World News

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

JP Ye bhi chalay Jay gay......BY javed Ch...Such a graet Article

Nisar Awan

The Sign of Sincerity

{{ Sakht raton mein bhi safar asaan lagta hai,

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

--
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

John Roberts’ Move to the Dark Side

New post on therightplanet.com

John Roberts' Move to the Dark Side

by Sard

h/t: Noisy Room

By: Tom Tancredo
Gulag Bound

Tom Tancredo, former U.S. Rep, Colorado (R)

Justice Replaced Constitutionalism with Politics

In the days following the shocking John Roberts ruling on Obamacare, we have seen many attempts to explain and justify the chief justice's decision. That debate is interesting and worthwhile. But there is another lesson that may be even more important than the political struggle to repeal Obama's Affordable Care Act.

Respected conservative pundits like George Will and Charles Krauthammer say Roberts made a political decision to defend not the Constitution itself but the Supreme Court "as an institution." But is the Supreme Court held in higher public esteem if its members make rulings based on politics and not constitutional principles? No, it is not.

The Roberts apologists should save their breath. Their arguments are not only unconvincing, they serve to further illustrate the utter disaster of that ruling. The Roberts ruling is a naked admission that the U.S. Constitution is no longer an obstacle to the unlimited growth of the federal government through its taxing powers.

A second lesson is equally chilling, and it is based on how Roberts arrived at his decision. We now know that standards of constitutional discourse and debate are not as important to the chief justice of the United States as the cultural standards that control social status and a judge's "place in history."

The Roberts Obamacare ruling has already inspired some dark humor. "We must defeat Barack Obama because if he wins a second term, he will appoint more federal judges like … well, judges like John Roberts."

Sadly, when the dust settles and all the arguments are considered, there is only one conclusion to be reached: Roberts surrendered constitutional standards in favor of the cultural standards of the nation's power elite.

Should we have been so surprised that Roberts would cave in this manner? Yes, surprise and shock are appropriate. Why? Because the possibility of such surrender had been widely discussed and dismissed in the weeks following the oral arguments before the court in March. Most "court watchers" thought Roberts would not be swayed by arguments outside the realm of the case's legal briefs and oral arguments.

Yet, within one week of the March hearing, the White House began a propaganda assault against the Supreme Court with this line of argument: "Surely the judges will not endanger their place in history by overturning an act of Congress aimed at improving people's access to health care."

That White House propaganda campaign had two themes. First, Obama tried to say that the Supreme Court should never strike down an act of Congress because Congress had deliberated and acted in a certain way, and courts ought to respect the separation of powers. That argument was a dead end because clearly, there is a 200-year history of the court doing precisely that – voiding laws because they were contrary to the Constitution.

The second line of White House attack, a flanking movement, proved successful: The Roberts Court would not be viewed as "progressive" if it invalidated Obamacare.

Leaks coming out of the court now tell us that Roberts initially voted with the four conservative jurists to throw out PPACA in its entirety. Then a month later, he changed his mind. The White House propaganda campaign to intimidate Roberts worked.

Do you recall such concerns about a judge's "place in history" being a factor in Supreme Court decisions that overturned decades of conservative precedent? Did the Warren Court worry about criticism from the media or academia when in 1962 it overturned 150 years of jurisprudence to declare that both chambers of state legislatures must genuflect before the altar of one man, one vote? Did the Burger Court worry about its status when it invented a previously unknown constitutional "right of privacy" in Roe v. Wade?

The point is not lost on judges: They need to worry about their social status and their place in history only if they are considering a blow to "progressive" causes, not conservative principles.

The lesson here for conservatives is one many do not want to face. The Roberts ruling upholding Obamacare was not based on principles found in the Constitution, and better constitutional arguments would not have changed his mind. Roberts' decision is incoherent and contradictory if you try to follow his argument on constitutional grounds. The Roberts ruling can only be understood as a surrender of constitutional argument to political argument, and it is a political argument based on cultural status. No judge wants to be on the "wrong side of history."

The lesson here is sobering, indeed alarming, for citizens who revere the Constitution and look to the Supreme Court as the ultimate safeguard against unchecked government power. That bulwark has never been perfect, but now it is in tatters.

