Team Obama demands top DNC Fund-Raiser to raise $60 Million by July

They'll steal it from the taxpayers somehow.

Team Obama demands top DNC Fund-Raiser to raise $60 Million by July Scotty Starnes | June 1, 2011 at 7:16 PM | Tags: 2012 presidential election, Michelle Obama, Obama fundraiser, President Obama | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-5na

Fundraising on the taxpayer's dime. This is the only accomplishment (besides bankrupting America) Obama can truly claim.

WASHINGTON--President Obama's top fund-raisers, meeting in Chicago on Wednesday were asked by Obama campaign manager Jim Messina to raise $60 million for the Obama 2012 re-elect and the Democratic Party by the end of June, I've been told.

The $60 million June 30 second quarter goal--part of a power point presentation to members of the Obama 2012/Democratic National Committee National Finance Committee--is equal to the amount raised during the comparable time by the 2004 Bush/Cheney campaign and the Republican National Committee.

Whatever the comparison, members of the NFC--Obama's major bundlers--people who use their extensive personal networks to convince others to make campaign donations--were huddling at the Hyatt Regency on Wacker Dr. to map strategy to raise what Messina has said was "north of $750 million" for the 2012 re-election campaign.

It takes a lot of money to lie.

Obama and First Lady Michelle, I've learned, will hit the fund-raising trail again this month in a quest to raise big money early on for the Obama 2012 re-elect and the DNC.

Nothing unusual. Obama never stopped campaigning.

Mrs. Obama headlines fundraisers in California--Pasadena and the Bay Area on June 13.

Obama has fund-raisers June 13 in Miami; June 20 in Washington aimed at Jewish donors, June 23 in New York City for gay and lesbian contributors and June 30 in Philadelphia.

All at the expense of the U.S. taxpayers. So much for that laser like focus on (insert your favorite Obama promise here).

Continue reading>>>

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Express yourself. Start a blog.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

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

What the GOP Field’s Rightward Move Won’t Mean

What the GOP Field's Rightward Move Won't Mean
Posted by Anthony Gregory on May 30, 2011

It happens in every presidential primary, and is for some reason more emphasized among Republicans: In their case the candidates all "move to the right" until the primary season ends, at which point the nominee "moves to the center" to compete with the Democrat. The news media make a big deal of this. It is Talking Points 101, as far as the chattering commentators are concerned. You cannot be a talking head on news shows without a command of this supposedly profound point.

And so we are hearing now that the Republican candidates are embracing their inner conservatives, to compete with one another over their base voters. On climate change and Medicare reform, the candidates are moving away from the centrist GOP positions touted in 2008 -- which isn't so difficult when you realize those positions were almost identical to those of the Democrats.

A little political maneuvering is to be expected, and to the extent that the candidates pander by offering up some policy prescriptions, even on a handful of issues, that appear substantively different from Obama's, we can rest assured that by 2012 or, if the Republican wins, 2013, even these distinctions on a half dozen token hot buttons, will not be as sharp as they sound during the primary. We could say, however, that it is encouraging to see some vocal challenges to the Democratic establishment on some things.

Yet there are quite a few areas where the fiscal conservatism and anti-DC spirit of the Tea Parties will not translate into nearly the type of dissent from the status quo that we desperately need. Even if the primary contest is largely about rhetoric, even on a purely rhetorical front, I am not getting my hopes up about how far to the "right" these candidates will go. With the exception of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, both of whom are not at all attempting to sound more typically "conservative" than their opponents, I am not holding my breath to hear about real solutions and principled proposals of the sort we really do need to hear. Some examples:

Entitlements: We will hear a tiny bit about reform, block grants, maybe even transitions toward eventual private accounts or phase-outs, but we will not hear it emphasized loud enough that the entire entitlement state is fundamentally insolvent. The unfunded liabilities over the next few decades rival the collective annual income of the world. This is a monstrosity that will collapse eventually, one way or another. If we are going to smooth out the painful transition, we need to be honest with young Americans that they should expect nothing from the future welfare state, even as they are forced to pay to maintain even a fraction of the payments promised by Washington over the next 20 years. We can minimize the harm and inter-generational resentment if Washington allows the young to opt out and slashes benefits as much as possible to alleviate the stress. Medicare and Social Security are shell games that will eventually tear us apart. The sooner we recognize it, the better. But the media's favorites in the Republican field will never admit it is this bad.

