Pakistan is the next targeted Muslim Domino: Does the Obsequious Zardari and the on-again, off-again, on-again, off-again Tubelight called Nawaz Sharif realize the dangers. Democaracy as a tool against Muslims

Categorized | A Zar, Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz, Pak CA, Pakistan hist, PML (N), Politics, Punjab

Pakistan is the next targeted Muslim Domino: Does the Obsequious Zardari and the on-again, off-again, on-again, off-again Tubelight called Nawaz Sharif realize the dangers. Democaracy as a tool against Muslims

Posted on 30 December 2007. Tags: Democracy, Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan

Pakistan is the next targeted Muslim Domino:

Does the Obsequious Zardari and the on-again, off-again, on-again, off-again Tubelight called Nawaz Sharif realize the dangers

Mr. Nawaz Sharif was forced back into Pakistani politics as a wild card to stir up rubble and affect the stability of the country. Mr. Nawaz just doesn’t know it that he is a pawn in “The Great Game” that is being played on Pakistani soil.

In most Pakistani circles Mr. Nawaz Sharif is not known for his high IQ or profound intellect. He is known for a high level of “good old boy emotionalism”, “shooting from the hip“, going on instinct and consulting only his close family members (brother, and father). Many call him a “Tubelight” referring to the fact that like Mr. Nawaz Sharif it takes a Neon Tubelight a few moments to become fully luminescent and turn on.

HISTORICAL FLIP FLOP NAWAZ SHARIF-The reluctant participant: Mr. Nawaz Sharif was in exile and really wanted to come to Pakistan to run in the elections. As soon as he arrived he decided to boycott the elections. Then after meeting with Ms. Benazir Bhutto, he was convinced by her to run in the elections. He then announced a boycott of the elections after the death of Benazir Bhutto. After the PPP decided to run in the elections under Bilawal Bhutto, Asif Zardari and Mukhdoom Amin Fahim, Mr. Nawaz Sharif again is running in the elections.

LEADERS FOR LIFE: The champion of democracy Mr. Nawaz Sharif like Benazir Bhutto is the “for life” president of his political party the Pakistan Muslim League (N). Mr. Nawaz Sharif like Ms. Benzir Bhutto were fired from the Prime Minsiter’s job twice. Both their terms as Prime Minister were known for corruption and personal recrimination against their opponents. Parliament met for only 20 days during the reign of Mr. Nawaz Sharif and Ms. Benazir Bhutto was unable to get any major legislation passed through the National Assembly.

DESTABILIZING PAKISTAN AS THE NEXT MUSLIM DOMINO: Many external forces simply want chaos and destabilization of Pakistan. Pakistani boundaries have become sacrosanct and impregnable because of Pakistan’s Nuclear program. The only way to harm Pakistan is through internal dissention. Shia Sunni, and ethnic rivalries are exaggerated and fuel thrown on existing issues. This is the old “divide and Rule” campaign that wants to Balkanize all Muslim countries into small cantons and vassal states. The British ruled the Subcontinent by maintaining the sovereignty of the more than 500 or so independent states. After the destruction and de facto division of Iraq, the occupation of Afghanistan, the partition of Indonesia, the decimation of Lebanon, the threatening bombing of Syria, the pressure on Iran-it is obvious that the war of Pakistan has already started. Is Saudi Arabia, Malaysia next in line?

Our politicians and government and the world is watching in amazement as the Muslim dominos are being targeted one by one.

“DEMOCRACY” WAS USED TO OCCUPY COUNTRIES IN 1945, DESTROY IRAQ and PARITION PAKISTAN IN 1971.

THOSE PRESSURING PAKISTAN TO ACCEPT THESE LEADERS NEED TO LOOK AT THE ORIGINS OF “DEMOCRACY”:

The American Founding Fathers did not “set up a constitutional system in which the power of the state flowed from and is dependent on the power of the people“. These particular ideas may work well as candy for 8th grade (his)tory books but it is a bit far removed from reality. For a dose of reality, we need to know that the word “democracy” does not appear in the constitution of the United States.

As historians Charles Austin Beard and Mary Ritter Beard wrote (1939): “At no time, at no place, in solemn convention assembled, through no chosen agents, had the American people officially proclaimed the United States to be a democracy. The Constitution did not contain the word or any word lending countenance to it, except possibly the mention of ‘We the people,’ in the preamble … When the Constitution was framed, no respectable person called himself a democrat.”

The USA was created as “republic” not a “democracy”. The word democracy was coined in the late 40s to “manufacture consent” for the war against “fascism” and “Nazism” to spread “democracy” and freedom in Europe.

James Madison’s Federalist Paper #10 discusses the issue of Democracies. In it he states: “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions and their passions.” We can see from this that Mr. Madison would never have advocated a pure Democracy for his new nation. wealth4freedom.

About 370 BC, Plato wrote: “A democracy is a state in which the poor, gaining the upper hand, kill some and banish others, and then divide the offices among the remaining citizens equally.”

Alexander Hamilton, in debate, said: “Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate government.”

“Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the” Ayn Rand

There are serious flaws in the US constitution, which allows a majority to completely over-rule the rights of minorities or allows a minority opinion to be imposed on the majority if the vote is split. For example, if there are 3 candidates in an election and two get 30% of the vote and the third gets 40% of the vote. Now the person with 40% of the votes gets elected, even though 60% of the people opposed his election. This taken care of on the French and German constitutions by having run-offs.

How about a few quotations demonstrating the disdain our founders held for democracy?
James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10: In a pure democracy,

“there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.”

At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said,

” … that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”

John Adams said:

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

? Chief Justice John Marshall observed:

“Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.“

In a word or two, the founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III

Not to digress to far, but this is very similar of “manufacturing consent” to spread “democracy” in the Middle East, where we support a minority non-pashtun government in Afghanistan and are now in the process of replacing a secular government with a pro-Iranian ayatollah led theocracy in Iraq. In fact all the founding father, Jefferson, Hamilton repeatedly spoke up AGAINST “democracy” as a system of government for the USA.

However I agree that a system of government however imperfect that strives to allow people to control the government may work well in literate societies. Our glorious experiment in democracy is surely a beacon to the world and yes it is based on the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions.

The American Constitution was based on the Magna Carta. The most important part of the American constitution is chapter 39 taken from the Magna Carta.

“Nullus liber homo capiatur vel imprisonetur aut disseisietur de libero tenemento suo, vel libertatibus, vel liberis consuetudinibus suis, aut utlagetur, aut exuletur, aut aliquo modo destruatur, nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum, vel per legem terr.”

In English this shows up as “No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.“

Contrary to popular belief, the original Magna Carta was not even written in English. It was translated into Latin from the original Arabic. “Trial by jury” was of course an Arab invention popular in Al-Andulusia (Spain). The Magna Carta was taken from the much despised and misunderstood Shariah Law. See John Maksidi’s research consecrated and published in the North Carolina Law journal (copy can be retrieved or mailed to you). The Bill of Rights were taken from Ibn Tufail, Ibn Haitam and canonized (“canon’ is from the Arabic word “qanoon”) by Hamilton and Jefferson as the Bill of Rights.