When our "best and brightest" go over to the dark side, we are on a downward path Tocqueville's "soft despotism" and maybe worse. Patriots now have no alternative but to consider new strategies and new weapons if liberty is to be preserved on this much wider battlefield.

If our cultural elites have now surrendered the Constitution, this does not mean that We the People have willfully surrendered our liberties. It means that the Constitution must be refortified with new amendments and new protections. Radical solutions like state nullification will gain new support.

In the words of South Park's young rebels, dude, it's on!

Comment

See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.therightplanet.com/2012/07/john-roberts-move-to-the-dark-side/

--
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.

Zakat: The Islamic Uncharity

New post on actjonesboroar

Zakat: The Islamic Uncharity

by burkasrugly

Fellow infidels,

Constantine explains Zakat...or "charity" - Burkasrugly

(All sources are from the Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law. Each source is documented by reference.)

Zakat is a 2 and 1/2% levy on Muslim's net worth made yearly at the feast of Eid al-Fitr. "The zakat of Eid al-fitr is obligatory for every free Muslim. h7.1" We would call it a tax paid to the local mosque.

There are eight categories of people who can receive the zakat. (h8.7-18)

1. The poor
2. Those short of money
3. Zakat workers (people who distribute the zakat)
4. Those whose hearts are to be reconciled (New Muslim reverts)
5. Those purchasing their freedom.
6. Those in debt
7. Those fighting for Allah (Jihad)
8. Travellers needing money

The zakat is evenly divided among these eight classes. Assume Abdullah owes a $1,000.00 to his local mosque for his yearly zakat payment. That means $125.00 goes to the category of those fighting for Allah. Lest some Islamic person insist that this is a spiritual struggle I quote: "The seventh category is those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic MILITARY OPERATIONS for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster. They are given enough to suffice them for the operation, even if affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing and expenses. (h8.17)

Zakat goes to support Islamic warfare to kill and/or subdue the infidels. That seems to place me and every other non-Muslim in the crosshairs. I get a little bit concerned when any ideology has a plan to kill me, my family and my country men. Any Muslim who pays zakat to his local mosque enables Jihad to take place. The 19 hijackers from 9/11 received zakat to pay for their flight training enabling them to turn the four hijacked airliners into precision guided missiles. Let that thought percolate through your brain every time you think about those people jumping to their certain deaths rather than roasting alive in the twin Towers.

To add injury to insult the other seven categories of zakat are FORBIDDEN to non-Muslims. Again, I quote; "It is not permissible to give zakat to a non-Muslim (h8.24)" This is why the Saudis, greedy little pigs that they are, never gave the first red cent to the people of Haiti after they had the devastating earthquake several years ago. The Saudis never help people who are non-Islamic.

Remember when Seven-Up billed itself as the uncola? Zakat is not a charity at all . In fact, it is the uncharity. No more than another ideological tool to conquer the world for their mad prophet Mohammed and his vengeful, hate spewing god, Allah.

In hoc signo,

Constantine

burkasrugly | July 10, 2012 at 3:19 am | Tags: Eid al-Fitr, Islamic charity, Zakat | Categories: Radical Islam | URL: http://wp.me/p1t1Gt-Du

Comment

See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://actjonesboroar.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/zakat-the-islamic-uncharity/

Thanks for flying with

WordPress.com

Re: Cut Defense Spending by 75 Percent

I favor a 100% cut to entitlements as well as regulations and the income tax.

Regard$,
--MJ

"The best government is the one that charges you the least blackmail for leaving you alone" -- Thomas Rudmose-Brown.

At 05:42 PM 7/9/2012, you wrote:

How about a 75% cut to "entitlements" ??