The dollar crisis: The Fed has created trillions of dollars since the 2008 financial crisis. It is not all liquid, thank goodness­it is mostly sitting in the reserves of the once-troubled financial institutions. If in the attempt to keep reinflating our bubble economy, politicians and their banking elite buddies decide to actually flood the market with this money, the economy will be sunk. Hyperinflation in the technical sense may never come, despite what some fear, but even if it doesn't, we are looking at a potentially disastrous level of stagflation­ever declining value of the dollar coupled with persistent recession. This is all a consequence of the government's boom and bust economic planning, and especially the Federal Reserve printing press. This all needs to be reined in, and the central bank eventually abolished, to put a final end to the massively destructive business cycle. This is as important as any other economic question, but don't expect Tim Pawlenty to sound the alarm.

The Bush years were socialistic too: It is easy for Republicans to cheer on the free market and Constitution under a failed Democratic administration, because they never have to define what they consider to be a true alternative. They can attack Obama's plans as being socialistic and in tension with the Constitution, but they will almost never concede that almost everything we have seen implemented under Bush and all modern presidents falls under the same categories. So we will not hear about how No Child Left Behind and all federal interventions in education enacted beforehand have to go. We will not hear that Bush's Medicare D was a disaster that no conservative should have backed, and that we need to abolish federal controls over health care­the FDA, licensing, subsidies and regulations­if we want to avert the health care crisis. We will not hear a comprehensive and thoughtful critique of the bailouts and stimulus programs, since Republicans are about as guilty as Democrats. We will not hear that the EPA needs to be abolished, not just "reined in," as it was created, after all, by a Republican president. We will not hear that the entire regulatory state, including Bush's egregious Sarbenes-Oxley abomination, is strangling the economy and must be scrapped. Good luck seeing Newt Gingrich even approach such issues with a ten-foot pole.

Conservative red meat, medium rare: Even though conservative voters can be counted on to claim the high ground of liberty on some key issues, Republicans like Mitt Romney will never "pander" to them nearly enough on these. We will hear a little lip service to the Second Amendment, but not the truth: That all federal gun laws are unconstitutional, all should be repealed, and in the meantime, none should be enforced. Bush increased firearms prosecutions. A president serious about gun rights would pardon all these people. We will not hear the truth about how the feds have no business at all -- none -- interfering in faith and family, that the ATF should be shut down (as Reagan promised in the 1970s), that the income tax has to be eliminated entirely if we want America remotely to resemble a free country, and that it's none of Washington's business to override the constitutionally protected choices of how local communities govern themselves.

The police and military are flawed government bodies too: All of the above are points that any red-blooded conservative should sympathize with. The most thoughtful and consistent, however, will also take their constitutional and anti-government critiques to some areas thought sacred in Republican politics. The mainstream Republicans will never admit that: Federal police have gotten out of control in many areas, the war on drugs at the federal level is unconstitutional, unaffordable and unsustainable, the Patriot Act and other war on terror programs compromise sacred constitutional liberties, the TSA (a Bush program) should be abandoned totally, the Fourth Amendment is as important as the Second, big Pentagon expenditures are as wasteful as big domestic boondoggles, the empire is bankrupting us even faster than most social programs loved by the Democrats, and war is a government program with all the flaws of any other. I wouldn't expect any of this type of talk anyway, but it would be refreshing if conservatives embraced the consistent application of anti-statism and constitutional principle.

