Impossible Anwar said can I fuck you:
If Anwar was a sex
fiend he would not be so polite as to ask for permission to fuck Saiful but
seized by lust he would grab and forcibly copulate with Saiful or he might say,
“I want to fuck you” or “Come, let’s have
some fun” not “Can I fuck you” so
politely. Only a sly mischievous or playful Anwar would say and his behaviour
does not indicate he is capable of such playfulness.
THUS
ONLY A PERSON WHO IS ALWAYS MISCHIEVOUS, TRYING TO BE FUNNY, PRETENTIOUSLY
POLITE WOULD BE SO FALSELY POLITE AS TO ASK, “CAN I FUCK YOU”. ANWAR DOES NOT
LOOK AND SPEAK LIKE A PSYCHOPATH OR SEXUAL FIEND OR DEMON WHO WILL NOT ASK BUT
SEIZE OR SAY “I WANT TO FUCK YOU” NOT “CAN I FUCK YOU?”
NO
TRUE SEX FIEND WILL ASK FOR PERMISSION AND SO IT IS A PRETENTIOUSLY POLITE
PERSON WHO WILL SAY THAT AND BASED ON HIS PUBLIC BEHAVIOR ANWAR IS NOT
PRETENTIOUSLY POLITE AND SO CANNOT HAVE UTTERED THAT.
“CAN
I FUCK YOU” SOUNDS NICE, CALCULATED TO SENSATIONALIZE BUT IT IS A FABRICATION
AS IT IS ODD AND COULD NOT HAPPEN IN REALITY. “COME LET’S HAVE SOME FUN” MIGHT
BE MORE PLAUSIBLE.
RPK: Najib’s controversial aide Safar present night Altanturya
abducted:
Nasir
Safar, the ‘mystery man’ the day Altantuya died
Thursday, 04 February 2010 Super
Admin
The Special Officer to Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, Nasir Safar, has been
asked to resign for calling the early Indian immigrants to Malaya beggars and
the Chinese prostitutes. But that is not the icing on the cake. The icing on
the cake is that Nasir Safar was the man mentioned in item 30 of PI Bala’s
Statutory Declaration:
“Azilah asked me whether the woman was Aminah and I said ‘Yes’.
He then walked off and made a few calls on his handphone. After 10 minutes
another vehicle, a blue Proton Saga, driven by a Malay man, passed by slowly.
The driver’s window had been wound down and the driver was looking at us.”
You can read the full text of Bala’s Statutory Declaration below.
Yes, that man in the blue Proton Saga was Nasir Safar. But the police, who
took Bala’s statement, denied it and said that it was a resident from that area
and not Nasir Safar. How did the police know this immediately without any
further investigation and without taking Nasir Safar’s statement?
Now, why would the Prime Minister’s Special Officer be at the scene of the
crime? Was it to see for himself that Altantuya is arrested and quickly
disposed off?
So that would make two of Najib’s staff involved in the Altantuya murder,
the other being his ADC, Musa Safri, who was never called to testify at the
Altantuya murder trial.
Do you remember Norhayati Hassan, Rosmah’s ADC? Weren’t she and her husband,
Abdul Aziz Buyong, not also involved in the murder? Their senior officer in the
army confirmed that he had trained this husband and wife team on how to handle
C4. Is that a coincidence, circumstantial evidence, or maybe merely a lie by
RPK and Malaysia Today?
Earlier, we published the police guard logbook that showed two unnamed
military officers going into Najib’s house around midnight the night Altantuya
died and they did not exit until dawn the following morning.
Okay, were they sitting on Rosmah’s sofa from midnight to dawn just
chitchatting or did they actually leave in Rosmah’s car to go somewhere,
whereby no logbook entry was made? And if they left the house in Rosmah’s car,
then where did they go and what did they do over those five to six hours?
Yes, the plot thickens. First it was Najib’s ADC, Musa Safri. Then it was
Rosmah’s ADC, Norhayati Hassan, and her husband, Abdul Aziz Buyong. And now we
have Nasir Safar, who drove past Razak Baginda’s house very slowly, possibly to
ensure that Altantuya, who was making a nuisance of herself, is picked up.
Would Najib like to challenge us on this? He can if he so wishes. Then
Bala’s lawyer can arrange for the witness to testify to the MACC in London, as
what they offered to do. But the problem is the MACC does not want to meet him
in London. They want him to meet them at the Malaysian High Commission in
Singapore.
Does the MACC think we are stupid? Meeting at the Malaysian High Commission
in Singapore would be like meeting at Bukit Aman. Or should we just arrange to
meet in Kamunting instead and save everyone a lot of trouble?
Oh, and don’t forget Najib’s brother who met Bala to threaten him and to
force him to withdraw his most damaging Statutory Declaration.
Robots can only rehash:
Emotional
stylish people are robots and robots can only rehash either wholesale or
cobbled or put together from recordings in their mental jukeboxes, what does
not exist in their mental jukeboxes cannot be said or done even when it is
possible because robots can only replay what is recorded.
Thus
because Anwar too is an emotional robot like the rest of humanity, he too is
restricted to saying and doing the simultaneous substance and style of what is
recorded in his mental jukebox. Whatever is not present in his mental jukebox
it is impossible for him to say.
Thus
if there is no generic recording in his mental jukebox to say “May I xxx” or a
specific recording “May I fuck you”, it will be impossible for Anwar to utter
that because he is a slave of his mental jukebox.
People
can imitate others’ behaviour eg imitate Elvis but that is based on memory and
painstaking practice or recording of themselves speaking in imitation of Elvis,
his mannerisms and habitual aphorisms and it is only after much practice or
recording in their mental jukeboxes that they become proficient renders of
Elvis’ style and even that should they forget, they will revert to their usual
styles.
It
is impossible that in public Anwar does not say “Can I xxx” and in private he
can, if he can say “Can I fuck you” in private there must be an urge to utter
profanities in public and there will be occasional lapses when driven by strong
emotions, he may ‘let fly’ and utter expletives or be caught whispering sly
profanities at public functions.
I
am not familiar with Saiful’s manner of speaking but he does look like a
celebrity groupie who hangs around celebrities and would therefore be
obsequious and pretentiously polite almost to a fault eg some people are fond
of saying, “Can I please this, can I please that”.
If
Saiful was to fabricate he too is not at liberty to fabricate whatever is
possible but he is constrained by his own mental jukebox and so if it is
Saiful’s usual way of speaking, he will also fabricate thus, “Can I xxx?”
IT
IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PERSON’S PRIVATE PERSONALITY TO BE TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM
HIS PUBLIC PERSONALITY, THERE IS USUALLY CLOSE CORRELATION ALTHOUGH THERE ARE
CERTAIN THINGS THAT PEOPLE HAVE LEARNT TO SUPPRESS IN PUBLIC, THE WAY THEY
SPEAK OR BEHAVE IS FIXED, DICTATED BY THEIR MENTAL JUKEBOXES, THEY ARE NOT AT
LIBERTY TO SPEAK ANYWAY THEY WANT IN PRIVATE THAT IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM
THEIR PUBLIC WAY OF SPEAKING.
LIM
KIT SIANG ALWAYS SPEAKS IN A CERTAIN MECHANICAL WAY AND SO WHEN I READ THE
WORDS SPOKEN BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR, I CAN TELL IT IS LIKELY TO COME FROM HIM. IN
THE PAST WHEN I HEARD UNFAMILIAR CLASSICAL MUSIC ON THE RADIO, I GUESSED
CORRECTLY IT WAS TSCHAIKOVSKY OR BEETHOVEN BECAUSE THEIR MUSIC HAVE CHARACTERISTICS
THAT ARE VERY DIFFERENT AND CONSISTENT. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR BEETHOVEN TO
COMPOSE MUSIC LIKE TSCHAIKOVSKY’S AND VICE VERSA.
Passing the shit:
Merrill
Lynch’s huge losses were concealed as it was sold to Bank of America causing
investors and taxpayers to suffer huge losses. It reflects these high flyers
are without scruples or conscience and the financial system is in dangerous
hands.
