Once again justice is shamelessly sacrificed on the altar of political expediency by judicial shenanigans of the highest court in Bolehland. It is a sad day indeed to see how five “blind” men of supposed legal stature strove so hard not to see and sense what was staring at them in the Federal and Perak constitutions.

The judiciary – the very portal of justice continues to be reduced to a convenient playground for the ruling elite to legitimize their power grab, persecute their opponents and promote their political agenda, through the perversion of the rule of law by certain court jesters.

The Federal and Perak Constitutions are dead, done in by those who decided to disregard, desecrate and discard constitutional provisions to treat the doctrine of separation of powers with deference. They are rigorously and rightly interpreted only when it best suits Umno.

In stark comparison to the courageous, cogent and convincing judgment of High Court judge Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim, the cowed five-member bench caved in and conveniently decided to take the cue from the powers that be.

It comes as no surprise that their “collective written judgement is apparently riddled with contradictions”.The five judges surely qualify for retired Justice N H Chan’s classic category of “recalcitrant” and “Humpty Dumpty” judges in the Perak conundrum.

Today the reputation of the judiciary or whatever was left of it, has been sullied irreparably. In the eyes of the public the judiciary has sunk so low as to allow itself to be intimidated, its independence and impartiality interfered with, and its integrity reduced to ignominy.

The judiciary has made a decision ignoring the overwhelming implications. As toppled Perak MB Nizar Jamaluddin said: “If this decision goes on and becomes the law of the day, it will lead to an absolute monarchy (which) means the ruler can now dismiss the prime minister or the mentri besar at any time.”

The winds of change promised by the PM have turned into a stench of contemptuous compromise emanating from the corridors of the Palace of Justice. The rhetoric of the Chief Justice on a judicial renaissance and the Attorney-General on a “war against injustice” stink to high heaven.

In the halls of the Palace of Justice hangs a heavy suffocating air of hypocrisy whilst supposed men of honour with hollow character hang on to their high and lofty positions and holler, hype and harp on upholding and interpreting the constitution to the hilt as they hand out whimsical and warped judgments!

The Federal Court decision was merely the next logical step after the historic haste with which the judiciary helped Zambry back to the helm. Less than a day after the KL High Court had ruled in Nizar’s favour, and three hours after Zambry had filed for a stay of execution, a one-man Court of Appeal readily heard the latter and granted him a stay two hours later! Zambry won his appeal 11 days later!

The Federal Court ruling is the climax of the shocking and scandalous manner the judiciary has handled the Perak crisis. It has left behind a dead constitution, “bad” and “perverse” decisions, dubious declaratory orders, judgments devoid of reasoned grounds, and disgraceful double standards.
The judiciary was bursting with bias which even the blind could see!

The added fact that the “Perak cases” were made the exclusive domain of a few judges in the High Courts and especially the Appellate Courts strongly suggests a hidden hand of one who obediently followed the instructions of the same Umno elite who hijacked the Perak state government by high-handed, hideous and heinous means.

What is next fellow Perakians? Yes it was a very unfair judgment but then again life is unfair! Shall we move on and win the war in spite of having lost the battle today? Let us leave the judiciary and the those who make a mockery of our justice system to swim and drown in their own judicial vomit.

Surely the past one year had drawn the rakyat of Perak closer together and made us more daring and determined to dream and drive ourselves towards a Government we really want in Perak. Personally, I have never been to so many PAS ceremahs before in my whole life!

Indeed the Perak Constitutional crisis had forged and fostered formidable comradeship amongst the leaders and members of the parties of Pakatan Rakyat (PR) in Perak. Who can forget the kind of support the PR Aduns gave to one another as they tried to enter the State Assembly or the historic raintree State Assembly? The crisis also revealed the real friends and foes of PR.