Even putting aside the controversial positions of the preceding paragraph, the material in this post above should be the common fodder even for Republican mainstream candidates, so long as they take the Tea Party rhetoric seriously, at least in a primary when they are supposedly "moving to the right." Yet we will hear nothing principled about the evil of the income tax, the socialism of the entire domestic welfare state, the tyrannical nature of all federal gun laws, the need to scale DC back far smaller than it was under Bush II, Bush I, Reagan or Nixon. Goldwater, after all, thought government was way out of control in 1964, and he was right­and this was before the Great Society hit its height.

The "move to the right" will amount to nothing but unconvincing apologies for past support for cap and trade and some lukewarm homages to free enterprise, so long as the conservative voting base doesn't demand better of the Republicans. It is a shame that even during the short primary period, when Republicans are supposed to feel free to sound as "conservative" as they want, when we all know they're not going to be held to their promises anyway should they win the nomination much less the presidency, when the media make the biggest deal of just how much they cater to their rightwing base, they still sound almost the same as Obama.

http://johndennisreport.com/federal-budget/what-the-gop-fields-rightward-move-wont-mean

Misdiagnosing the Middle East

Misdiagnosing the Middle East
F . Gregory Gause III
May 26, 2011

There is a dangerous consensus about the Middle East based on the assumption that authoritarian politics are the root of instability, violence and anti-Americanism. Thus the United States is obliged, for both its own security and the furtherance of its values, to encourage democracy and liberal, market-oriented economic reform in the region. In other words, the United States has to change the domestic politics of the region's states. There might not be agreement about the means to be used­though the Libyan adventure indicates that Democrats are not completely averse to the use of force­but the diagnosis of the problem is the same. The president is fully aboard this consensus that has come to unite much of the American political class since the attacks of September 11, 2001. It is a belief system that unites Bush Republicans and Clinton Democrats, neoconservatives and liberal interventionists, Charles Krauthammer and Thomas Friedman, Paul Wolfowitz and Samantha Power. When such disparate people agree on something, you just know it has to be wrong.

Our public debate is not open to the alternative argument that our problems in the region might stem more from our own deep military and political involvement there rather than from local pathologies. But, for the sake of argument, let us assume that this consensus is correct in its diagnosis of the problems the United States faces in the region. Its prescription­even more direct American involvement in the Middle East­assumes that Washington can have a meaningful role in directing domestic political change there. That is where our political class is woefully misguided.

Consider the goals President Obama set out in his May 19 speech. The United States is going to "promote reform across the region and…support transitions to democracy." We will oppose "an attempt by any group to restrict the rights of others and to hold power through coercion and not consent." We will "work to see that this spirit [of religious tolerance and freedom] prevails." We will "insist that universal rights apply to women as well as men." We will support prosperity by "ensuring financial stability, promoting [economic] reform and integrating competitive markets with each other and the global economy." That commits the United States to "tearing down walls that stand in the way of progress­the corruption of elites who steal from their people; the red tape that stops an idea from becoming a business; the patronage that distributes wealth based on tribe or sect."

Whew! Might as well commit to parting the Red Sea to encourage Egyptian trade with the Arab East.

Can the United States really do these things? Will we like what we see in the region if we do? These kinds of means-ends calculations are not part of the post-9/11, post-Arab Spring American approach to the region. If it must be done, we will do it. But the evidence so far is that we as a country are extremely bad at changing the domestic politics of Middle Eastern countries, and that once we get involved in these efforts, they tend to end up in places we would not have imagined when we started.

Consider the ancient history of the George W. Bush administration. I realize that was eons ago, but we might learn something from its experience. It launched a war with Iraq to turn that country into a stable, democratic American ally in the Middle East, with a market economy, the rule of law and legally ensured women's rights. How did that turn out? The democratic forms are there, but is Iraq well governed? Is it stable? Do good liberals lead it? These results were obtained with the investment of an eight-year military occupation, the cost of thousands of American (and tens of thousands, if not more, Iraqi) lives and nearly a trillion U.S. dollars. All that effort for the results we see. This should be a cautionary tale about the inability of the United States to reengineer the politics of the Middle East. But it seems to have been forgotten. The Bush administration introduced the Middle East Partnership Initiative and a series of other reform programs to leverage our financial aid and trade to the region in order to promote economic openness and market economic reform. And how is that working? The Bush administration also forthrightly pushed for democratic reform in the region, and Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections in 2006.