Bank of America sued over Merrill Lynch bailout
Bank of America is the latest US bank to |
Legal action has begun against Bank of
America and its former bosses, accusing them of duping investors and taxpayers
during the takeover of Merrill Lynch.
The defendants are accused of intentionally
withholding details of huge losses Merrill was suffering.
New York state officials have filed the
action against the bank, former chief executive Kenneth Lewis and former chief
financial officer Joseph Price.
Bank of America said the charges were
"regrettable" and lacked merit.
"The evidence demonstrates that Bank of
America and its executives, including Ken Lewis and Joe Price, at all times
acted in good faith and consistent with their legal and fiduciary obligations,"
a spokesman said.
He added that US financial watchdog the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had access to the same evidence as New
York state officials and had found no basis to bring charges.
After the Merrill bailout, Bank of America received
$45bn (£28.5bn) in government funds.
'Arrogant scheme'
According to the lawsuit, the accused
withheld the full details of Merrill's financial strife in order that its
shareholders would approve the merger.
They had then "manipulated" the
federal government by claiming they would back out of the deal unless US
bailout funds were received, it was alleged.
"This merger is a classic example of
how the actions of our nation's largest financial institutions led to the
near-collapse of our financial system," said New York State attorney
general Andrew Cuomo.
"Bank of America, through its top
management, engaged in a concerted effort to deceive shareholders and American
taxpayers at large.
"This was an arrogant scheme hatched by
the bank's top executives who believed they could play by their own set of
rules. In the end, they committed an enormous fraud and American taxpayers
ended up paying billions for Bank of America's misdeeds."
Earlier on Thursday, the SEC said Bank of
America had agreed to pay $150m to settle complaints over its handling of the
merger.
Last month Bank of America reported a net
loss of $194m in the last three months of 2009. That compared with a loss of
$1.8bn in the same period a year earlier.
It added that it had repaid the $45bn
government bailout money it had received but, taking the impact of this into
account, it made a loss of $5.2bn.
Morning after the tablet:
The
person responsible thinks it funny, smart trying to make an association that is
false between the aftermath of the launch of Apple’s iPad and the morning after
pill not realizing he is conditioning himself to future insanity and has kamma
for encouraging others to similarly falsely associate.
WHAT
IS THE BIG DEAL THAT AFTER ITS LAUNCH YOU SHOULD CALL IT MORNING AFTER AND WHAT
CONNECTION HAS THAT WITH THE POSTCOITAL CONTRACEPTION PILL?
BECAUSE
THERE IS NO MEANINGFUL ASSOCIATION YOU ARE COURTING MADNESS CONDITIONING
YOURSELF TO MAKE ASSOCIATIONS THAT ARE FALSE, NOT TRUE AND COERCE OTHERS TO
SIMILARLY DO WITH KARMA FAR MORE PAINFUL THAT YOU MAY REALIZE.
If America was that scrupulous:
America
now blames its financial and economic problems on unfair trade and currency
practices by China. China may be foolish and may end up owning currency that is
worthless.
IF
AMERICA WAS THAT SCRUPULOUS, IT WOULD PAY CHINA ITS DUE AND ASK IT TO TAKE THE
MONEY OUT OF THE COUNTRY AND DO WHAT IT LIKES WITH IT RATHER THAN LEAVE IT IN
THE USA AND REUSE IT. IF THE MONEY WAS EXPATRIATED, AMERICA (AND THE WORLD)
WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN SUCH TROUBLE TODAY.
IT
IS NOT CHINA’S UNFAIR CURRENCY POLICY THAT IS TO BLAME BUT THE DESIRE OF
AMERICAN COMPANIES TO MAXIMIZE PROFITS BY OUTSOURCING PRODUCTION TO COUNTRIES
LIKE CHINA AND THE UNSUPERVISED RECKLESS MISMANAGEMENT OF BANKS AND THE
FINANCIAL SYSTEM IN THE US THAT IS TO BLAME FOR THE MESS TODAY.
A Bad Tree Cannot Bear Good Fruit:
It
was Jesus who said you can know a tree by its fruit, a bad tree cannot bear
good fruit.
Thus
if Anwar was a bad tree, the perverted sexual predator that he is made up to
be, he would also be a financial predator and joined forces with the ruling
elite to plunder the country or taken money offered and exited this country in
exile rather than subject himself to potentially fatal assault, jail, poisoning
and even possible assassination.
ANWAR
WOULD BE A FOOL IF HE DOES NOT REALIZE HE RISKS ASSASINATION IF HE WAS TO
BECOME PM AND IF HE WAS THE SEXUAL PREDATOR HE IS MADE UP TO BE, IT IS LIKELY
IF NOT CERTAIN HE WOULD BE A MONETARY PREDATOR AND HAVE STAYED WITHIN UMNO OR
FEARING DEATH, HE WOULD HAVE STRUCK A DEAL, TAKEN MONEY AND FLED TO COUNTRY TO
DEVOTE HIMSELF TO HIS SEXUAL PECCADILLOES.
IF
ANWAR WAS CORRUPT WHY DID HE MOVE AGAINST DR M WHEN HE COULD QUIETLY BID HIS
TIME, PLUNDER ON HIS OWN AND OFFERED TO COVER DR M’S BACKSIDE.
An unlikely fairytale:
IT APPEARS THAT SAIFUL
WAS INCOMPETENTLY COACHED TO SEEK A DOCTOR TO GET A MEDICAL REPORT. SURELY
SOMEONE SUBJECT TO UNLAWFUL SODOMY WILL FIRST SEEK TO REPORT TO THE POLICE AND
SURELY THE POLICE WILL REALIZE THIS IS A SENSATIONAL CASE AND PERSONALLY ESCORTED
HIM TO THE BEST HOSPITAL FOR EXAMINATION RATHER THAN SAIFUL SHOPPING AROUND FOR
A HOSPITAL AND TO BE TOLD HE NEED TO MAKE A POLICE REPORT FIRST.
HOW DID SAIFUL KNOW HE
NEEDED A MEDICAL REPORT AND THEREFORE GO AROUND ON HIS OWN INTIATIVE LOOKING FOR ONE BEFORE FIRST MAKING A POLICE REPORT?
According
to Saiful, he went on his own initiative to seek medical examination first at
Tawarkal then Pusrawi and finally HBKL where he was told he needed to first
lodge a police report but that was obviated because there were policemen
stationed there.
It
may be possible Saiful on his own knew he needed a medical report as part of
his accusation or he may have been coached to do so. Surely a lay person would
first approach the police to make a report of sodomy and surely the police will
realize this is a priced customer and escorted him to his medical examination
rather than him shopping around.
Saiful went to hospital two days after alleged sodomy,
court told
KUALA LUMPUR: Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan went to two hospitals two days after
Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim allegedly sodomised him, before he had his medical
examination at the Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL), the High Court heard.
In recalling his experience on June 28, 2008, Mohd Saiful said the first
hospital he went to was at Tawakal Hospital along Jalan Pahang here.
However, he said he could not carry out his examination there as the
receptionist told him that they were only open for half a day.
High-profile case: Two policemen were seen
guarding the Desa Damansara Condominium.
“Then, I decided to go to the nearest hospital in the area – Hospital
Pusrawi along Jalan Tun Razak,” the 24-year-old said yesterday at the
continuation of his examination-in-chief by Solicitor-General II Datuk Mohd
Yusof Zainal Abiden.
Day Two of the high-profile sodomy trial resumed in open court yesterday
afternoon after the prosecution and defence teams returned from a morning visit
to the Desa Damansara Condominium in Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara here.
At Hospital Pusrawi, Mohd Saiful, who is Anwar’s former personal aide, was
examined by Dr Mohamed Osman Abdul Hamid after telling the doctor that he had
pain in his stomach and anus.
“He told me to remove my pants for the examination and asked me to lie on
the bed. He inserted something into my anus, and when he did that, I told him
very frankly that I had been sodomised and wanted an examination for that,” he
said.
