**JP** Re: کيا آج کل کے حالات اس حديث کوثابت نہيں کرتے؟

MORE THAN 180MILLIONS PEOPLES  WISH HOPE AND SUPPORT ALTAF HUSSAIN --- On Thu, 14/7/11, Muhammad Shoaib Tanoli <shoaib.tanoli@gmail.com> wrote: From: Muhammad Shoaib Tanoli <shoaib.tanoli@gmail.com> Subject: کيا آج کل کے حالات اس حديث کوثابت نہيں کرتے؟ To: Date: Thursday, 14 July, 2011, 11:25 AM صحیح بخاری:جلد سوم:حدیث نمبر 1941 حدیث مرفوع مکررات 43 متفق علیہ 34 عیاش بن ولید، عبدالاعلی، معمر، زہری، سعید، حضرت ابوہریرہ رضی اللہ تعالیٰ عنہ سے روایت کرتے ہیں آپ نے فرمایا کہ قیامت کا زمانہ قریب ہوگا، تو عمل کم ہوجائیں گے بخل پیدا ہوجائے گا، فتنے ظاہر ہو جائیں گے اور ہرج کی کثرت ہوگی لوگوں نے پوچھا یا رسول اللہ ہرج کیا ہے؟ آپ نے فرمایا، قتل، قتل کيا آج کل کے حالات اس حديث کوثابت نہيں کرتے؟ مجھے آپ کے کمنٹس کاانتظار ہے۔ وسلام محمد شعيب تنولی --   With Good Regards M SHOAIB TANOLI پاکستان زندہ باد   ۔ پاکستان پائندہ باد Long Live Pakistan             +92-300-2591223       Heaven on Earth Pakistan is one of the biggest blessings of Allah for any Pakistani. Whatever we have today it's all because of Pakistan, otherwise, we would have nothing. Please be sincere to Pakistan. Pakistan Zindabad! Thank you for your assistance. حضرات محترم: میری ایمیلز میری ذاتی پسند ہوتی ہیں، جنکا مقصد آپ سے رابطہ، دوسری ثقافتوں سے آگاہی، علم اور معلومات کا پھیلانا مقصود ہوتا ہے، اگر آپ کو ناگوار گزرتی ہوں تو ضرور آگاہ کیجیئے  A feedback on reasons will help us improve. We appreciate your feedback. This is an e-mail from TaNoLi and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient and you receive this e-mail by mistake, you are not allowed to use the information,to copy it or distribute it further.   Please notify us and return it to TaNoLi by e-mail and delete all attachments. I am Pakistani and I am Just Like You -- Dear Readers: My mails are my personal choice. The purpose of these mails is to establish contact with you, make you aware of different cultures ,disseminate knowledge and information. If these (mails) sound you unpleasant, please intimate .   IF YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN MY MAIL   PLEASE REPLY THIS E_,MAIL WITH THE SUBJECT.. UNSUBSCRIBE   E Mail: shoaib.tanoli@gmail.com   To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tanolimail+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tanolimail?hl=en   Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/mtanoli Yahoo Messenger: shoaib.tanoli@ymail.com MSN : Messenger shoaib.tanoli@hotmail.com SKYPE: shoaib.tanoli2

--
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

Looks like Nanny Bloomberg is still as tone-deaf as usual

http://www.dnainfo.com/20110713/downtown/no-room-for-911-survivors-at-10th-anniversary-ceremony-city-says?utm_content=rhomp2002%40earthlink.net&utm_source=VerticalResponse&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=No%20Room%20for%209%2F11%20Survivors%20at%2010th%20Anniversary%20Ceremony%2C%2E%2E%2E&utm_campaign=Second%20Man%20Attempts%20Break-In%20at%20Ed%20Sullivan%20Theatercontent

--
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.

The Wasted Vote Lie

"Little do they realize that they have once again been duped by the Wasted Vote Lie. It is a deliberate, carefully crafted fable concocted and perpetrated by the Democratic and Republican duopoly to maintain their stranglehold on power. They cleverly employ the propaganda trick of tyrants throughout the ages; if you repeat a lie loud enough and often enough eventually people will believe it."

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Op Ed: The Wasted Vote Lie
by R. Lee Wrights*

*"Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual -- or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country." *- Samuel Adams, in the *Boston Gazette*, 1781

BURNET, Texas (July 12) - Every election Libertarians are invariably confronted with the charge that a vote for a Libertarian candidate is a wasted vote. The accuser claims that if you really wanted limited government you should vote for the candidate who has a chance of winning -- the Republican. In some rare cases, the assertion may be that if you really wanted to protect civil liberties you'd vote for the candidate who has a chance of winning -- the Democrat. And yet, our liberty goes unprotected as government grows unimpeded.