On Jul 9, 7:41 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> "Harry Truman cut defense spending by very large amounts after World War II. Defense spending during that war peaked out at $93.7 billion in 1945. By 1947, it was down to $22.8b. In 1948, it was $19.7b.
> "The Truman reductions in defense spendingin percentage terms were over 75 percent. Cuts of this size can be done again today without loss in security. Whatever dangers and threats America faces in 2012 are not worse than in 1947 and 1948."Cut Defense Spending by 75 Percentby Michael S. Rozeff
> Obama has not cut defense spending during his first term. Under Obama, defense spending has been (in billions) $794 in 2009, $847.2 in 2010, $878.5 in 2011, and $902.2 in 2012. It s slated to be $901.4 in 2013.
> Mitt Romney wants toincrease defense spendingsubstantially. Romney speaks only of increasing defense spending further.
> Barney Frank wants to reduce defense spending significantly.He says"We could easily save more than $200 billion without in any way endangering our security." He also says "Let's bring the troops home." He s on the right track, only he is not radical enough.
> Harry Truman cut defense spending by very large amounts after World War II. Defense spending during that war peaked out at $93.7 billion in 1945. By 1947, it was down to $22.8b. In 1948, it was $19.7b.
> The Truman reductions in defense spending in percentage terms were over 75 percent. Cuts of this size can be done again today without loss in security. Whatever dangers and threats America faces in 2012 are not worse than in 1947 and 1948.
> In the late forties, the West viewed Communist governments in Eastern Europe, in East Germany, in China and in other places in Asia and the world as major threats. The Soviet Union and Red China developed the atomic and hydrogen bombs. These views led to budget increases and a war in South Korea. Consequently, the U.S. government took defense spending back up to the $50b. level.
> That resurgence was unnecessary. Today we know that the economic success of communism/socialism in all of these countries was greatly exaggerated, and that they were not the threats that the U.S. government supposed they were. Today we know that the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises was absolutely correct, decades earlier, in analyzing and then forecasting the impossibility of a successful socialist economy. We know that these systems were prolonged by underground capitalism, by western food and other aid, and by food grown on small private plots of land.
> This being the case, we can say with great assurance that today there is no remotely comparable threat to U.S. security in the form of terrorism or anything else. Furthermore, whatever threat there is could be reduced to a mere flyspeck by more enlightened U.S. policies.
> Peaceful growth is a magnet that reduces threats to America. The only possible economic system that s consistent with widespread progress and peaceful growth is capitalism. Wherever there is some degree of progress, there is some degree of capitalism. Wherever there is some degree of capitalism being hampered by governments, there will be found negative effects on progress. Huge swaths of the world have moved in the direction of free markets and private property rights. They have moved, however haltingly, slowly and imperfectly toward peaceful growth via capitalism. This movement and global transformation reduces threats to America. This is the movement that the U.S. needs to recognize explicitly and encourage. It needs to do this at home as much as abroad.
> The engine of peace, justice and security is not armaments. It is not drones. It is not wiping out terrorists. It is not a worldwide network of military bases. It is not continual warfare. It is not the imposition of sanctions. It is not in fomenting revolutions. It is not in choosing some nations as allies and others as enemies. It is not in making alliances with other nations that make them virtually protectorates of the U.S.
> If the U.S. government would aim its own policies away from military structures and methods and toward free markets and capitalism, then it would reduce the possible threats even more. The U.S. is a leading government. It can encourage global win-win situations with appropriate economic policies at home and abroad.
> Higher real incomes result from capital accumulation in free markets with secure property rights. This process produces goods in demand. Welfare goes up.
> By contrast, taxes remove capital from the private sector where it can do some good and send it to Washington where it s wasted on useless defense spending.
> A 75 percent cut in defense spending accompanied by a tax cut that returns the money to the private sector will provide a huge stimulus to economic growth. Returning the money via tax cuts is absolutely essential to generate growth, because then the money can, if desired, go into capital accumulation. Merely shifting defense spending into other categories of government spending like education and social spending will be totally useless in generating economic growth since these forms of spending, being consumption financed by taxes, do not create capital goods and economic growth.
> I have chosen 75 percent in this article because Harry Truman did this. By comparing his era to ours, I hoped to make clear that we know such cuts are feasible because today s threats are no worse than in his days. What America did two generations ago can be done again. Furthermore, defense cuts are but one step among many that can get America on the right track. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff387.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.

Re: Cut Defense Spending by 75 Percent

How about a 75% cut to "entitlements" ??