Mohd Saiful said Dr Mohamed Osman then immediately stopped the examination.
“He told me that the hospital was not equipped to conduct a forensic
examination, and that a private hospital’s report would not be accepted as
evidence in court. He advised me to go to HKL,” he said.
Mohd Saiful, who said he was “afraid”, then registered himself at the HKL’s
outpatient treatment department at 3pm.
He said he was first attended to by a female doctor. She referred him to a
male doctor named Dr Daniel after he told her that he was embarassed to be
inspected by a female doctor.
Mohd Yusof: What happened then?
Mohd Saiful: I told him frankly that I was there for a medical
examination because I had been sodomised by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. He (the
doctor) was shocked, and wrote some notes for me to be referred to the
emergency ward.
Mohd Saiful said the doctors then advised him to first lodge a police
report, without which, they could not conduct a medical examination.
However, he did not have to go to a police station as there were two police
officers at the hospital, where he lodged his report.
At 9pm, he was examined by four doctors and several nurses.
“A police officer was also present during the examination. I now know him as
Deputy Supt Jude Pereira, the investigating officer in my case,” he said.
During the examination, he said the doctors inspected his body and took
swabs from his anus using a cotton bud.
Mohd Saiful also identified himself in snippets from the CCTV recording of
him arriving and leaving the Desa Damansara Condo-minium.
Nasir episode a lesson for everyone
MALACCA: The fate befalling Datuk Nasir Safar should be a lesson for all to
be more racially sensitive in future, said Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
“I believe this is a lesson for all parties. The right of citizenship is
enshrined in our nation’s Constitution and cannot be questioned by anyone, no
matter who,” said the Prime Minister.
It
may be a lesson to some but it is not a lesson to everyone. If you are not a
racial chauvinist it is impossible you will harbour such thoughts and therefore
utter such gaffs and so it is not a lesson to you.
Further,
what he is saying is to be careful, be pretentious, keep your nasty thoughts to
yourself.
AS
LONG AS A PERSON HAS NASTY THOUGHTS ABOUT OTHERS, IT IS NOT A LESSON BUT YOU
ARE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO PRETEND WHAT IS NOT, IS. SO LONG AS A PERSON
HAS CHAUVINISTIC THOUGHTS IT WOULD BE HYPOCRITICAL TO HIDE IT FROM THE PUBLIC
AND THERE IS NO USE HIM GUARDING HIS MOUTH CAREFULLY ABOUT WHAT HE UTTERS,
THERE IS NO MERIT IN THAT.
Why Saiful went alone:
Why
did police not escort Saiful to see the doctor in this high profile case?
THE
ROBOTIC RULES LOGIC IS THAT IN ORDER TO
APPEAR UNINVOLVED, NOT TO AROUSE SUSPICIONS OF CONSPIRACY, SAIFUL SHOULD GO BY
HIMSELF TO SEEK MEDICAL EXAMINATION.
BUT
THE SPECIFIC TO THE OCCASION GENUINE LOGIC
IS THAT IF THIS IS A GENUINE CASE IT IS HIGH PROFILE AND IF SOMEONE MAKES A
SENSATIONAL ACCUSATION AGAINST A HIGH PROFILE PERSON, THE CORRECT THING FOR THE
POLICE TO DO TO MAKE SURE THERE IS NO BUNGLES IS TO PERSONALLY ESCORT HIM TO
THE APPROPRIATE HOSPITAL FOR EXAMINATION.
THEREFORE
RATHER THAN TO BE EXPECTED, IT IS ODD THAT SAIFUL WENT ALONE TO A FEW HOSPITALS
TO SEEK A REPORT WITHOUT MAKING A POLICE REPORT WHEN HE SHOULD HAVE FIRST MADE
A POLICE REPORT AND THEN BEEN ESCORTED THERE BY POLICE.
Evidence suggests sodomy fabricated:
Few
if any doctors relish being assigned to handle rape or assault cases and in
western countries, special training is
needed so that a proper history, examination and relevant investigations are
carried out because of medico legal implications. Not only must investigations
and examinations be carried out but they must be done in a proper way so as not
to be contaminated or invalidated.
If
sodomy was a fabrication it would not matter which doctor Saiful saw because
there is no genuine medical evidence to be culled from the examination which is
only done to satisfy requirement.
If
it was true that sodomy had occurred then it will be a monumental blunder by police
not to nail Anwar for good by ensuring Saiful was examined at leisure
thoroughly by the best forensic doctor in town so that no scrap of
incriminating evidence is lost.
THUS
THE FACT THAT SAIFUL WHO HAD MET NAJIB BEFOREHAND (HOW CONVENIENT THAT A PKR
EMPLOYEE WHO WAS BEING TRULY SODOMIZED BY ANWAR SHOULD MEET THE DEPUTY PM
REGARDING SCHOLARSHIP AND NOT MENTION THE TRYSTS) AND SO POLICE WOULD HAVE BEEN
TIPPED OFF INDICATES THAT POLICE IS EITHER INCOMPETENT OR LACKADAISICAL TO
PERMIT SAIFUL, AFTER A GENUINE RECENT ACT OF SODOMY TO GO ON HIS OWN SEARCHING
FOR A DOCTOR WHO MAY BUNGLE OR FAIL TO OBTAIN INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE TO MAKE A
REPORT OR THE WHOLE AFFAIR IS A FABRICATION AND SO IT DOES NOT MATTER EXCEPT
FOR THE RECORD THAT HE SHOULD BE EXAMINED BY A DOCTOR.
IF
SODOMY IN SUCH A HIGH STANDING CASE LIKE THIS ACTUALLY OCCURRED AND BEARING IN
MIND POLICE WAS LIKELY TIPPED OFF BEFOREHAND BECAUSE SAIFUL MET WITH NAJIB
EARLIER THEN POLICE IS EXHIBITING A VERY CAVALIER ATTITUDE ALLOWING SAIFUL TO
GO AROUND TOWN HUNTING FOR ANY DOCTOR TO EXAMINE HIM.
What are the true lessons of the Safar imbroglio?
The
true lesson of raising the issues of citizenship and labelling Chinese women as
prostitutes and Indians as slaves is not that you can lose your job and raise a
hornet’s nest of protests but the true lesson is that you must not speak
falsely or harmfully. Consequential pain or loss is not the true reason for not
saying or doing something but the only true reason is if it is false, makes no
sense or harmful.
Those
who make such utterances are deluded, they perceive their prejudices as true
and there is little even the pain of death that can alter their tenaciously
held delusions and creeds and those on the sidelines who share the same
sentiments are not amenable to ‘learning from the mistakes of others’ so it is
useless talking about the lessons to be learnt.
FEW
IF ANY DELUDED PEOPLE CAN BE HEALED FROM THEIR DELUSIONS WHICH ARE FIXED AND
HELD TENACIOUSLY, WHAT HAS HAPPENED WILL FALL ON BLIND EYES CONDEMNED TO REPEAT
THE SAME FOLLIES AGAIN AND AGAIN IN THE FUTURE AND SO ANYONE WHO PERCEIVES
THERE ARE LESSONS TO BE LEARNT MAY BE DELUDED.
Saiful hated not idolized Anwar:
According
to the testimony (on you tube interviewed by western correspondent possibly
BBC) of someone who knew Saiful well during his student days, Saiful hated
Anwar and so if this is correct, Saiful is lying to say he idolized Anwar.
The
Star said Saiful campaigned for BN in the 2008 elections and he appeared in a
picture with the Kelantanese Federal Minister.
UNLESS
SAIFUL WAS ASKED, THERE IS NO REASON TO VOLUNTEER THAT HE IDOLIZED ANWAR EXCEPT
TO FALSELY IMPRESS THAT HE HAS NO MALICE BUT GOODWILL TO ANWAR AND THEREFORE
HIS ACCUSATIONS ARE GENUINE.
WHY
DID HE SEE A DOCTOR ONLY 2 DAYS LATER? PERHAPS THEY WERE UNDECIDED WHETHER
THERE WOULD BE A MORE SUITABLE FUTURE OPPORTUNITY TO BASE THEIR ACCUSATION AND
THEN DECIDED THAT DATE WAS THE BEST THEY COULD GET.
