GRAHAM: "The Jewish stranglehold on the media has got to be broken or this country's going down the drain."
NIXON: "You believe that?"
GRAHAM: "Yes, sir."
NIXON: "Oh boy. So do I. I can't ever say that but I do believe it."
- Religious leader Billy Graham and President Richard Nixon Exchange captured on tape.
WHEN PAUL STADLESN(APCO) POKE HIS DICK INTO TENGKU SARIFFUDDIN TENGKU AHMAD’S ASSHOLE THE SMELL IS UNBEARABLE
While we appreciate Al Gore and Paul Wolfowitz’s interest in Malaysia (“Malaysia’s Opposition on Trial,” op-ed, Aug. 5), and their positive assessment of our country as a leading moderate Muslim-majority democracy, we strongly disagree with their call for the Malaysian and United States governments to intervene in the trial of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim. Such … Read more
GRAHAM: "The Jewish stranglehold on the media has got to be broken or this country's going down the drain." NIXON: "You believe that?" GRAHAM: "Yes, sir." NIXON: "Oh boy. So do I. I can't ever say that but I do believe it." - Religious leader Billy Graham and President Richard Nixon Exchange captured on tape.WHEN PAUL STADLESN(APCO) POKE HIS DICK INTO TENGKU SARIFFUDDIN TENGKU AHMAD’S ASSHOLE THE SMELL IS UNBEARABLEWhile we appreciate Al Gore and Paul Wolfowitz’s interest in Malaysia (“Malaysia’s Opposition on Trial,” op-ed, Aug. 5), and their positive assessment of our country as a leading moderate Muslim-majority democracy, we strongly disagree with their call for the Malaysian and United States governments to intervene in the trial of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim. Such … Read more |
ZionismExplained.org/Zionism and the Media
www.zionismexplained.org/media/media.html - Cached
ALAN HART: Zionism's Colonial Enterprise Is Doomed, but… | My ...
mycatbirdseat.com/.../alan-hart-zionism’s-colonial-enterprise-is-doomed-
APCO Worldwide :: Aleksander Kwa?niewski
Aleksander Kwa?niewski is the former president of Poland. During his 10 years in office, President Kwa?niewski navigated Poland through the delicate ...
www.apcoworldwide.com/...advisory.../KeyStaff.aspx?ksid... - Cached
http://www.apcoworldwide.com/content/international_advisory_council/KeyStaff.aspx?ksid=9f78bc76-4b0c-4a7a-b32f-01b62d37afa6&name=AKwa&
"...He is also a member of the board of trustees of the International Crisis Group; member of the president’s International Advisory Board of The Atlantic Council of the United States; member of the "Bilderberg" Group..." Unquote.
The Queen of Kansas - http://bilderbergbook.com/inde...8&Itemid=1
"....Notable "Bilderberg" attendees include David Rockefeller, Rothschild Family Banking, George Soros, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Prince Charles, Al Gore, Colin Powell, Nelson Rockefeller, Richard Perle, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Alan Greenspan, Rupert Murdoch, as well as the CEO’s of mega corporations and financial institutions such as Deutsche Bank, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, The Federal Reserve Banks, IBM, Goldman Sachs, Siemens AG, g****e, Eli Lilly, etc....
The overall goal of the "Bilderberg" Group is to bring about a one-world government and global financial system, under the political body of UN style government and the central banking systems of the Rockefellers and Rothschilds. David Rockefeller described the group’s goals in 1991 as the Chairman of the Bilderbergs,
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their "promises of discretion" for almost forty years. ... It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during these years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government which will never again know war but only peace and prosperity for the whole of humanity." Unquote.
"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
- David Rockefeller
...Letter written from London by the Rothschilds to their New York agents introducing their banking method into America:
“The few who can understand the system will be either so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class...
While, on the other hand, that great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that Capital derives from the system, will bear its burden without complaint and, perhaps, without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.” - Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
“Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws."
- Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
“The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation. At the head is a small group of banking houses... This little coterie...runs our government for their own selfish ends. It operates under cover of a self-created screen...seizes...our executive officers...legislative bodies...schools... courts...newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.” - John F. Hylan, Mayor of New York, Mayor, 1918-1925
Yes, with that "Signed & Sealed Contract, they have got Jibby, UMNO, this Nation including all its citizens & our lives by the "Orbs/Juglars"...
Until our Nation is "Bankrupt" then Phase II kicks in... "Debt Creation" to "Control" us perpetually!
Yes, they only need to "Control that One Person" (Immature Pawn/Perpetrator/Butler) who is incharge of this "Unfortunate" nation....
If MAN does NOT WANT to WAKE-UP & NOT WANT to LEARN about Globalisation, to take “Corrective” Steps...
History will keep REPEATING itself & MAN will continue to be Sheeples aka Goyims!
Yes, "We are the Suckers" that allowed the "System" to create our nation's ills as well, so please wake up & get out of the Bolehland mindset to see the bigger picture!
You be the judge.
Cheers.
It is odd that the government should have chosen law and order as its final alibi after some exhausting self-laceration in its search for a credible explanation
Why do we say “law and order” rather than “order and law”? Simple. Law comes before order. Law defines the nature of order. Law is the difference between civilization and chaos. Law is evolutionary: the edicts of tribes, chiefs and dynasties lifted human societies from scattered peril to structured coexistence. The laws of democracy have vaulted us to the acme of social cohesion, for they eliminated arbitrary diktat and introduced collective will. The divine right of kings is dead; it has been reborn as the secular right of an elected Parliament.
A nation that cannot uphold its law cannot preserve its order.the authority of state abandoned the responsibility of state. Excuses, evasions and lies have shifted over 26 years;
this central truth has not.
Corruption is the preferred means of the get-rich-quick lobby (if the poor were corrupt, they would not remain poor). But is greed the only motivation? Greed is not India-specific. The extent of our venality may have a supplementary reason. We are, by temperament, a short-cut people. We do not like waiting for due process, whether in a project or towards a destination. UMNO corruption could well find an explanation in City traffic. We instinctively seek a faster way, whether on motorbike clogged country lane or an incomplete super highway. The umno driver does not believe in the sober limitations of take; he is a devotee of overtake. Cars do not create traffic jams; drivers with hyper libidos do.
The long cut is demeaning to the UMNO ego. A UNMO warlord measures his importance by the number of short cuts he has wangled. A favour is a measure of both the benefactor's value and the beneficiary's influence. Some people wait till the last minute only to prove that time will wait for them.
The system creates hurdles since it knows that short-cutters will pay to cross them. Bribes feed the system; the system therefore knits a framework for bribes. A hundred ringgit to a traffic cop climbs towards millions at the top. If you are really lucky, the teh tarik comes free.
By Kim Quek
Judge Zaibidin Diah’s rejection of Defence’s request to put complainant Saiful and DPP Farah on the witness stand despite the duo’s complete failure to respond to allegation of sexual relations between them is most regrettable. For it is another black mark to the long-running, scandal-ridden Anwar Sodomy Trial II, thus reinforcing the universal perception that the trial is nothing but political persecution for Anwar Ibrahim.
What would a deputy public prosecutor do when he or she is accused of sleeping with the complainant in a criminal trial if the allegation is false? Shouldn’t the DPP instantly yell and deny and act against the defamer?
What is your take of this DPP if he or she chooses to steadfastly act deaf and dumb despite the fact that the controversy sparked by his or her alleged misconduct has raged relentlessly for almost three weeks?
And what is your take of the Attorney General and the prosecuting team who insist they know nothing about the affair and also insist the DPP has done nothing wrong despite the AG’s incongruous act to quickly bundle her away not only from the prosecuting team but also from the prosecuting division of the Attorney General’s Chambers?
Mind you, we are not talking about an ordinary criminal trial, but possibly the most important trial in our history involving the fate of the highest-profiled political leader of the country, the outcome of which may sway the course of history for many years to come.
Prosecution smacks of dishonesty
Under the circumstances, shouldn’t the AG be duty bound to the nation to come clean and say outright whether the allegation is true or false? What choice do we have other than to impute dishonest intention and dishonourable conduct on the part of the prosecution over its prolong ambiguity over such an important issue?