The struggle made us Perakians realize that there were heroes amongst us – an MB with an indomitable spirit, a Speaker whose courage became an inspiration to many, a retired judge intensely committed to the law, intrepid principled politicians in the coalition and unknown individuals willing to risk involvement – surely in continued synergy we will be able to serve up a surging and unstoppable wave of change…in the next General Elections!

Martin Jalleh
9th Feb. 2010

When Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad popped off last week, to the effect that February 11 would bring “the demise of the liberal capitalist system,” I chuckled that February 11 would obviously be the safest day in the history of the liberal capitalist system; but I did wonder what possible motive the Iranian leadership could have for letting their loose-cannon figurehead make such empty threats.

Well, it now appears we have an answer. When the country’s actual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, echoes this threat, declaring that Iran will “punch the arrogance” of the West on February 11, it becomes much more likely that the Iranian regime is plotting to do something spectacularly foolish. I think they are underestimating the U.S. and our president — interpreting his (and our country’s) desire for peace as weakness. The most spectacular miscalculation of this kind in recent memory was the 9/11 attack: Some of our country’s enemies figured that with a relatively inexperienced (in foreign policy) and politically weak (barely eight months after the Florida recount) new president, they could engage in a massive slaughter of U.S. citizens with impunity.

They paid the price for that miscalculation. It’s not too late for Iran to turn back from such a disastrous course: Even evil regimes — regimes that systematically violate the rights of their own people — have the use of intellect. Mike Potemra in The National Review

BBC's head of religion, Aaqil Ahmed

"Church of England is 'living in the past', says BBC's head of religion," by Jonathan Wynne-Jones in the Telegraph, February 6, 2010

The BBC's head of religion has accused the Church of England of "living in the past" and said that the corporation should not give Christianity preferential treatment. Aaqil Ahmed, a controversial executive whose appointment last year prompted more than 100 complaints, said: "I think all the faiths should be treated in the same way. I don't believe in treating any faith differently."

He dismissed claims that the BBC was marginalising religion as overly simplistic and argued that Christianity, in particular, was already covered well on television....There has been growing concern at top levels of the Church over the corporation's approach to religion, with warnings that it must not ignore its Christian audience....Bishops, clergy and lay members of the General Synod will vote this week on a motion calling on the state broadcaster to explain why its television coverage of Christianity has declined so steeply in recent years.

Output has fallen from 177 hours of religious programming on BBC television in 1987/88 to 155 hours in 2007/08 - a period during which the overall volume of programming has doubled. However, in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Ahmed, an award-winning programme-maker, said that the Church's criticisms were too simplistic. "I don't believe that we should be basing the debate on 20-year-old figures, the conversation is far more complicated than that," he said.

"It's very easy to live in the past, but we live in the present. In a few years' time the way we're going to view television will change radically, so the conversation will become even more redundant. "We'll listen to what they say, but we're clear that we know what we're doing and we'll stick to that."... Mr Ahmed - the first Muslim to hold his post - revealed that BBC One will air two explicitly Christian documentaries during Holy Week....

Mr Ahmed's comment that Christianity should not receive preferential treatment comes despite nearly three-quarters of the population describing themselves as Christian in the last census.... The Telegraph

Is there any legitimate reason he’s in court? What are the implications of such a trial being held, nevermind its outcome?

BAT YE’OR - Geert Wilders is a hero for those countless Europeans who cherish a free and democratic Europe — a Europe proud of its Judeo-Christian and humanistic values, its civilization, and its achievements in the field of human rights. But this is not today’s Europe. In today’s Europe, synagogues, Jewish schools, clubs, and cemeteries need to be guarded — as if going to a Jewish school or praying in a synagogue were a crime punishable by death as in Nazi-occupied Europe. Intellectuals, scholars, and those who protest the creeping Eurabization of culture and society are threatened, boycotted by their colleagues, thrown out of their jobs, forced to leave their families and go into hiding, or obliged to live with bodyguards. Wilders has devoted his life to freeing Europe from Eurabia’s clutches. To this titanic struggle he has sacrificed the security of his life and the joys of family. Threatened by a desert whirlwind blowing hatred upon Europe from the south, spending days and nights shielded by bodyguards, persecuted and tormented by his feckless Eurabian opponents, Geert Wilders incarnates the free soul of an unbending Europe.— Bat Ye’or is author, most recently, of Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis.