US unemployment greater than reported:
Because
you have to be actively seeking a job for the past four weeks those who don’t
are excluded and further unemployment is an estimation, not a strict head count
(depending on birth and death rates) and so it can be quite inaccurate in
unusual circumstances like today.
Quote: To be counted in that oft-reported
tenth of the labour force you have to be out of work, and have actively looked
for a job in the past four weeks.
It's the four weeks requirement that cuts
out a lot of people who would undoubtedly like a job, if there were any jobs to
be applied for, much less secured.
The lies NST tell:
Quote:
On Wednesday, the Umno-owned News Straits Times even front-paged PKR
secretary-general Saifuddin Nasution as having said, “PKR ready to act on Guan
Eng”.
Today’s
New Straits Times is a pale shadow of the past. Apparently what was headlined
is false, the person denied saying that. And so NST is guilty not just on
divisive speech but false divisive speech and that is the path to hell for
those responsible.
How convenient, no motion for two days:
How
convenient it is that prosecutors are interested in whether Saiful passed
motion for two days and Saiful should say loudly that he did not pass motion
for two days. Many would be hard pressed to remember if they passed motion
yesterday.
WHAT
THE PROSECUTION IS LEADING TO IS THAT EVEN THOUGH FORENSIC EXAMINATION WAS
UNDERTAKEN TWO DAYS AFTER BECAUSE SAIFUL DID NOT PASS MOTION, ANWAR’S DNA
REMAINED IN THERE AND SO THE EVIDENCE IS VALID. IT WAS NOTED SAIFUL REPLIED
LOUDLY WITH THE MOTIVE TO UNDERLINE ITS IMPORTANCE TO LISTENERS.
WHY
DID HE NOT GO FOR EXAMINATION IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ACT?
IF
YOU ARE DISCERNING YOU WILL REALIZE THAT ALL THE FACTS ARE ARRAYED AGAINST
ANWAR (EG SAIFUL IDOLIZED ANWAR SO CANNOT BETRAY HIM) SUCH THAT IT SEEMS
UNREAL, TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE.
I didn’t pass motion for two days, court told
KUALA LUMPUR: Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan did
not pass motion for two days after he was allegedly sodomised on June 26, 2008,
the High Court was told on the third day of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy
trial.
When asked by lead prosecutor
Solicitor-General II Datuk Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden if he had passed motion
after the incident until he was examined by the KL Hospital doctor, Saiful,
said loudly:
“No. I did not pass motion for two days.”
Why this obsession with passing motions?
It
is because DNA is the centrepiece in the attempt to convict Anwar, prosecution
is trying to pre-empt any objection by jumping the gun to point out that
because Saiful did not pass motion afterwards Anwar’s DNA must have remained in
Saiful’s rectum.
MOST
PEOPLE WOULD BE HARD PRESSED TO REMEMBER WHETHER THEY PASSED MOTION ON A
CERTAIN DAY MANY MONTHS BACK AND HERE YOU HAVE SAIFUL SPEAKING LOUDLY WITH
CERTAINTY HE REMEMBERED HE DID NOT PASS MOTION. SOUNDS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE HE
REMEMBERED WITH SUCH CERTAINTY HE DID NOT PASS MOTION AND SO ANWAR’S DNA
REMAINED EXTRACTABLE FROM HIS RECTUM.
Wee besmirches himself unwittingly:
PKR
Wangsa Maju MP Wee Choo Keong does not realize he is the pot calling the kettle
black. He is denigrating DAP below, he admits he does not care for DAP but
cares for PKR. This is self serving or selfish and he himself is headed for woe
and so his opinion counts for nothing to those who
understand. If I were in charge of
PKR such people will not be standing for election.
Wee:
“This style of low-class politics (how high class is his politics and what meaning is there in
high class? He is status or image conscious) can carry on in DAP for all
I care but must be stopped in Pakatan Rakyat if we are serious in wanting to
see a change of government during the 13th general election,” he said.
Very few politicians have conscience:
Many
of the politicians in opposition parties like DAP or PKR or PAS are also in
there for power, money and fame. Very few politicians have conscience and so it
is not a surprise that the way opposition politician speak are also foolish or
deluded.
IF
A PERSON HAS CONSCIENCE HE WOULD NOT BE IN POLITICS, DESPITE THEIR AVOWED
UPRIGHT MOTIVES, MOST POLITICIANS ARE IN THERE FOR MONEY AND INFLUENCE. THEY
ARE ATTRACTED TO MONEY AND POWER.
THERE
ARE A FEW WITH PRINCIPLES LIKE TENGKU RAZALEIGH, ANWAR, TOK GURU, THE REST ARE
UNPRINCIPLED. AMERICAN, BRITISH AND AUSTRALIAN POLITICIANS ARE JUST AS SELF
SERVING AND AVARICIOUS AS THEIR MALAYSIAN COUNTERPARTS.
Top secret central bankers meeting in Sydney:
Does
this suggest that the world’s financial system is in bigger crisis than
admitted?
Secret summit of top bankers
- By George Lekakis and Fleur
Leyden - From:
Herald Sun - February
05, 2010
There are reports some of the world's top bankers are gathering in Sydney
for secret talks on the economy.
THE world's top central bankers began arriving in Australia
yesterday as renewed fears about the strength of the global economic recovery
gripped world share markets.
Representatives from 24 central banks and monetary authorities including the
US Federal Reserve and European Central Bank landed in Sydney to meet tomorrow
at a secret location, the Herald Sun reports.
Organised by the Bank for International Settlements last year, the two-day
talks are shrouded in secrecy with high-level security believed to have been
invoked by law enforcement agencies.
Speculation that the chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Dr Ben Bernanke,
would make an appearance could not be confirmed last night.
The event will be dominated by Asian delegations and is expected to include
governors of the Peoples Bank of China, the Bank of Japan and the Reserve Bank
of India.
The arrival of the high-powered gathering coincided with a fresh meltdown on
world sharemarkets, sparked by renewed concerns about global growth and
sovereign debt.
Fears countries including Greece, Portugal, Spain and Dubai could default on
debt repayments combined with disappointing US jobs data to spook investors.
Australia's ASX 200 slumped 2.4 per cent, to a its lowest close since
November 5, echoing a sharp fall on Wall Street.
Asian share markets were also pummelled, with Japan's Nikkei 225 down almost
3 per cent and Hong Kong's Hang Seng slumping 3.3 per cent.
The damage was also being felt by European markets last night with London's
FTSE 100 down sagging 1 per cent in early trade.
Sovereign debt fears rippled through to the Australian dollar which was
hammered to a four-month low of US86.43 and was trading at US86.77 cents last
night.
"This does feel like '08 and '07 all over again whereby we had these
sort of little fires pop up and they are supposedly contained but in reality
they are not quite contained,'' said H3 Global Advisors chief executive Andrew
Kaleel.
"Dubai should have been an isolated incident and now we are seeing
issues with Greece, Portugal and Spain.''
It wasn't all bad news with the RBA yesterday upping its Australian growth
forecasts and flagging more interest rate rises this year.
The central bank estimates the economy grew 2 per cent in 2009, and will
expand by 3.25 per cent in 2010, and by 3.5 per cent in 2011.
The outlook for global growth is likely to be a key theme of the high level
central bank talks.
The gathering also comes at an important time for the BIS as it initiates an
overhaul of the global banking system which will include new capital rules
applying to banks and more stringent standards regulating executive pay.
A key part of the two-day talkfest will be a special meeting of Asian
central bankers chaired by the governor of the Central Bank of Malaysia, Dr
Zeti Akhtar Aziz.
Influential BIS general manager Jaime Caruana is also expected to take a
prominent role in the talks.
Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan will address the central bank officials at a
dinner on Monday night.
Bridge &
Terry Must Kiss & Make Up:
This is a styled or
fabricated way of saying they must forget
the affair and become friends again.