The Obama administration now wants to walk the same path, but it is unclear why it expects to be able to direct regional events more effectively than its predecessor. It does not have the means that the Bush administration brought to bear in the region. Bush sent armies; Obama sends an airforce, and reluctantly. Bush spent hundreds of billions; Obama offers Egypt $1 billion (while Saudi Arabia offers it $4 billion). The fall of friendly authoritarians opens up the political arena, to be sure, but such openness benefits the best-organized groups. Those groups happen to be Islamists, like the Muslim Brotherhood, with which the United States has had no dialogue for decades. We had leverage over Mubarak; we will have much less over an elected Egyptian government. We hope to promote "Washington consensus" economic policies, but the two Arab states that went the furthest in adopting market-reform policies were Tunisia and Egypt. It is not clear why Arab leaders, new or old, elected or authoritarian, would want to follow the policy path of Ben Ali and Mubarak.

The American political class refuses to realize the limits of American power to reconstruct foreign societies, their economies and their politics. Thus, we will always be both surprised and disappointed by what we get for our well-intentioned lectures (and more than lectures) about how other people should live their lives.

There is an alternative path, one that recognizes both our interests in the region and the limits on our ability to remold a foreign reality. It is a forthright acknowledgement that policies based on changing the domestic politics of Middle Eastern states have failed. It is a retreat from the political engineering of the last ten years that has brought so much destruction to the lives of so many in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a recognition that our interests in the Middle East are more limited than we realize, and can be achieved with many fewer resources and a much smaller footprint.

Our core interest in the region is preventing any hostile power from dominating it politically and militarily, and thus being able to affect the production and flow of oil there. That interest is not particularly at risk now. There is a natural multipolarity in the region­Iran, Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia. They will balance each other aggressively in their own interests. They will do that no matter what their domestic political arrangements are. We can assist in that process, shoring up the weak against the strong and standing ready to intervene against any effort to establish military control over the Persian Gulf. We can do that from offshore. Preventing Arab-Israeli conflict is an important part of avoiding regional upheaval. We should continue in that diplomatic effort, recognizing that the conditions on the ground are not particularly propitious for progress right now. We can acknowledge that military bases in unstable countries are more trouble than they are worth, and thus reconsider our basing arrangements in Bahrain. We can recognize that the day of the stable Arab authoritarian is over, and wish the forces of democracy and freedom in the region well, being the friends of liberty for all but the champion only of our own.

President Obama said on May 19, as he laid out his ambitious agenda to promote political, economic and social change in the Middle East, that "we must proceed with a sense of humility." President Bush said something similar during his 2000 election campaign. Let us really heed those words and leave the future of Arab politics to Arabs themselves. They deserve the chance to make their own history, whether we like it or not. We should leave them alone.

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/misdiagnosing-the-middle-east-5368?page=show

Socialism Meets the Drug War

Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Socialism Meets the Drug War
by Jacob G. Hornberger

The headline of this recent New York Times article highlights the problem: "Drug Trade Flourishes in Spanish Port Town." The article is referring to the Spanish town of Barbate, Spain, a port town located in the southern region of Andalusia.

Like other socialist countries, such as Greece, Italy, and Portugal, Spain is suffering a severe economic collapse as a result of the massive spending and borrowing for its welfare-state programs. According to a recent BBB article, Spain has the highest rate of unemployment among EU countries ­ 20 percent. It also has one of the region's weakest economies, which contracted by 0.1 percent in 2010. Moody's recently downgraded Spain's debt rating by a notch.

It's even worse in Barbate. The Times' article points out that at 29.7 percent, Andalusia has the highest unemployment rate in the country. Among the hardest hit have been young people. Barbate Mayor Rafael Quiros put it succinctly: "A youngster has absolutely zero chance right now of finding a fixed job here."

So, guess where young people in Barbate are turning to sustain their lives.