PAUL MARSHALL - The American media’s silence about the Geert Wilders trial is puzzling — the trial is explosive, much more so than most of America’s perennial “trials of the century.” Wilders, leader of the Freedom party, is arguably the Netherlands’s most popular politician, but for years he has had to live in safe houses, including on military bases. He now faces the possibility of imprisonment on charges of “group insult” and “incitement to hatred,” as defined by articles 137 (c) and (d) of the Dutch penal code, for his public speeches and op-eds criticizing Islam. Apart from its direct and immediate threat to free speech, the trial exposes the growth of political violence and repression in the Netherlands, long lauded as the most tolerant country in Europe, if not the world. Thirty years ago, I interviewed then–prime minister Dries van Agt simply by strolling into his unguarded parliamentary office and asking his secretary if he could spare me a couple of minutes.

Now it is a country where politicians and artists are targeted by vigilantes and the state. In 2002, popular Dutch politician and gay activist Pim Fortuyn was murdered by an environmentalist who took offense at Fortuyn’s criticism of Islam. In 2004, one of the country’s leading documentarians, Theo Van Gogh, was murdered, and almost beheaded, on the streets of Amsterdam in retaliation for a film he made about Islam (Submission). In 2006, a gathering of scholars and commentators critical of Islam and Islamism led the Dutch security service to invoke an alert level just short of “national emergency.” In 2008, the prospective release of Wilders’s film Fitna led to special sessions of the Dutch cabinet. The country’s best-known member of parliament, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for many years had to live in hiding, and even briefly fled the country. This is the situation in the heart of liberal Europe. Continued here 2 3 4

Remember our Great Leader's call that Jews 'had to be periodically massacred' Well he is an ardent fan of the Palis. Yeap, give them a state.

"PATV sermon: 'Jews are enemies of Allah and humanity - Kill them," by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik for Palestinian Media Watch, February 1:



U Tube has removed the above clip from it's library, as it was flagged.

The following is the transcript of excerpts of the hate speech in a mosque broadcast on PA TV:

"The loathsome occupation in Palestine - its land and its holy places - by these new Mongols and what they are perpetrating upon this holy, blessed and pure land - killing, assassination, destruction, confiscation, Judaization, harassment and splitting the homeland - are clear proof of [unintelligible word - Ed.] hostility, of incomparable racism, and of Nazism of the 20th century. The Jews, the enemies of Allah and of His Messenger, the enemies of Allah and of His Messenger! Enemies of humanity in general, and of Palestinians in particular - they wage war against us using all kinds of crimes, and as you see - even the mosques are not spared their racism...

"Oh Muslims! The Jews are the Jews. The Jews are the Jews. Even if donkeys would cease to bray, dogs cease to bark, wolves cease to howl and snakes to bite, the Jews would not cease to harbor hatred towards Muslims. The Prophet said that if two Jews would be alone with a Muslim, they would think only of killing him. Oh Muslims! This land will be liberated, these holy places and these mosques will be liberated, only by means of a return to the Quran and when all Muslims will be willing to be Jihad Fighters for the sake of Allah and for the sake of supporting Palestine, the Palestinian people, the Palestinian land, and the holy places in Palestine. The Prophet says: 'You shall fight the Jews and kill them, until the tree and the stone will speak and say: 'Oh Muslim, Oh servant of Allah' - the tree and the stone will not say, 'Oh Arab,' they will say, 'Oh Muslim'. And they will not say, 'Where are the millions?' and will not say, 'Where is the Arab nation?' Rather, they will say, 'Oh Muslim, Oh servant of Allah - there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.' Except for the Gharqad tree [tree mentioned in the Quran - Ed.], which is the tree of the Jews. Thus, this land will be liberated only by means of Jihad..."