Some will like the advice
and many will not like it but they do not understand the falsity of the advice.
You are a fool with karma
due, not good to tell others they must kiss and make up.
AS LONG AS THERE IS
ANIMOSITY BETWEEN THE DUO AS A RESULT OF TERRY HAVING AN AFFAIR AND MAKING
PREGNANT BRIDGE’S GIRLFRIEND IT IS SINFUL NOT GOOD ADVICE TO TELL THEM TO KISS
AND MAKEUP OR USE FORCE TO FORGET AND ACT AS IF NOTHING HAS HAPPENED.
IF THERE IS TRULY NO
ANIMOSITY (IMPOSSIBLE) BETWEEN THE DUO, THE ADVICE IS MEANINGLESS. IF THERE IS
ANIMOSITY, UNLESS TERRY ASKS FOR BRIDGE’S FORGIVENESS AND IT IS TRULY GIVEN,
FRICTION WILL REMAIN AND GENUINE RECONCILIATION IS IMPOSSIBLE, WHAT
RECONCILIATION IS FALSE, MAKE BELIEVE, ACTING AS IF, NOT TRULY IS.
Tkl
Climate scepticism
'on the rise'
The British public has become increasingly sceptical about
climate change, a poll for BBC News suggests.
How is this possible?
It is because their former
understanding that there is climate change was not based on seeing and knowing
but based on belief, something they did not see as true but used force to
accept as true that it is possible that they can now driven by force (doubt and
uncertainty) and changing circumstances (eg cold spell hitting UK & US)
change their fickle minds.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT
SOMEONE WHO TRULY SEES AN ISSUE CAN BECOME SKEPTICAL BUT THE FACT THAT PEOPLE
CAN BECOME SKEPTICAL AND CHANGE THEIR MINDS LATER IMPLIES THEY DO NOT SEE AND
UNDERSTAND, THEY ARE JUST JUMPING ON THE LATEST BANDWAGON OR IT IS POPULAR TO BELIEVE
CLIMATE CHANGE.
FOR A PERSON WHO DOES NOT
SEE, IT DOES NOT MATTER IF HE BELIEVES OR DOES NOT BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE
BECAUSE HE DOESN’T UNDERSTAND AND EITHER WAY HE IS DOOMED. AS JESUS SAID, UNTIL
THE FLOODS COME AND SWEEP THEM AWAY, THEY DO NOT REALIZE THE DANGER THEY ARE
EXPOSED TO.
All washed up
after leaving wallet in washer:
Without fabricating no one
can come up with such a statement that is designed to be witty to describe what
in truth is the fading or disappearance of markings on currency notes after
they were subject to a washing machine.
In order to fabricate you
must work, you must think that would be totally unnecessary if you did not fabricate
to find spurious or false associations between ‘washed up’ and currency fading.
It is a view or
understanding of what happened and is false and the fact that people see
nothing wrong, see it as correct interpretation of what happened reflects their
false perception.
SUCH MANUFACTURED
WITTICISMS TO IMPRESS OR STIR EMOTIONS MAY NOT BE APPRECIATED IN HEAVEN AND IF
YOU MUST FABRICATE, YOU MAY HAVE TO WANDER FOR ANOTHER ETERNITY WEEPING AND
GNASHING FROM ONE EXISTENCE TO ANOTHER. BECAUSE IT IS NOT NECESSARY AND
MEANINGLESS TO FABRICATE YOU ARE HEADED FOR INSANITY.
Currency markings fade after wash:
‘Currency markings
fade after wash’ is the correct description of what happened that has no
conveyed style, no intention to stir emotions, ‘all washed up after leaving
wallet in washer’ is a fabricated styled version intended to stir emotions.
The
default way:
To give
everything they say a twist or spin things or make it funny or witty is the
default or automated way in which people who are stylish speak and it is never
live but after fabricated it is memorized and rehashed for future occasions.
GIVING THINGS
A SPIN IS THE DEFAULT CONDITIONED WAY STYLISH PEOPLE WHO WANT TO IMPRESS OTHERS
SPEAK, THEY CAN NEVER CHOOSE TO SPEAK WITHOUT GIVING IT A TWIST SOMETIMES.
USUALLY THE
WITTY OR ‘CLEVER’ WAY THEY SPEAK IS COPIED WHOLESALE FROM OTHERS BUT SOMETIMES
THEY MAY COBBLE IT THEMSELVES AND AS ALWAYS SPEAKING WITTILY IS BY REHASH AND
THE PERSON IS A ROBOT NOT JUST HERE BUT ALWAYS AND ROBOTS ARE HEADED FOR DOOM.
'Climategate' Professor
considered suicide over email scandal'
Of what use
is suicide? His actions are either right or wrong, true or false, of what use
is suicide. Possibly the shame (an emotion) drove him towards suicide, his
action to kill himself is driven by force not reason or understanding and so
here you have, an intellectual who is acting irrationally even to self
destructive extent.
SUICIDE APART
FROM FATAL HARM TO SELF IS A TOTALLY INAPROPRIATE, MEANINGLESS RESPONSE TO THE
SCANDAL DRIVEN BY FORCE OR EMOTION (EG SHAME) AND SO HE IS NOT A MAN OF REASON
BUT MAN OF FORCE.
HERE IS A MAN
WHO IS A SCIENTIFIC PROFESSOR (AND SO SHOULD BE A MASTER OF REASON) AND HE IS
DRIVEN BY FORCE IN HIS ACTIONS IN THIS CASE PROBABLY DRIVEN BY SHAME TO
CONTEMPLATE AN ACTION THAT IS EVEN FATAL.
Nothing contrived about the higher states
of mind:
The Buddha spoke of the ordinary state of mind and four higher states of
mind.
It is impossible that anyone should reject those states as false or evil
because seeing correctly they are progressively the way out of the severe
suffering of the normal state of mind of emotional stylish people.
ANYONE WHO REJECTS THE HIGHER STATES OF MIND THE BUDDHA TAUGHT REJECTS
THEM OUT OF PREJUDICE, WRONGLY AND HEADED FOR WOE.
The normal state of mind of all emotional stylish people is an agitated
scattered mind and body and if you can set aside your greed and preoccupations
with the world and attain a calm clearly thinking serenity of mind and body
then that is the first higher state of mind taught by the Buddha no matter what
you might call it or refuse to accept it as what the Buddha described and it is
always peace and happiness here compared to the ordinary agitated scattered
mental state and you are headed for even one Age or eternity in heaven.
Thinking is what people do all the time and they cannot help thinking,
cannot stop thinking even for a moment except in their delusion that they can.
Yet, as taught by the Buddha it is possible to fully conscious, not think at
all to see and do or not do going about daily activities. If you can fully
conscious stop thinking as you go about your daily activities then that is the
second higher state of mind as taught by the Buddha and it is never insanity
but incomparably blissful compared to constant emotion driven thinking and it
accords you even two eternities in heavenly existence.
Stirring their mental forces to be attracted (like) or repulsed
(dislike) whatever they perceive is what emotional people do all the time and
as taught by the Buddha, it is possible to train oneself such that one’s mental
force is not stirred attractively or repulsively by whatever is happening and
this is the third higher state of mind and rather than insanity or suffering,
it is an incomparably superior way to exist and enjoy life and according to the
Buddha if you can achieve pure equanimity, that is four eternities in heavenly
bliss without disease, hunger and death.
Lastly pleasure is what emotional people seek and enjoy whilst they in
vain try to avoid pain (whilst they enjoy inflicting suffering on others). It
is mild force that gives pleasure, without contact with mild force there can be
no pleasure and so anyone who is experiencing pleasure is experiencing force,
anyone who enjoys and seeks pleasure is enjoying and seeing force that is
blind, meaningless and harmful. As taught by the Buddha it is possible to tune
one’s mind so that it rejects and does not experience pleasure and pain and
rather than a deprivation, it is an incomparably higher state of existence here
and in heaven where it confers a lifespan of 500 eternities or Ages.