To my utter astonishment, this bogus argument invariably causes some genuine freedom-loving people to betray their stated beliefs. Why do they leap from the Ship of Principle into the stormy Sea of Compromise at the very moment their strength, courage and resolve are needed the most? Only one thing makes a person abandon everything they've ever believed in and fought for -- desperation, the feeling that all is lost and the best one can do is choose the lesser of two evils. Even telling them that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil doesn't seem to dissuade them from their decision.

Little do they realize that they have once again been duped by the Wasted Vote Lie. It is a deliberate, carefully crafted fable concocted and perpetrated by the Democratic and Republican duopoly to maintain their stranglehold on power. They cleverly employ the propaganda trick of tyrants throughout the ages; if you repeat a lie loud enough and often enough eventually people will believe it.
 
The worst thing about voting for the "lesser of two evils" is that it actually has the opposite effect of what it's intended to do. Winning candidates don't know, they don't want to know -- and frankly don't care -- why people vote for them. They certainly don't know and don't care how many of the votes they got were so-called protest votes. All they want is enough votes to win. They'll consider all the votes they get as an endorsement of their campaign promises or past performance to claim a "mandate from the people."

The news media aid and abet in this subterfuge when, with a Cheshire cat smile, they ask Libertarian candidates, "You know you can't win, so why are you running?" They don't want a meaningful response because their intent is to divert the conversation away from any discussion of substantive issues. Their purpose is to marginalize the Libertarian so they can justify treating the campaign as a sideshow to be covered only for the entertainment value.

The Wasted Vote Lie is often accompanied by another big lie, that your vote for a Libertarian candidate "takes away" votes from the Republican or Democrat. Let's call this allegation what it is -- pure and unadulterated arrogance. The ruling elites believe your vote belongs to them and that you're too ignorant, or too stupid, or too uninformed to use it wisely. The Wasted Vote Lie and all its variations is an obvious and clear symptom of the condition Republicans and Democrats fear the most -- an independent, thinking voter.

Let me be clear: there is no such thing as a wasted vote. Your vote belongs to you, and no one else. It doesn't belong to the Republican or Democratic Party, or any party or candidate for that matter. Your vote is your voice; it is one of your unnamed, inalienable rights, the ultimate expression of your right to free speech and self-government. Your vote is the most precious and meaningful gift you can give to any candidate. Your vote is worth more than any amount of money or any number of volunteer hours you may give, which is why politicians lust after it so hungrily. Your vote cannot be wasted, or stolen, or lost - unless you make a decision to do so.

There is no such thing as a wasted vote; even a vote you refuse to cast is not wasted. Restrictive ballot access laws are another device created by the reigning political parties to stifle competition and maintain their grip on power. Your decision not to give the gift of your vote to either of the "two evils" you're given to choose from is in effect casting a vote for free choice. Just as millions of people fled Communist tyranny in Eastern Europe following World War II, many people who choose to stay home on Election Day are "voting with their feet."

Win or lose, voting isn't about picking a winner. Voting is about exercising your conscience. Elections aren't generally decided by one vote. Giving your vote to a candidate you don't agree with in the hope that he will do something you like, just because you like his opponent even less, is like giving money to a drunk on the street who asks for money for something to eat. You know he's just going to buy more booze; he can't help himself.

While one vote usually won't decide an election, if enough people vote for a principle the effect will be much greater and will be cumulative election after election. One person can't clean up the environment, or even clean up a highway alone. But if a number of people each pick up one piece of trash along the road, they can make that highway, a small portion of the larger environment, significantly cleaner.

In the same way, if enough people vote for a candidate on principle they can make a difference even if their candidate doesn't win. They can send a clear message to the establishment, to the ruling elite, that "Enough is enough." In the 1984 presidential election, Libertarian presidential candidate David Bergland gave this response to the "wasted vote" question, "If everyone who is fed up with what the Democrats and Republicans have been doing to them for the past several decades were to vote for me, I would win in a landslide." The same can be said about every Libertarian presidential candidate since.