The next time that Abbas claims that the PA is adhering to the Road Map, ask him about that part that mentions "incitement." Elder Of Ziyon

The articulate Pat Condell on Gert Wilders's shameful persecution in Holland. You have heard of 'Dutch courage' after plastering yourself with alcoholic beverages, here is a new one, "Dutch Justice" The Dutch have lost their spine!! Free speech in the West is under siege.

Lahore, Muslim lawyers will "burn alive" anyone who defends murdered 12 year old Christian by Fareed Khan, 02/06/2010 12:38

Image : Rabid Paki Lawyers

No lawyer comes forward to defend Shazia Bashir, the servant girl murdered by her employer. The powerful association of lawyers in Lahore, arrayed in defence of the murderer, launches death threats and prevents access to the Court. Christian Association condemns this new form of terrorism.

Islamabad (AsiaNews) - Because of the threats posed by the powerful Lahore Bar Association – an umbrella organization of city lawyers - no Christian or Muslim lawyer is ready to take on the defence in the murder of 12 year-old Shazia Bashir, it was reported yesterday by The Pakistani Christian association that deals with legal assistance.

The girl, of Christian faith, died on Jan. 23 as a result of violence - even sexual – at the hands of her employer, a wealthy and powerful Muslim lawyer in Lahore. The alleged murderess, Chaudhry Mohammad Naeem, is a former president of the Lahore High Court Bar Association. The girl, just 12 years old, had worked as a maid in the home of Naeem in the last six months.

The Center for Legal Aid Assistance and Settlement (CLAAS) denounces that access to the courtroom where the court hearings were held against the accused was denied, because a group of Muslim lawyers (pictured) 'prevented' entry. The association is fighting - for free - for the rights of the poorest and marginalized groups has been threatened by thousands of lawyers - friends of the murderer - that promise to burn alive anyone who wants to represent the victim in court. "

M. Joseph Francis, director of Claas, asked members of civil society, political and religious leaders to rise up and take steps to "condemn this new form of terrorism" by lawyers who "should ensure justice." The Pakistani newspaper The News reported that on Feb. 4, the police conducted the accused to the courts amid "tight security. And, as usual, officials prevented journalists and relatives of victims to come into the hall for "security reasons".

Shazia Bashir's family could not access the court not once but three times, a strange fact, regarding the judiciary in Pakistan. Police officials explain that it would "not be possible" to prevent clashes and violence, where "Shazia's relatives and representatives of minorities to enter the courtroom."

Meanwhile Ashgar Ali, heading the investigation, requested the accused appear before the courts and an extension of the terms of custody for six days. The magistrate added that the murder weapon has not yet been recovered and the accused could provide the names of accomplices, who participated in the torture and murder of the 12 year old Christian girl. The court, however, has only partly accepted the request, ruling only four days in jail. Asia News

The trial of the Dutch politician Geert Wilders recommenced yesterday with a ruling on which expert witnesses the defence would be permitted to call.

When the trial opened a fortnight ago, Wilders asked for a rather sparky list of 18 expert witnesses. They included some noted experts on Islam and social cohesion. And also a few, ahem, practitioners of the same. They were to include Mohammed Bouyeri, who shot, stabbed and partly beheaded the film-maker Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam in 2004. And also Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the jihadist cleric who was given the red-carpet treatment in London by former mayor Ken Livingstone a few years back.

Sadly the Dutch court haven’t allowed these witnesses or most of the others, leaving the defence with only three witnesses. They are expert Simon Admiraal and leading Dutch scholar Hans Jansen (author of numerous scholarly books and the hilariously titled recent Islam for Pigs, Donkeys, Monkeys and Other Beasts). Most interestingly the court has allowed Wilders to call as an expert witness the brave and eloquent Wafa Sultan.