The vast gulf of 500 eternities for neither pain nor pleasure compared
to neither liking nor disliking reflects the purity of mind of the former, a
mind that experiences neither pain nor pleasure is pure, freed of all force and
therefore it lasts much longer than a mind that only neither stirs attractively
nor repulsively that still experiences pain and pleasure or force.
THUS ANYONE WHO REJECTS THE TEACHINGS OF THE BUDDHA ABOUT HIGHER MENTAL
STATES IS A FOOL, DOES NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IS PRESENTED TO HIM, IS UNDISCERNING
AND HEADED FOR SUFFERING.
Thinking is always a distraction not
enhancement:
The vast bulk of what people think when they are going about their daily
activities is frivolous and unrelated to the activity at hand, even if the
thinking is connected to the activity at hand, it is still a distraction that
draws attention away from the moment and it is never an enhancement but
degrades the experience.
Thus even if you and everyone here cannot help thinking all the time as
you go about your daily lives, it may be or is possible for a discerning and
higher being to do so, and it is objective, cannot be disputed that the non
thinking state is incomparably less suffering, fully alert and focussed on
matters at hand and it is the way to two eternities in heaven.
Liking and disliking is not free:
Liking and disliking is never free but it requires work, consumes energy
to stir one’s mental force attractively or repulsively to whatever is perceived
and when constant leads to insoluble stress, restlessness and distraction.
Liking and disliking is mad because it is just a blind meaningless stirring of
mental force that not only does not enhance but detracts from the pleasure and
pain of whatever is experienced apart from inexorably leading to stress,
restlessness and distraction.
THUS ANYONE WHO LIKES AND DISLIKES IS A FOOL COMPARED TO SOMEONE WHO
NEITHER LIKES NOR DISLIKES BECAUSE HE IS STIRRING HIS MENTAL FORCE ATTRACTIVELY
AND REPULSIVELY THAT DOES NOT ENHANCE BUT DETRACTS FROM THE EXPERIENCE, WASTES
ENERGY AND IS MEANINGLESS AND LEADS TO STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION AND
WHOEVER DOES NOT STIR HIS MENTAL FORCE ATTRACTIVELY OR REPULSIVELY HAS ATTAINED
THE THIRD HIGHER STATE OF THE BUDDHA AS TAUGHT BY THE BUDDHA AND IS HEADED FOR
FOUR ETERNITIES IN HEAVEN.
No other way out of suffering:
You may think you are self sufficient and fully enjoying your life here.
This may be true or deluded, you are instead tormented even when existing replete
with the pleasures of the senses you are stressed, restless, distracted and full
of worries about this and that.
FOR A BEING WHO IS SUFFERING AND HEADED FOR EVEN AN ETERNITY OF WEEPING
AND GNASHING OF THE TEETH, THERE IS ONE PATH OUT OF SUFFERING, NAMELY TO
FIRSTLY DEVELOP FULLY A SERENITY OF MIND AND BODY THAT IS NOT OF THE FLESH
(FIRST HIGHER STATE OF THE MIND) PROGRESSING TO A FULLY CONSCIOUS CESSATION OF
THINKING (SECOND HIGHER MENTAL STATE) FOLLOWED BY NEITHER LIKING NOR DISLIKING
(THIRD HIGHER STATE) AND FINALLY NEITHER PAIN OR PLEASURE (FOURTH HIGHER STATE
WHERE THERE IS COMPLETELY PURITY WITH NO FORCE EXERTED ON THE MIND).
THERE IS NO OTHER WAY OF ESCAPE FROM SUFFERING EXCEPT AS DESCRIBED
ABOVE. NO ONE HAS TAUGHT YOU THIS EXCEPT THE BUDDHA AND I HAVE CLARIFIED IT AS
NO ONE ELSE HAS DONE AND SO WHOEVER IS THE COUNSELOR JESUS DESCRIBED MUST ALSO
STATE THIS.
Zulkifli:
Pakatan Rakyat does not need DAP
He may be a MP for PR but if he has not been appointed to speak for PR
he is speaking unrighteously and anyone who listens to and believes the speech
of someone who speaks without authorization is a fool.
HE HAS NO RIGHT TO SPEAK FOR PAKATAN RAKYAT UNLESS HE HAS BEEN APPOINTED
SPOKESMAN. IF HE HAS NOT, HE IS SPEAKING EMOTIONALLY ON BEHALF OF PR WITHOUT
AUTHORIZATION AND IS THEREFORE A FOOL WITH KARMA DUE TO HIM AND ANYONE WHO
LISTENS TO HIM IS A FOOL.
IT IS NEVER REASON THAT GUIDES HIS STATEMENT BUT IT IS EMOTION, ANGER
AND DENIGRATION.
Google earth disappears again:
Again Google Earth has disappeared without trace from Windows 7 and I
wonder if Microsoft is trying to sabotage Google.
If it is something deliberately to sabotage the people involved is
causing people trouble and there will be karma.
Stiglitz: Teach currency speculators a
lesson:
Quote: Economist Joe Stiglitz, who is advising the Greek
government, last night denied that the country would require a bail-out, and
urged national authorities to intervene in markets to "teach the
speculators a lesson". Likening the situation to the Asian financial
crisis, in which even healthy economies were targeted as hedge funds and
investors withdrew from the region, he told the Sky's Jeff Randall Live show:
"The speculators will always look for the weakest link. What they're doing
now is a version of the Hong Kong double play in 1997 /1998.
NOWADAYS WE HAVE SPECULATORS WITH A LOT OF MONEY FROM PEOPLE WHO INVEST
IN HEDGE FUNDS FORTIFIED BY BANK BORROWINGS WHO CAN TAKE UP POSITIONS THAT
ATTACK TARGETS LIKE CERTAIN CURRENCIES CREATING HAVOC. SUCH SPECULATORS ARE
LIKE HOARDS OF LOCUSTS WHO CAN LAY WASTE TO VAST FIELDS AND HERETO IS ANOTHER
INDICATION THAT THE WORLD IS HEADED FOR ECONOMIC COLLAPSE AS A RESULT OF
UNFETTERED GREED WITHOUT CONCERN FOR THE COMMON GOOD.
Fed Court Perak Decision Upset You?
If you are upset by the court decision ruling in favour of BN then you
are disliking and if you are thrilled you like it. Either way that means four
eternities in heaven is out of the question for you.
Dr Zambry was seen beaming on TV, that means he is liking it and that
means suffering and he does not know that he has suffering that is like an
ocean ahead of him.
Teaching others a lesson:
What Stiglitz said is false on two counts.
Firstly he means taking actions to punish or inflict pain or loss on speculators and that is not
teaching someone a lesson except in his false perception that A means B.
Teaching someone a lesson means just that teaching or using words to educate
someone, what punishment is there?
Secondly, you do not do anything to punish anyone; that is a false
reason to do something that you do not realize will end in madness. You do
something because it is the right or appropriate or understandable thing to do,
not to punish someone which would mean it is driven by emotion or anger or
hate.
GOD WILL PUNISH YOU FOR YOUR EVIL DEEDS, HE WILL NOT DO SOMETHING TO
TEACH YOU A LESSON. SENDING YOU TO BE ROASTED IN HELL IS NOT TEACHING YOU A
LESSON EXCEPT IN YOUR ADVANCED FALSE PERCEPTION BUT SENDING YOU TO HELL IS TO
PUNISH OR CAUSE SUFFERING TO YOU FOR YOUR SINS.
THUS HERE AS ELSEWHERE PEOPLE THINK THEY UNDERSTAND BUT THEY DO NOT
UNDERSTAND THAT HE DID NOT MEAN WHAT HE SAID WHICH IS TO PUNISH SPECULATORS.
YOU PUNISH SPECULATORS BY IDENTIFYING THEM AND SENDING THEM TO JAIL OR EVEN
KILLING THEM BY FIRING SQUAD, YOU TEACH THEM A LESSON BY ROUNDING THEM UP AND
GIVING THEM A LESSON ON THE IMMORALITY OF THEIR WAYS.