You got it! The drug trade!

Why drugs? Why not liquor or cigarettes or fruits and vegetables?

Because drugs are illegal, which means artificially high black-market prices and profits. The possibility of making lots of money very quickly, needless to say, lures many young people into the business.

According to the NYT article, today there are 300 of Barbate's 22,000 residents serving time in jail for drug-war violations. Five years ago, before the onset of the economic crisis, the number was about half ­ 160.

So, while we have becoming accustomed here in the United States to seeing the increasing integration of the drug war and the war on terrorism, in Spain people are getting to see socialism meeting the drug war. Of course, the results are disastrous in terms of ruined lives and social destruction.

An increasing number of young people in Barbate are now engaged in the drug trade. One youngster told the NYT reporter that his back BMW was bought with money he had made selling drugs. Another, a 30-year-old named Paco, had just been released from serving almost 4 years in jail on drug charges.

Meanwhile, as the state cracks down on the new supply of drug dealers, the retail price of hashish has soared, which no doubt will lure more young people into the business, some of whom will end up serving time in jail.

What is occurring in Barbate is just another example of the horrors of statism. Socialism has brought the economic crisis, which in turn is luring young people into the drug trade, which in turn is ruining lots of lives.

In principle, the situation in Barbate is no different here in the United States. Lured by big black-market profits that the drug war produces, increasing numbers of Americans are lured into the drug business. A certain percentage of them are caught and are sent to jail, which then causes drug prices to go up again, luring more people into the business. The cycle continues repeating itself indefinitely, as it has for the past 40 years.

Equally bad, the integration of the drug war and the war on terrorism has enabled government officials to spread their police-state tactics and infringements on privacy and civil liberties in towns and cities all across the nation.

It's all a vicious statist cycle that brings a mountain of ruined lives, along with death, destruction, and corruption.

Obviously, there is a better way, and that way is libertarianism ­ the philosophy that rejects statism in all its forms and variations, including socialism, imperialism, and interventionism ­ and embraces economic liberty, free markets, and a limited-government republic.

Libertarianism is the solution for Barbate. It's the solution for Spain. It's the solution for the United States. It's the solution for the world.

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-06-01.asp

**JP** - ???? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ????

---

ایسے لوگ پھر لوٹ کر آ جائیں، کبھی نہیں

(خلافت عمر رضی اللہ عنہ سے چند معطر واقعات جو حکمرانوں اور ذمہ داروں کیلئے ایک آئینہ ہیں)

******

سیدنا عمر رضی اللہ عنہ لوگوں کو خطبہ دینے کیلئے کھڑے ہوئے تو فرمایا: اے لوگو سنو اور غور کرو۔

سلمان فارسی رضی اللہ عنہ نے جواباً کہا: اللہ کی قسم، نا ہی تیری بات سُنیں گے اور نا ہی اُس پر غور کریں گے۔

حضرت عمررضی اللہ عنہ  نے  پوچھا: ایسا کیوں سلیمان ؟

انہوں نے جواب دیا: خود تو دو قمیصوں کے برابر کا کپڑا پہنتے ہو اور ہمیں ایک ایک قمیص دیتے ہو!

سیدنا عمررضی اللہ عنہ نے اپنے بیٹے عبداللہ سے کہا: اُٹھ عبداللہ اور سلیمان رضی اللہ عنہ کو جواب دو۔

عبداللہ بن عمررضی اللہ عنہ نے کہا: میرا والد طویل القامت شخص ہے، اس لئیے میرے حصے کا کپڑا لیکر اور دونوں کو ملا کر  اپنے لیئے قمیص سلوا ئی ہے۔

سیدنا سلیمان رضی اللہ عنہ نے کہا: ٹھیک ہے امیر المؤمنین، اب کہیئے، ہم سُنیں گے، ہمیں حکم دو  تو ہم اطاعت کریں گے۔