Sultan made her name – and garnered her first fatwas – for a blinding hit-the-ball-out-of-the-stadium interview on Al Jazeera a few years ago viewable here. It caused terrible convulsions across the Muslim world, and also apparently in Sheikh al-Qaradawi who described her home-truths session as consisting of “unbearable, ghastly things that made my hair stand on end.”

I much look forward to seeing Wafa Sultan take the stand. Though I slightly pity the prosecution for having to attempt to cross-examine her.

But I can’t help feeling disappointed that Qaradawi won’t be appearing. Although he believes talking about the contents of the Koran is “unbearable, ghastly and makes his hair stand on end”, I have always thought it interesting that he doesn’t find at all hair-raising – in fact he has even been quoted on his own website as defending – certain forms of female circumcision.

I was so looking forward to Wilders’ lawyers questioning Qaradawi about some of this. Whilst they were at it I had hoped they might question him about my favourite teaching of his. For Qaradawi has long been one of the world’s foremost prononents of the healing properties of camel’s urine.

What is interesting about this, and what I wish the court could have questioned him on, is why – since Qaradawi believes there is almost nothing that camel urine cannot do – when he himself had medical problems a couple of years back he abjured a steaming mug of the stuff and attempted to get into London to get treatment of a more modern kind.

Alas, now we might never know how he rationalises this. The Dutch courts have deprived us of this and many other answers by disallowing this one-off appearance in Holland by one of the world’s most dangerous elderly comedians. Douglas Murray in The Telegraph

What do you know... Facebook is un-Islamic.

Cairo, 4 Feb. (AKI) - A top Egyptian cleric has issued a fatwa forbidding use of the popular social networking site Facebook. Muslims using such sites must be considered "sinners" said the religious edict's author, sheikh Abdel Hamid al-Atras.

Statistics show divorce rates have risen since the advent of Facebook and it has sharply increased marital infidelity, he claimed."It's an instrument that destroys the family because it encourages spouses to have relations with other people which break Islamic sharia law, said al-Atrash, quoted by pan-Arab daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat.

He is the former head of the fatwa commission at Cairo's Al-Azhar University, one of the highest authorities in Sunni Islam.

"While one or other of the spouses is at work, the other is chatting online with someone else, wasting their time and flouting the Sharia. More... Hat tip: Eye On The World

By Stephen Kurczy for the Christian Science Monitor, February 3, 2010

The predictable outcry has already begun against this, but why is it that everyone, no matter what is point of view, values, or culture, has a natural right to enter France and thereby incurs no obligation to become French, but anyone who wishes to live in Saudi Arabia must conform to Saudi values, and that is never questioned?

President Nicolas Sarkozy's administration today took another shot at the burqa, scoring populist points ahead of France's March elections, say analysts.
France's immigration minister said he is refusing citizenship to a Muslim man who called his wife "an inferior being," and forced her to wear a full veil in public, an announcement that plays well with French public support for a burqa ban.

"He has no place in our country," Prime Minister Francois Fillon told Europe 1 radio, in a decision that comes a week after a French parliamentary commission recommended a partial ban on any veils that cover the face. The ban still needs to be voted on, but it would apply in hospitals and on public transport. France already has bans for wearing headscarves in state schools.

Fillon said the Moroccan man, who had married a French woman, failed to respect the "values of the [French] republic."

"This case is about a religious radical: he imposes the burqa, he imposes the separation of men and women in his own home, and he refuses to shake the hands of women," Fillon said....Source....

Wilders is being accused of discrimination and incitement to hatred over his claims linking the Koran to violence. So he wants Van Gogh's killer, who claims that he acted purely in the name of Islam and according to Koran, to testify at his trial.