The folly of teaching others a lesson:
If you perceive or understand that it works to teach others a lesson;
that people can learn from painful lessons then you may be right or have false
understanding.
So long as a being has an urge to speculate, gamble, drink, visit call
girls or take drugs you can keep punishing him and he may lose everything but
he will keep coming back for more.
Only when the person develops a true understanding of the harm to self
and others of his actions and truly has no desire to repeat that activity
(speculate to gain at others’ expenses) he will continue to do so no matter how
many times he is burnt or ‘taught a lesson’.
THUS AS IS THE CASE WITH EMOTIONAL PEOPLE DRIVEN BY IRRATIONAL
IRRESISTIBLE DESTRUCTIVE BLIND URGES (PROXIES OF MENTAL FORCE) WHO WILL NOT
TURN BUT ARE GIVEN OR SURRENDERED TO THEIR URGES, IT IS FUTILE PUNISHING THEM
TO TEACH THEM A LESSON. BECAUSE THEY HAVE DONE WRONG AND IT IS POSSIBLE FOR GOD
AND NATURAL JUSTICE TO PUNISH THEM, THEY WILL BE PUNISHED, BUT NOT TO TEACH
THEM A LESSON.
There are cases when an animal or human when subjected to an electrical
shock, in the future avoids the item that caused the shock but this is not
taught a lesson but it is driven by fear. It is a blind reflexive association
of pain even death associated with that object that stirs their fear and it is
this fear not understanding that drives them to avoid that object in the
future. In the same circumstances, there are yet some beings whose urge for the
object is strong and never develop fear and keeps going back like insects
attracted to a fire to fall into the fire.
IF A PERSON HAS NO GENUINE UNDERSTANDING AND IS DRIVEN BY FORCE EG
GREED, THERE ARE NO LESSONS TO BE LEARNT OR TAUGHT BECAUSE HE HAS NO
UNDERSTANDING AND IS DRIVEN OR COMPELLED BY BLIND URGES TO KEEP DOING THAT.
SO YOU DO SOMETHING BECAUSE IT IS A RIGHT THING TO DO, NOT TO TEACH
OTHERS A LESSON. IF YOU DO SOMETHING TO TEACH OTHERS A LESSON THAT IS A FALSE PURPOSE
FOR DOING IT AND YOU ARE HEADED FOR INSANITY.
Why the counsellor will come in person:
If what Jesus spoke was true, either the counsellor will come in person
or virtually in the minds of people.
Why is it a certainty that he will come in person not virtually?
Jesus said the counsellor will not speak on his own authority but
whatever he hears he will speak. This is a clear indication that the
counsellor, whom Jesus did not identify or need to, will be a person who will,
as he said elsewhere, dwell with you and he will speak what he hears.
Because what he speaks is what he hears, if you speak against what he
says, you are speaking against heaven and whoever speaks against heaven cannot
go to heaven but must wander alone accompanied by his delusions weeping and
gnashing from one habitation to the next.
Again Jesus said it is to your advantage that he should go because if he
did not go the counsellor will not come to you implying that just as Jesus
physically will go, the counsellor too will physically come.
IF IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE BUDDHA AND JESUS TO TEACH BEINGS HERE
WITHOUT PHYSICALLY COMING TO THIS WORLD, IT MAY BE EQUALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE
COUNSELLOR TO TEACH WITHOUT PHYSICALLY COMING INTO THIS WORLD.
AND IF BEINGS HERE ARE CAPABLE OF KNOWING AND TEACHING WHAT THE
COUNSELLOR WILL TEACH, THERE WILL BE NO NEED FOR HIM TO COME, HE IS MERELY
AFFIRMING OR REITERATING THE TEACHINGS OF OTHERS. THEREFORE WHAT THE COUNSELLOR
WILL TEACH MUST BE SOMETHING DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT FROM EVERYONE HERE SPEAKS.
Scratch his car to teach him a lesson:
You hear people with verve and self indignation that he scratched
someone else’s car to teach him a lesson.
How can scratching a person’s car teach him any lessons? If you truly
want to teach him a lesson you should speak to him, you need to speak to teach.
Thus the person has false logic that will end in mad logic and he will
be punished for scratching another’s car.
Portugal will not quit the euro:
For those who truly understand, this is a false statement intended for
the consumption of the markets, to calm speculations not a statement of the
truth of Portugal’s intentions.
If circumstances force Portugal to quit the euro then what he said is
false.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE HE CAN SEE ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT CAN HAPPEN OR HE
IS MAKING AN IRREVOCABLE COMMITMENT THAT PORTUGAL WILL NOT QUIT, IF THERE IS A
CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT AND THAT GOVERNMENT QUITS, HE IS UNRIGHTEOUSLY SPEAKING
FOR OTHERS WITHOUT AUTHORITY AND SO THE STATEMENT IS FALSE, INTENDED OR HAS THE
MOTIVE TO FALSELY REASSURE MARKETS. IF THIS IS THE CASE, THE PERSON HAS KARMA,
IS SPEAKING FALSELY.
5-0
for BN’s Zambry
Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir is the
rightful Perak Mentri Besar, the Federal Court ruled in a unanimous decision.
The five-man Bench found Tuesday that the Court of Appeal was justified in
reversing the High Court’s May 11 judgement which declared Datuk Seri Mohammad
Nizar Jamaluddin as Mentri Besar.
It is not 5-0 for BN’s Zamry except in the false perception and
understanding of the person responsible not realizing the noose of mad
perception is firmly around his neck and he has debts for encouraging others to
appreciate his false perception.
ALL FIVE JUDGES MAY HAVE VOTED IN FAVOR FOR ZAMRY BUT IT IS NOT 5-0
BECAUSE IT IS NOT A FOOTBALL GAME WHERE TWO TEAMS ARE PLAYING EACH OTHER. EVERY
TIME YOU FABRICATE YOU ARE CONDITIONING YOURSELF TO FABRICATE, TO GIVE THINGS A
TWIST THAT WILL END IN INSANITY NOT BLISS.
Quote: Applying the Perak precedent, Hafarizam said the prime
minister similarly must tender his resignation if an opposition leader claimed
to command the majority in the Dewan Rakyat and if the King did not consent to
the prime minister's request to dissolve parliament.
"(If that should happen), if the Agong does not consent to the prime
minister's request to dissolve parliament, the prime minister must resign or
his seat will be deemed vacant.
FEAR
NOT THIS SHOULD COME TO PASS. BN WILL NOT PLAY BY THE RULES AND SHOULD THE
SCENARIO ABOVE OCCUR THE JUDGES WOULD RULE THAT THE AGUNG HAS NO RIGHT TO SACK
NAJIB AND HE IS THE LAWFUL PM.
Give Zamry a chance, says Najib:
It is never a matter of giving him a chance. If Zamry’s mandate is
illegally obtained, he should not be given a chance and it is not a matter of
giving him a chance. It is illogical to speak thus.
Zamry’s tenure illegal?
If Zamry’s appointment is legal, why should he be given a chance?
If Zamry’s appointment is illegal (as Najib seems to imply by asking
people to give him a chance) then he should never be given a chance.
PEOPLE DO NOT REALIZE THE DEADLY CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH TALK TO THE PERSON
AND TO OTHERS WHO ARE VULNERABLE TO ACCEPT IT AS VALID. WHAT IS SAID IS ABSURD
AND THE PRACTICE OF ABSURDITY IS THE PATH TO INSANITY.
You truly give voters not Zamry a chance:
If you truly or sincerely (not hypocritically) want to give others a
chance, you should give voters a chance and if they like Zamry so much they
will vote him into office and so by giving voters a chance you also give Zamry
a chance.
On the other hand, if you don’t mean what you say, what you say is self
serving because giving Zamry a chance means accepting the status quo and
therefore BN winning then you say hypocritically, ‘give Zamry a chance’.
IF ANYBODY SHOULD BE TRULY GIVEN A CHANCE IN THIS IMBROGLIO IT IS THE
VOTERS NOT ZAMRY, LET VOTERS DECIDE AGAIN WHO THEY WANT TO GOVERN THEM.