Who would believe prosecution team leader Solicitor General II Yusof Zainal Abiden when he professed no knowledge of the affair though he and DPP Farah Azlina had been working together as a team on this case for six months and meeting almost every day, and all he needed to do was to ask Farah whether the allegation was true? Don’t tell me Yusof never asked her, or that she never answered, or that he had no means of finding out the veracity of the allegation. For that would be a blatant lie.
Having failed the honesty test over his dubious stand on the Saiful-Farah liaison, Yusof had very little credibility left when he claimed that this unethical and illicit relationship had absolutely not caused any injustice to Anwar.
In the first place, why didn’t he get Farah and Saiful to file an affidavit in defence against Anwar’s affidavit seeking the dismissal of the case? There is absolutely no reason to use only third parties to rebut Anwar, when the principals are alive and well and fully capable of speaking for themselves. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation to this anomaly, how much weight can we attach to these third party affidavits?
Then, failing to get the affidavits from the principals, why did Yusof get his subordinate DPP Hanafiah Zakaria and investigating officer Supt Jude Pereira to file their affidavits, instead of doing it himself, since as team leader he should be more knowledgeable and his words more authoritative? Isn’t this another indication of the lead prosecutor’s evasiveness?
Unbelievable claim of Farah’s constricted role
Prosecution claimd that DPP Farah’s function as a prosecutor in the team is strictly confined to taking down notes during court proceedings and categorically declared that she had never had access to any investigating document or any meeting throughout her six months of participation as a team member. As such, the prosecution claimed that she knew virtually nothing that could be of help to Saiful, neither could she have exerted any influence over the course of trial.
Keeping in mind that Farah is a qualified lawyer and a prosecutor officially appointed for this trial, is it credible that she could take this humiliation of only being allowed to work as a menial clerk and denied any opportunity to function as a legal officer? Does it make sense for the Attorney General’s Chambers to engage a qualified lawyer, make her a prosecutor but forcing her to work only as a clerk? Isn’t this a waste of talent and public funds and an unjust treatment of a fellow legal officer? Why should the Attorney General and the Solicitor General II do a horrible thing like this? Will these two gentlemen please answer these questions before they expect the people to believe even a word of what they claim?
Is it conceivable that during the six months on the case as a DPP, she has never had the opportunity to see any document of relevance or heard or participated in conversation or discussion relating to the case? Was there any strict order that she be barred to all these? If not, how can anyone be certain that she knows nothing of consequence to the prosecution case?
Naïve to ignore sexual passion
Prosecution assured the court that they were absolutely sure that Farah had not communicated any information to Saiful that the latter was not entitled to know. Have they been keeping a 24-hour watch on this couple including what happened within the bedroom? If not, how can they be so sure?
Are we so naïve that we are unaware of the power of sensual love between two individuals? Have we forgotten the lessons of history when many an empire and kingdom rose and fell because of the passion ignited between a man and a woman? If Saiful and Farah are lovers, which no one has denied, no court of law should accept any assurance that the prosecutor has not infringed the ethics of her profession.
It is puzzling how Judge Zaibidin had arrived at the conclusion that justice is better served by not allowing the principal actor and actress to come forward to say their piece and expose themselves to scrutiny.
With many swirling questions remaining unanswered and the credibility of the prosecution plunging to an all-time low, what can we interpret from prosecution’s vehement objection to call the duo as witnesses, and the judge’s endorsement of such objection?
Have these officers of the court forgotten their sworn duty to seek truth and defend justice at all times?
Isn’t it true that the prevailing public perception now is that the court is fearful of the truth being exposed?related article Getting used to a new world order SWORD OF TRUTH WE DEFEND ISLAM BY WORDS NOT SWORD SWORD OF TRUTH Israel Massacre Over 1500 Gazans WHAT NOBLE PEACE?
Now that the court has shut the door to learning the truth from the horses’ mouth, what alternative is left to salvage the honour of the court and our judicial system other than to dismiss the case and spare the nation the agony of watching infamy in the making?
edited and posted by
No comments:
Post a Comment