******

 ایک بار منبر پر کھڑے ہو کر لوگوں سے فرمایا: تُم لوگ کیا کرو گے اگر راستہ اس طرح ٹیڑھا ہونا شروع ہو گیا تو؟ اور اپنے ہاتھ کو بھی تھوڑا سا ترچھا کر کے دکھایا۔

حاضرین کی آخری صفوں سے ایک شخص نے کھڑے ہو کر اپنی تلوار میان سے نکال کر لہراتے ہوئے کہا: اللہ کی قسم، اگر راستہ اس طرح ٹیڑھا ہوا تو ہم اپنی تلواروں سے ایسا کریں گے۔

سیدنا عمررضی اللہ عنہ نے کہا: اللہ کا شکر ہے جس نے مجھے ایسی رعایا دی جو راستوں کو ٹیڑھا ہوتے دیکھے گی تو مجھے سیدھا کرنے کیلئے طاقت فراہم کرے گی۔

******

اے شخص نے سیدنا عمررضی اللہ عنہ سے کہا: اے عمر رضی اللہ عنہ، اللہ سے ڈرو۔

حضرت عمررضی اللہ عنہ کی آنکھیں آنسوؤں سے بھر آئیں، اور کہا:

تم میں خیر  و بھلائی نہیں رہے گی اگر مجھے ایسی بات نہیں کروگے تو، اور مجھ میں خیر و بھلائی نہیں ہوگی اگر میں ایسی بات قبول نہیں کرونگا تو۔

******

سیدنا عمر رضی اللہ عنہ نے منبر پر کھڑے ہو کر عورتوں سے مہر کم کرنے کو کہا تو مسجد کے آخر سے ایک عورت نے کھڑے ہو کر کہا؛ اے امیر المؤمنین، اللہ تبارک و تعالیٰ تو فرماتے ہیں  (وَآتَيْتُمْ إِحْدَاھنَّ قِنطَارًا فَلَا تَأْخُذُوا مِنْہ ُ شَيْئًا)(اور پہلی عورت کو بہت سا مال دے چکے ہو تو اس میں سے کچھ مت لینا)۔

حضرت عمر رضی اللہ عنہ نے کہا: اس عورت نے ٹھیک کہا ہے، عمر سے غلطی ہو گئی ہے۔

******

ابن عباس رضی اللہ عنہ کہتے ہیں: اللہ کی قسم، میں نے عمر رضی اللہ عنہ کو ایسی قمیص پہنے ہوئے دیکھا کہ اُس میں چودہ پیوند لگے ہوئے تھے اور اُس وقت عمر رضی اللہ عنہ خلیفہ وقت بھی تھے۔

اسی بات کو مشہور شاعر محمود غنیم اس طرح کہتا ہے :

يا من يری عمرا تكسوہ  بردتہ  -   والزيتُ أدمٌ لہ  والكوخُ مأواہُ 

 يہتز كسری علی كرسيہ فرقًا - من خوفہ وملوكُ الروم تخشاہُ 

اے عمررضی اللہ عنہ کی قمیص میں پیوند لگے دیکھنے والے

محض تیل جسکا سالن اور صراحی سے پانے پینےوالا تھا وہ

کسریٰ میں تخت نشین بھی اُس کے نام سے لرزاں تھے

اور روم کے بادشاہ اُس سے ڈرتے تھے

******

فارس کا وزیر ھرمزان آپ رضی اللہ عنہ کو تلاش کرتے ہوئے ایک درخت کے پاس پہنچا جس کے نیچے سیدنا عمررضی اللہ عنہ کو پیوند لگی قمیص پہنے اور بغیر کسی پہریدار کے سوتے دیکھ کر کہہ اُٹھا :

تو نے حکومت کی، انصاف کیا، امن دیا اور بے خوف سویا

عرب شاعر حافظ ابراہیم اس مقولے کو اپنے شعروں میں اس طرح بیان کرتا ہے:

فقال قولۃ حق أصبحت مثلا - وأصبح الجيل بعد الجيل يرويھا
أمنت لما أقمت العدل بينھم  -  فنمتَ نوم قرير العين ھانیھا  