Only others not you have to give chance:
The selfish person’s creed is this: others have to give chance to him but
not him. He is forever extolling others to give chance that benefits him but he
himself will never give others chance.
Anwar was busy taking notes:
As Saiful went through the sordid details of how Anwar asked to fuck
him, got angry when he refused and adjourned to the bedroom, closed the
curtains and performed the act, Anwar was noted to be busy taking notes.
IT IS UNLIKELY IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE THAT IF THE SODOMY TRULY HAPPENED AND
ANWAR IS CONFRONTED WITH A RECOUNTING OF HIS SHAMEFUL DEED IN PUBLIC, HE WOULD
NOT FLINCH OR SHOW VISIBLE AGITATION OR UNEASINESS AND STRUGGLE TO RETAIN HIS
COMPOSURE LET ALONE BE BUSY TAKING NOTES.
THEREFORE IF THE OBSERVATION IS ACCURATE IT IS GOOD CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE TO THOSE WHO ARE DISCERNING THAT IT IS ALL A FABRICATION.
Quote: The
former personal aide of Anwar told a hushed courtroom that he had gone to meet
the PKR leader at a unit of the Desa Damansara Condominium at 2.45pm on June
26, 2008, when the latter asked him in English: “Can I f*** you today?”
Those
present in the packed courtroom were stunned with the profanity used although
there was some sniggering.
Mohd
Saiful, 24, who said he was “angry and scared” when he heard Anwar’s question,
added: “I rejected his request. I told him that I did not want to do it.”
Anwar
then asked him in an angry tone: “What?”
“I
repeated my words. I was not willing to do it. He was angry. At that time, I
was afraid,” he said on the first day of the high-profile trial.
After he
said no to Anwar, he was told to go into the master bedroom.
“I went
to the room first. Shortly later, Anwar entered and closed the curtains,” said
Mohd Saiful, who was questioned by Solicitor-General (II) Datuk Mohd Yusof
Zainal Abiden,
He said
he stood still while Anwar went about switching off the lights. However, there
was still light from the bathroom and from outside filtering in between the
curtains.
Anwar,
Mohd Saiful said, asked him to “clean up” in the bathroom.
“I
removed my clothes and washed up. I took a towel from the washroom and donned
it,” he said.
When he
returned to the room, Anwar was standing at the edge of the bed, clad in a
towel.
“He
directed me to go to him and then hugged me while we were standing,” he said.
At this
point, lead counsel Karpal Singh asked the court to allow the proceedings to be
held in camera (closed proceedings).
High
Court judge Justice Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah, who then adjourned the trial,
ordered the proceedings at 9.30am today to be held in camera.
All
through this testimony, Anwar’s wife Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail kept
looking at her daughters – Nurul Hana and Nurul Nuha – in court and rubbed
their shoulders.
Anwar was
busy taking down notes.
How did the press get a picture of Saiful
pointing at bed?
Quote: The judge
had said last Friday that he did not find any indication of contempt of court
in a photograph showing Anwar’s accuser Mohd Saiful
Bukhari Azlan pointing to a bed that was published in a Malay daily
because evidence in relation to a bed in the Desa Damansara condominium had been given in open court (when it was not).
WITHOUT ASCERTAINING AS TRUE WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SAY, YOU ARE INVITING
JUDGMENT THAT IS FAR MORE PAINFUL THAN YOU DREAM POSSIBLE TO UTTER IT. WITHOUT
ASCERTAINING AS TRUE THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS GIVEN IN OPEN COURT NO ONE HAS A
RIGHT TO SAY IT. JESUS SAID YOU WILL BE JUDGED FOR EVERY CARELESS WORD YOU SAY.
YOU CAN BLAME FAULTY MEMORY (YOU THOUGHT IT WAS GIVEN OPENLY) BUT YOUR FAULTY
MEMORY CAN ONE DAY KILL YOU OR SEND YOU TO AN ETERNITY OF WEEPING AND GNASHING
OF TEETH.
HOW DID THE DAILY GET A PICTURE OF SAIFUL POINTING AT THE BED WHEN IT
WAS NOT GIVEN IN OPEN COURT?
What kind of DPP is this?
Quote:
DPP Mohd Yusof said the concerned party should prove that a judge had a
pecuniary interest in order to disqualify him from further hearing the trial.
The DPP is demonstrating bizarre logic. The defence does not have to
prove a judge has been bribed to disqualify him but if his handling of the case
is manifestly faulty or biased or inept, he should disqualify himself. Clearly
the judge was in dereliction in saying that the photo was open court document
and the press meant no malice is printing it.
The judge is presumptuous to say the press meant no malice in printing
the articles. How does he know?
Karpal Singh’s argument is much more succinct:
The defence maintains that the visit to the bedroom and condominium was part
of proceedings held behind closed doors.
“There is nothing in the notes of proceedings or audio before this court to
show that this detail was ever mentioned in open court.
“With much respect, your lordship did not tell the truth. We translate, you
are lying. You lied and it can and has been proven that you are not being
honest in court. You can’t be impartial and you can’t be unbiased.
“On those grounds, you have no alternative but to step down. It is not a
mere perception but a reality. You stand condemned by your own ruling,” Karpal
submitted in the recusal application before a packed courtroom Wednesday.
Karpal said: “In this application, what is fundamental, I say without mincing
my words, you are guilty of not having stated of what is the truth.”
“It is not the truth and it is a lie,” he said firmly, shocking the
courtroom.
He said his role was to defend his client to the best of his ability, adding
that justice must “manifestly, expressedly and undoubtedly” be seen to be done.
“It is no point blaming the foreign press for (writing about) our legal
system if a judge does not deliver what is expected of him in a trial. The
judiciary of this country must redeem itself in the eyes of international
(observers),” he said.
He said there was no blanket immunity for judges.
“You have forfeited the right to sit down on that chair and proceed to hear
the trial,” he said, stunning everyone in court.
On the trial judge dismissing his application summarily and ruling that the two articles with allegedly misleading
headlines published by Utusan did not have the intention of being
mischievous or to disrupt proceedings, Karpal said the judge could
not come to such a conclusion on behalf of the newspaper.
Citing the Judges Code of Conduct 2009, enforced on July 1 last year, Karpal
said the judge could also be subjected to disciplinary proceedings if he was
found to have contravened the ethical requirement to perform his judicial duty
without bias.
Wrong for DPP to defend judge:
It was improper and wrong, prejudicing the trial for the DPP to
intervene to defend the judge against a request by the defence to dismiss the
judge.
The matter has nothing to do with the prosecution, it is solely a matter
between the judge and the defence and by intervening in defence of the judge
the DPP is being unrighteous and may influence the judge to rule favourably
towards him in the trial.
If the prosecution’s case is genuine, it does not matter which judge is
presiding (it may be even be advantageous if the judge is competent and fair)
and so it does not matter if the judge is changed so long as he is competent.
So why is the defence anxious to keep this judge who has objectively
demonstrated his incompetence dealing with the issue of the press infringing on
court proceedings? Is it because he is aligned to the prosecution and another
judge may not be so? Thus by intervening, the DPP is exposing that he has
vested interests.
IT IS OBJECTIVE NOT SUBJECTIVE THAT THE DPP IN SPEAKING OUT TO DEFEND
THE JUDGE IS GOING BEYOND THE BOUNDS OF HIS RIGHTS AND PREJUDICING THE CASE AND
IT REFLECTS THE ABSENCE OF UNDERSTANDING OF PEOPLE EVEN THOSE IN THE PROFESSION
THAT THEY SEE NOTHING WRONG IN THE DPP SPEAKING FOR THE JUDGE. LET THE JUDGE
DEFEND HIMSELF, YOU ARE A FOOL TO DEFEND HIM ON HIS BEHALF BECAUSE THERE IS
DEADLY KARMA FOR YOU.
Even though the DPP is an involved party in the trial, the matter does
not involve him and it reflects his false perception and misguided muddled
thinking that it involves him and he should weigh in to support the judge not
realizing that it exposes his alignment with the judge.
