Thursday, February 10, 2011

Re: **JP** Fw: ARTICLE AT VELONTINE DAY

Nice Sharing ...God Bless
 



Regards
BazMi
Karachi-Pakistan




 



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

 
----- Original Message -----
From: Qasim Ali
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 8:02 AM
Subject: Fw: ARTICLE AT VELONTINE DAY


 




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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

**JP** Fw: The Ignorant Saudi Sheikh



 

Tuesday, February 8

The Ignorant Saudi Sheikh

 
 
 
 Tuesday, February 08, 2011  The Blogger
 
By Khalid Amayreh 
It has been reported that the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh, condemned the ongoing revolution against the tyrannical regime of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
 
According to reports from Riyadh, the Sheikh condemned anti-regime protests in all Arab countries, calling demonstrations "chaotic acts" carried out by the enemies of Islam in order to "divide" the Muslim world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would further ask this sheikh.

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

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

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

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



--
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

How the Fed Fuels Unemployment


How the Fed Fuels Unemployment
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Did (Tea Party) Patriots Act?


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

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

The Patriot Act was moved to the floor under suspension of the rules – a provision that requires two-thirds majority (290 votes) to pass and is often used for noncontroversial legislation. After holding the vote open well past the 15-minute window, it failed 277 to 148 with five Republicans and four Democrats not voting.
Republican leaders will bring the bill back to the floor under a rule, where it will almost certainly secure the 218-vote threshold.
[...]
Twenty-six Republicans voted against the Patriot Act extension, but only eight were freshmen – Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Mike Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Chris Gibson (N.Y.), Randy Hultgren (Ill.), Raul Labrador (Idaho), Bobby Schilling (Ill.), Dave Schweikert (Ariz.) and Rob Woodall (Ga.).

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

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

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

Reprinted with permission from Johnnyedge.