the city council, detains the mayor, and disarms the local police and/or "turns" policemen to its cause. The story continues:

With Darlington under their control, militia members quickly move beyond the city limits to establish 'check points' -- in reality, something more like choke points -- on major transportation lines. Traffic on ... [major roads] and commercial and passenger rail lines are stopped and searched, allegedly for 'illegal aliens.' Citizens who complain are immediately detained. Activists also collect 'tolls' from drivers, ostensibly to maintain public schools and various city and county programs, but evidence suggests the money is actually going toward quickly increasing stores of heavy weapons and ammunition. They also take over the town web site and use social media sites to get their message out unrestricted[.] ...

The article goes on to explain how true Americans will expect the military to efficiently kill, dissuade, and demoralize the "enemy" as effectively "as if it were acting overseas."

Apart from being, as the The Washington Times opined, "dark, pessimistic and wrongheaded," this scenario is noteworthy not only for the venomous description of the insurrectionists -- leaving little doubt about the authors' views of the American militia movement -- but also for the linkage of the militia with the Tea Party.

This raises a series of questions hinted at by Mr. Cary, which I ask straight out: should those of us aligned with the Tea Party be concerned with our government's incendiary posturing? Who, exactly, are these "extremists"? And precisely what activity is it that may precipitate military action?

To answer some of this, let's go back to 2009, when the Department of Homeland Security prepared its infamous report on right-wing extremism. There, we learned:

Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.

While that report singled out disgruntled military veterans, in a footnote it explained who else is worthy of close scrutiny:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Since we know that leftists equate disagreement with hate, this report made it clear that our federal government is "watching," which is to say it has "linked with the militia" basically anyone who objects to the platform of the Democratic Party.

Now look at the law under which our government is planning to act. From the same article, and referring to Title 10 of the United States Code, we learn that the president may, at the request of a legislature or governor, use the military to:

§ 332 - Suppress unlawful obstruction or rebellion against the U.S.

§ 333 - Suppress insurrection or domestic violence if it (1) hinders the execution of the laws to the extent that a part or class of citizens are deprived of Constitutional rights and the State is unable or refuses to protect those rights or (2) obstructs the execution of any Federal law or impedes the course of justice under Federal laws.) (Emphasis in original.)

A comment following these statutory citations ought to raise eyebrows. It indicates that the authors believe that the law is "broadly written" and "allows the flexibility needed to address a range of threats to the Republic."

As a lawyer, I'm always concerned when those tasked with enforcement praise as "broadly written" and "flexible" a law they use to prosecute citizens. Beyond that, however, I'd like to know what the heck constitutes an "unlawful obstruction" or a "hindrance" of the execution of laws. What activity might "obstruct" or "impede" the course of justice?

It's not too hard to see where this is going. Listen to the likes of Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and other leftist shills who claim we want to kill the elderly, pollute the environment, starve the poor, suppress minority votes, etc. Is it a stretch to see these people argue we're already obstructing, depriving, and/or otherwise impeding the course of justice? What would we be facing if they were the ones advising the president on the scope and applicability of these "broadly written" and "flexible" laws?

Oh, wait a minute. They are the ones advising the president...

Let's add it up.

First, we have this "operational lay-down" in the Small Wars Journal which is as much a provocation as it is a threat. Add the 2009 "watch list" lunacy that puts virtually all conservatives in the crosshairs. Top it off with absurd accusations from the left that we are throwing Grandma and Grandpa off the cliff and blacks off the voter rolls...

What do we get?

Think of it. With the federal government incessantly hammering Americans with leftist policy and politically correct dogma, with Americans reflexively and defensively moving to the political "right," we now find the government coolly describing how Tea Party "extremists" will be killed should their civil dissent cross some very indistinct and amorphous line.

Think about Alinsky's Rule 14:

RULE 14: "Push the enemy so hard with outrageous situations and allegations that he is forced to push back." Whenever possible, cause the enemy to respond, and when he does, hold him up for ridicule; then push harder. (By threatening his security and way of life, you will always elicit a reaction that can be turned against him.)

Of course, Alinsky created only twelve rules. Rule Fourteen, like Rule Thirteen, is my creations. But does anyone doubt their truth or applicability?

Further, note where Rule Fourteen puts us. While on one hand, no one in the Tea Party is seriously thinking in terms of armed resistance, on the other, none of us could have envisioned that "occupying" a state house for redress of grievances might be considered "obstruction" or "impeding" of federal law, let alone civil unrest of a nature to possibly warrant military force!

Moreover, it's no cartoon that Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and John Adams would be on Janet Napolitano's "watch" list. Nor is it funny that today, as revealed by the Small Wars Journal, their actions in pushing back, in effectuating the Declaration of Independence, would be met with deadly military force.

Sobering stuff -- especially when we are staring in the face a second term of Barack Obama -- a term in which he will be more "flexible."

So what should we do?

First, we must have our eyes open to how the left is manipulating us -- pushing us -- with Alinsky's Rules One through Fourteen. In baseball parlance, you can't hit a curve ball unless you know it's a curve ball. Next, we must reinforce and broadcast to the world that violence is not the answer. Finally, just as Tea Partiers effectively quashed the allegations of racism, we must police our ranks to insure that no one countenances anything even remotely close to what the Alinsky-inspired left is goading us to do. As Mr. Cary adroitly suggested, and as I hope I have crystallized with Alinsky's Rule Fourteen, the threat of a manufactured crisis is not just real. It's their goal.

Mr. Reddy blogs at www.cameronreddy.com. His controversial thriller, By Force Of Patriots, involves exactly the type of nightmarish scenario currently being war-gamed by our military. It's available at Amazon.com.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/08/wargaming_termination_of_tea_party_extremists.html at August 22, 2012 - 10:58:04 AM CDT