On Jul 9, 7:41 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> "Harry Truman cut defense spending by very large amounts after World War II. Defense spending during that war peaked out at $93.7 billion in 1945. By 1947, it was down to $22.8b. In 1948, it was $19.7b.
> "The Truman reductions in defense spendingin percentage terms were over 75 percent. Cuts of this size can be done again today without loss in security. Whatever dangers and threats America faces in 2012 are not worse than in 1947 and 1948."Cut Defense Spending by 75 Percentby Michael S. Rozeff
> Obama has not cut defense spending during his first term. Under Obama, defense spending has been (in billions) $794 in 2009, $847.2 in 2010, $878.5 in 2011, and $902.2 in 2012. It s slated to be $901.4 in 2013.
> Mitt Romney wants toincrease defense spendingsubstantially. Romney speaks only of increasing defense spending further.
> Barney Frank wants to reduce defense spending significantly.He says"We could easily save more than $200 billion without in any way endangering our security." He also says "Let's bring the troops home." He s on the right track, only he is not radical enough.
> Harry Truman cut defense spending by very large amounts after World War II. Defense spending during that war peaked out at $93.7 billion in 1945. By 1947, it was down to $22.8b. In 1948, it was $19.7b.
> The Truman reductions in defense spending in percentage terms were over 75 percent. Cuts of this size can be done again today without loss in security. Whatever dangers and threats America faces in 2012 are not worse than in 1947 and 1948.
> In the late forties, the West viewed Communist governments in Eastern Europe, in East Germany, in China and in other places in Asia and the world as major threats. The Soviet Union and Red China developed the atomic and hydrogen bombs. These views led to budget increases and a war in South Korea. Consequently, the U.S. government took defense spending back up to the $50b. level.
> That resurgence was unnecessary. Today we know that the economic success of communism/socialism in all of these countries was greatly exaggerated, and that they were not the threats that the U.S. government supposed they were. Today we know that the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises was absolutely correct, decades earlier, in analyzing and then forecasting the impossibility of a successful socialist economy. We know that these systems were prolonged by underground capitalism, by western food and other aid, and by food grown on small private plots of land.
> This being the case, we can say with great assurance that today there is no remotely comparable threat to U.S. security in the form of terrorism or anything else. Furthermore, whatever threat there is could be reduced to a mere flyspeck by more enlightened U.S. policies.
> Peaceful growth is a magnet that reduces threats to America. The only possible economic system that s consistent with widespread progress and peaceful growth is capitalism. Wherever there is some degree of progress, there is some degree of capitalism. Wherever there is some degree of capitalism being hampered by governments, there will be found negative effects on progress. Huge swaths of the world have moved in the direction of free markets and private property rights. They have moved, however haltingly, slowly and imperfectly toward peaceful growth via capitalism. This movement and global transformation reduces threats to America. This is the movement that the U.S. needs to recognize explicitly and encourage. It needs to do this at home as much as abroad.
> The engine of peace, justice and security is not armaments. It is not drones. It is not wiping out terrorists. It is not a worldwide network of military bases. It is not continual warfare. It is not the imposition of sanctions. It is not in fomenting revolutions. It is not in choosing some nations as allies and others as enemies. It is not in making alliances with other nations that make them virtually protectorates of the U.S.
> If the U.S. government would aim its own policies away from military structures and methods and toward free markets and capitalism, then it would reduce the possible threats even more. The U.S. is a leading government. It can encourage global win-win situations with appropriate economic policies at home and abroad.
> Higher real incomes result from capital accumulation in free markets with secure property rights. This process produces goods in demand. Welfare goes up.
> By contrast, taxes remove capital from the private sector where it can do some good and send it to Washington where it s wasted on useless defense spending.
> A 75 percent cut in defense spending accompanied by a tax cut that returns the money to the private sector will provide a huge stimulus to economic growth. Returning the money via tax cuts is absolutely essential to generate growth, because then the money can, if desired, go into capital accumulation. Merely shifting defense spending into other categories of government spending like education and social spending will be totally useless in generating economic growth since these forms of spending, being consumption financed by taxes, do not create capital goods and economic growth.
> I have chosen 75 percent in this article because Harry Truman did this. By comparing his era to ours, I hoped to make clear that we know such cuts are feasible because today s threats are no worse than in his days. What America did two generations ago can be done again. Furthermore, defense cuts are but one step among many that can get America on the right track.http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff387.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.