 پس اُس نے جو حق کی بات کہی وہ ضرب المثل بن گئی

نسل در نسل آنے والے یہ بات دہراتے رہیں گے

میں ایمان لایا جب تونے اُن کے درمیان ؑانصاف کی عدالت کی

اور اسی لیئے تو تو اتنی  بے فکری سے سویا

******

سیدنا عمر رضی اللہ عنہ کہتے تھے: اللہ کی قسم، اگر دجلہ کے دور دراز علاقے میں بھی کسی خچر کو  راہ چلتے ٹھوکر لگ گئی تو مجھے ڈر لگتا ہے کہیں اللہ تعالیٰ مُجھ سے یہ سوال نا کردیں اے عمر، تو نے وہ راستہ ٹھیک کیوں نہیں کرایا تھا؟

******

ایک بار اپنے بچوں کے ہاتھ میں میٹھے کا ٹکڑا دیکھ لیا تو اپنی بیوی سے استفسار کیا: اس میٹھے کے بنانے کیلئے تیرے پاس پیسے کدھر سے آئے؟

اُس نے جواب دیا: بیت المال سے آنے والا آٹا تھوڑا تھوڑا بچتا تھا جسے ملا کر یہ میٹھا بنا لیا۔

سیدنا عمر رضی اللہ عنہ نے کہا: تو آٹا بچا پاتی ہے اور مسلمانوں میں ایسے بھی ہیں جن کو آٹا میسر ہی نہیں!

فوراً ہی اپنے بچوں کے ہاتھوں سے میٹھے ٹکڑے لئیے اور کہا: مسلمانوں کے بیت المال کو جا کر واپس کر دو۔

******

ایک بار حضرت عمر رضی اللہ عنہ کی بیوی کو میٹھا کھانے کی طلب ہوئی تو آپ نے اُسے کہا: کہاں سے پیسے لاؤں جس سے تجھے میٹھا خرید کر دوں؟

******

حضرت عمررضی اللہ عنہ کی بیوی (عاتکہ) کہتی ہیں کہ: عمررضی اللہ عنہ بستر پر سونے کیلئے لیٹتے تھے تو نیند ہی اُڑ جاتی تھی، بیٹھ کر رونا شروع کر دیتے تھے۔

میں پوچھتی تھی: اے امیر المؤمنین، کیا ہوا؟

وہ رضی اللہ عنہ کہتے تھے: مجھے محمد صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کی اُمت کی خلافت ملی ہوئی ہے، اور ان میں مسکین بھی ہیں ضعیف بھی ہیں یتیم بھی ہیں اور مظلوم بھی، مجھے ڈر لگتا ہے اللہ تعالیٰ مجھ سے ان سب کے بارے میں سوال کریں گے۔

******

مدینہ میں آئے قحط کے سال (عام الرمادہ) کے دوران، ایک بار منبر پر کھڑے ہوئے تھے کہ اپنے پیٹ سے گُڑگُڑ کی آواز آئی،  پیٹ کی طرف اشارہ کرتے ہوئے کہا: چاہے گُڑگُڑ کر یا گُڑگُڑ  نا کر، اللہ کی قسم تجھے اس وقت تک نہیں بھرونگا جب تک مسلمانوں کے بچوں کے پیٹ نہیں بھر جاتے۔

******

ایک بار حضرت عمر رضی اللہ عنہ کا ایک ایسے خیمے سے گزر ہوا جس میں ایک عورت نے ابھی ابھی بچے کو ولادت دی تھی اور اُسکے اور بھی بچے تھے جبکہ اُسکا خاوند وفات پا چُکا تھا۔ حالات کا علم ہونے پر فوراً بیت المال تشریف لے گئے اور وہاں سے تیل اور آٹا لیکر واپس آئے، آگ جلا کر رات کا کھانا بناکر  اُن سب کو پیش کیا۔