The goal of this campaign is to offer people the opportunity to cast their vote for something, not against something; to vote for what they want, not against what they don't want. We want to give people the chance to present the gift of their vote to a party and a candidate who represents their principles, their ideals, their aspirations and their hopes. We want to empower people to send a clear and simple message to Democrats and Republicans that they will no longer tolerate deception and deceit, arrogance and power-grabbing. This campaign is dedicated to the goal that in 2012 every person who sincerely believes in liberty and freedom, and who is outraged by the perpetual and infinite wars fabricated by Republicans and Democrats for the sole purpose of instilling fear and expanding their power, will reject the Wasted Vote Lie and send a loud, clear and unequivocal message to both parties to stop all war.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams

R. Lee Wrights, 53, a libertarian writer and political activist, is seeking the presidential nomination because he believes the Libertarian message in 2012 must be a loud, clear and unequivocal call to stop all war. To that end he has pledged that 10 percent of all donations to his campaign will be spent for ballot access so that the stop all war message can be heard in all 50 states. Wrights is a lifetime member of the **Libertarian Party <http://lp.org/>** and co-founder and editor of of the free speech online magazine **Liberty For All < http://libertyforall.net/>**. Born in Winston-Salem, N.C., he now lives and works in Texas.*

 *Lee Wrights for President < http://www.wrights2012.com/>* Contact: *Brian Irving <press@wrights2012.com>*, press secretary *press@wrights2012.com* 919.538.4548

Fun and games in Massachusetts over the Kennedy Compound

http://links5.boston.com/xprgphnkrvvtsgbgtpclhtslkntbsnkqqcmsscdbhshj_amykpbpmm.html

--
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.

The Robbery of the Saving Classes

The Robbery of the Saving Classes
July 14, 2011 by Jeffrey Tucker

AIER offers a devastating analysis of QE1 and QE2 with an eye toward unseen costs: "The Fed's prolonged effort to maintain interest rates at abnormally low level has deprived savers of hundreds of billions of dollars in interest income, ultimately costing the economy between 2.4 million and 4.6 million jobs, $256 and $587 billion in consumption, and 1.75% and 3.32% in GDP growth."

xxx

The Downside of Monetary Easing
Aimed at stimulating the economy, the Federal Reserve's policy has created unintended hardships for savers and a drag on the economy.
Written by William F. Ford, PhD, and Polina Vlasenko, PhD, Research Fellow   
Friday, 01 July 2011 12:58

One of the overlooked consequences of the Federal Reserve's recent rounds of monetary stimulus is the adverse impact those policies have had on the interest income of savers. The prolonged and abnormally low interest-rate structure put in place by the Fed has made life particularly difficult for retirees and others who depend on conservative interest-sensitive investments. But the negative effects do not stop there. They spillover into the overall performance of the economy.

Our estimates show that these negative effects, resulting from the Fed's two rounds of quantitative easing (QE1 and QE2), are sizable and may help account for the lackluster character of the current recovery. The negative effects estimated here should therefore be taken into account when evaluating the net potential benefits of any monetary stimulus.

QE1 and QE2, which together pumped about $2 trillion into the financial system, came about in response to the financial crisis of 2008. To increase liquidity and to keep interest rates from rising, the Fed flooded the financial markets with money by purchasing large quantities of Treasury and mortgage-backed securities.

Monetary stimulus is supposed to bolster the economy through several channels. There is an interest-rate channel. Low rates are expected to spur borrowing and spending. Households tend to borrow to finance big-ticket items like houses, cars, and refrigerators. Businesses finance inventories and investments in plant and equipment. Lower rates may increase the volume of those expenditures by lowering their total cost, driving up economic activity, and lowering unemployment.

There also is an international channel. A widely accepted theory of short-term exchange rate movements is called covered interest parity­roughly meaning that exchange rates move to equalize interest rates across countries. Abnormally low U.S. interest rates, relative to those of our trading partners, drive down the value of the dollar, thereby making American-made products cheaper relative to foreign ones. This leads to a rise in the exports of U.S. goods. At the same time, imports of foreign-made goods, particularly those that compete directly with domestic products, tend to fall or to grow more slowly, also causing U.S. economic activity to rise.



Finally, there is a wealth channel. As the Fed buys long-term bonds, it drives up bond prices and drives down their yields to investors. This induces investors to search for higher returns elsewhere, usually in equities. Increased demand for equities drives stock prices upward, making stockholders feel richer and inducing them to spend some of their increased wealth. This further stimulates output and employment.

But these are not the only channels and effects of low interest rates. There is a downside.

By lowering interest rates to historically unprecedented levels, the Fed's policy deprives savers of interest income they normally would have earned on the interest-sensitive assets they hold. Thus, there is an income channel that no one is talking about, and its negative impact can be powerful.

Interest-sensitive assets exist in many forms. They include savings accounts, certificates of deposit, and money market funds held in banks and other financial institutions. Short- and long-term Treasury and municipal bonds are also in this category, as are huge investments in interest-sensitive variable annuities, held mainly by retirees.

By our most conservative estimate, at the end of the second quarter of 2010, exactly one year ago and one year after the start of the current recovery, the volume of interest-sensitive assets directly held by U.S. households amounted to at least $9.9 trillion.