عورت نے کہا: اللہ کی قسم، تم عمر بن الخطاب رضی اللہ عنہ سے بہتر ہو۔

حضرت عمر رضی اللہ عنہ نے اللہ تبارک و تعالیٰ کا یہ قول پڑھتے ہوئے (أَلَا لَہُ الْخَلْقُ وَالْأَمْرُ)(دیکھو سب مخلوق بھی اسی کی ہے اور حکم بھی اسی کا ہے) رو پڑے اور کہا:میرے پاس تو کُچھ بھی نہیں بچا ہوا، اور اگر کسی کی کوئی چیز میرے پاس رہتی ہو تو مجھ سے آ کر طلب کر لے۔

******

بیت المقدس کی فتح کے موقع پر پیوند لگی قمیص پہنے ہوئے تشریف لے جانے لگے تو بعض سرداروں نے کہا، اے امیر المؤمنین، اگر خوبصورت لباس زیب تن کر کے تشریف لے جاؤ تو یہ اسلام کیلئے اعزاز کی بات ہوگی۔

حضرت عمررضی اللہ عنہ نے جواب دیا: ہم وہ قوم ہیں جن کو اللہ نے اسلام سے عزت و اعزاز دیا ہے، اس کے سوا کسی بھی چیز کو عزت اور اعزاز سمجھیں تو وہ  اللہ نے ذلت ہی دینا ہوگی۔

******

ایک بار صدقہ کیلئے چھوڑے ہوئے اونٹوں کو رنگ سے نشان لگا رہے تھے تو ایک آدمی نے آ کر کہا؛ اے امیر المؤمنین، لائیے مجھے دیجیئے، میں آپ کی جگہ ان اونٹوں پر نشان لگا دیتا ہوں۔

سیدنا عمررضی اللہ عنہ نے فرمایا: قیامت والے دن میرے گُناہ اُٹھانے بھی آؤ گے کیا؟

******

مدینے میں رات کو پہریداری کرتے ہوئے ایک گھر کےسامنے سے گزر ہوا، اندر سے ایک دودھ فروش عورت کی  آواز آ رہی تھی جو اپنی بیٹی سے کہہ رہی تھی، دودھ میں پانی ڈال کر اسے زیادہ کر لے، عمر رضی اللہ عنہ کونسا دیکھ رہا ہے۔

اُس لڑکی نے اپنی ماں کو جواب دیا؛ مگر اللہ دیکھ رہا ہے۔

حضرت عمر رضی اللہ عنہ نے وہ مکان اپنے ذہن میں رکھا اور اُس لڑکی کا رشتہ اپنے بیٹے عاصم کیلئے مانگ لیا۔

بعد میں اُس لڑکی کی آل سے زاہد اور عادل خلیفہ عمر بن عبدالعزیز نے جنم لیا۔

******

جب مدینہ شریف میں قحط پڑا تو حضرت عمررضی اللہ عنہ اپنے سر پر کھانے کا ٹوکرا رکھ کر فقراء میں بانٹنے کیلئے نکلتے تھے۔

******

قحط کے سال میں حضرت عمررضی اللہ عنہ نے تمام فقراء اور حاجتمندوں سے کہا کہ مدینہ شریف کے گردونواح میں آ کر بس جاؤ، اُن کیلئے خود خیمے نصب کیئے اور کہا: اگر زندہ رہے تو اکھٹے رہیں گے اور مرے بھی تو اکھٹے مریں گے۔

******

ایک آدمی نے آ کر حضرت عمررضی اللہ عنہ کو مشورہ دیا کہ اے امیر المؤمنین، اگر آپ اپنے بیٹے عبداللہ کیلئے کیلئے خلافت کی وصیت کرتے جائیں تو اچھا ہوگا، کیونکہ وہ خلافت کا اہل ہے۔

حضرت عمررضی اللہ عنہ نے کہا: تو نے جھوٹ بولا ہے اللہ تجھے ھلاک کرے، اور میں تیری مکاری کی گواہی دیتا ہوں، میں کس طرح اُس کیلئے خلافت کی وصیت کروں اور مسلمانوں میں اُس سے بہتر لوگ موجود ہیں؟

******

---