But the true number may be much higher. Life insurance companies and private pension funds, which provide income to many retirees, also invest some of their portfolios in Treasurys and other bonds. This means that low Treasury yields also affect life insurance and pension fund reserves. Adding those reserves to the pool of assets affected by Treasury yields brings the upper bound of all interest-sensitive assets to $18.8 trillion.

Life insurance companies and pension funds, however, invest not only in bonds but also in equities and other types of assets. From the available flow-of-funds data, there is no way to determine the precise share of bonds within these portfolios. For purposes of this study, we assumed the share of interest-sensitive investments to be 50 percent, creating a mid-point estimate of $14.35 trillion for the total assets affected by the abnormally low interest rates engineered by the Fed.

Table 1 on page 1 shows the difference between Treasury yields on the first anniversary of the nine business-cycle expansions since 1953 and yields in June 2010, the first anniversary of the current recovery's start. That's around the time the Fed first mentioned the possibility of round two of quantitative easing. Recent yields are lower, by a considerable margin, across all maturities of Treasury bills, notes, and bonds than in prior recoveries.

Table 2 below shows our estimates of the possible losses in spending power, output, and employment generated by the Fed's artificially low interest rates. Even by our most conservative estimate, which only looks at the $9.9 trillion in assets most directly affected by depressed yields on Treasurys, the losses are impressive. The average yield on Treasurys in June 2010 was 2.14 percent compared to an average of 7.07 percent in the previous nine recoveries, a difference of 4.93 percentage points. The projected annual impact of this loss of interest income on just $9.9 trillion of rate-sensitive assets translates into $256 billion of lost consumption, a 1.75 percent loss of GDP, and about 2.4 million fewer jobs. (Our calculations assume that the recipients of interest income face a 25 percent average income tax rate and consume 70 percent of their after-tax income.)



Had these jobs not been lost, the unemployment rate would be 7.5 percent, instead of the current 9.1 percent, and this is the minimal effect we estimate.

It is impossible to know for sure what exactly the interest rates would have been in the absence of quantitative easing. We, therefore, present a way to compute the total effect on the economy of interest rate reduction of any size. The first column of Table 2 shows the estimated effect on the economy for every one percentage point reduction in interest rates. If the Fed's policy depressed the yields by two percentage points, for example, the effect would be double of that presented in column 1.

As the estimate of the total of affected interest-sensitive assets gets bigger, the negative effects of depressed yields becomes even more striking. Using our mid-point estimate of $14.35 trillion of interest-sensitive assets, a 4.93 percentage point reduction in interest rates annually cost the economy $371 billion in spending, 3.5 million jobs, and 2.53 percent of GDP. This is a sizable effect, given that during this time GDP grew by only 2.33 percent and the economy added only 870,000 jobs.

With the additional jobs that might have been created by higher interest income levels, the unemployment rate could fall to 6.8 percent. And output could grow more than twice as fast as it has. The resulting GDP growth rate of 4.86 percent would then be closer to the average second-year growth rate of the past nine recoveries, and the U.S. economy would be well on its way to a vigorous recovery, rather than struggling as it is now.

This midpoint appraisal is our best estimate of the likely effect of the Fed's policy. It may still be on the low side.

The numbers do not account for any so-called multiplier effects. Additional spending by recipients of interest income creates revenues for businesses, which in turn increases the income of their owners and employees, who themselves spend more. This, in turn, could boost overall spending and employment by more than the gain in interest income alone would suggest. While some such cascade effect exists in the macroeconomy, determining the size of such a multiplier is more problematic and the source of much debate among economists.

What we know for sure is that the U.S. economy's performance remains anemic. The current rate of job creation is not rapid enough to keep up with the increase in the labor force that arises from simple population growth, nor with the need to absorb millions of currently unemployed workers. The housing market has not even begun to recover since the QE initiatives were created. U.S. auto sales and the stock market also remain well below pre-recession levels. And the sharp decline of the U.S. dollar has not created an export boom. But it has put upward pressure on the cost of our food and energy imports.

And tens of millions of U.S. savers, largely the elderly, still are facing strained circumstances created by Fed-driven abnormally low interest rates across the entire Treasury yield curve.

The negative impacts on output and employment caused by quantitative easing through the interest income effects shown here are large. In fact, they may outweigh the expected, but hard-to-document, positive effects of the QE program.

The implications of this go beyond the current recovery. When evaluating the feasibility of any future monetary easing, the adverse effect on interest incomes always should be taken into account, along with the hoped-for positive effects championed by the proponents of quantitative easing.

http://www.aier.org/research/briefs/2485-the-downside-of-monetary-easing