Why is Geert Wilders experiencing this? One of the reasons is due the fact that he produced the short movie called "Fitna". Now some people liked Fitna and some people didn’t. That’s a matter of choice. Parts of Fitna – which is a compilation of documentary footage – are very disturbing. And very offensive indeed. The clips of Muslim clerics calling for the murder of infidels. Very offensive. The clips of Muslims holding banners saying ‘God bless Hitler’. Very offensive. The clip of a three-year-old Muslim girl indoctrinated and brain-washed to describe Jews as ‘Apes and Pigs’. Very offensive. The passage of the Koran, Surah 47, verse 4: ‘Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them.’ Very offensive.

Wilders didn’t say them. He is being tried for pointing out the fact that some – in some cases many – Muslims do. If there are to be prosecutions they should be of the clerics and leaders who advocate this nightmarish version of Islam. But not of Wilders. More here..

(CNSNews.com) – As the trial of Dutch anti-Islamist lawmaker Geert Wilders resumes Wednesday, the crucial question will be whether the court agrees to his request to have a Muslim extremist and convicted murderer testify.

Wilders, who faces charges of discrimination and incitement to hatred over his claims linking the Koran to violence, wants the court to hear from an extremist who cited the Islamic text to justify his crime. Mohammed Bouyeri is serving a life sentence for murdering Dutch film director Theo van Gogh, who had stoked controversy with a documentary about the treatment of women under Islam.Van Gogh was stabbed and shot to death on a street in Amsterdam street in 2004. In a note left pinned to his body with a knife, Bouyeri threatened to kill another person reviled by extremist Muslims in Europe – Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somalia-born Dutch politician who worked with Van Gogh on his film.

The lengthy note, which also warned that America, Europe and the Netherlands would be destroyed, included numerous references to the Koran.Bouyeri, a Dutchman of Moroccan origin, had earlier penned another open letter posted on a Dutch Web site, again quoting from the Koran, threatening Wilders this time and declaring, “May Allah destroy you.”During his 2005 trial, Bouyeri carried a copy of the Koran, told the court he had acted purely in the name of his religion, and displayed no regret for the murder. More...

This post is dedicated to Malaysia's own rabid anti semitic turd. Video clip is 1 hour and 27 minutes long.



Nineteen first-person accounts of witnesses, including Jews, non-Jews, American POWs, GIs who first entered the camps, a member of the Hitler youth, a Jesuit priest, resistance fighters, and child survivors are woven into a single narrative of World War II and the Holocaust. They tell stories of life under the Nazis, the ghettos, concentration and death camps, liberation, and the challenges they faced after the Holocaust. Includes some documentary footage with graphic violence and detailed descriptions of violence. Very rivetting, watch it to the end.

In his dealings abroad, remember “hope and change,” the “reset button,” and all the grandiose promises of a year ago? Barack Obama assured our critics that he would have the dreadful Bush Guantanamo Bay detention center closed by now. But then the reality that most of the detainees were cold-blooded killers who would revert to terrorism upon release — and many were Yemenis eager to join up with al-Qaeda at home — made those repeated boasts inoperative. I will be surprised if Obama ever closes Guantanamo.

The architect of 9/11 and self-confessed beheader, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was supposed to be accorded a big public civilian trial a couple of thousand yards away from the scene of his mass-murdering. There, his attorneys could plead that the Bush-Cheney nexus had waterboarded him, as he voiced to the world all his grievances against a purported neo-imperialist, colonialist, and racist Bush America — hoping that at least one sympathetic juror might fall for his “America made me do it” defense.

That too seems now to be history. Sometime around Christmas, Obama discovered that al-Qaeda both still wishes to kill us and does not appreciate that we give Miranda rights to our would-be killers. I would be surprised if KSM is ever tried in a civilian court in the United States. Barack Hussein Obama, who would distance himself from America’s past sins, dating all the way back to the coup against Mossadegh in 1953. Ahmadinejad would faint in ecstasy like the 2008 campaign crowds, as he gave up his nuclear-weapon plans and fell in love with the new postnational America. And now? Iran does the same old, same old — “Israel must be destroyed,” and no one dare tell us to stop our nuclear program. The latest theocratic communiqué promised the “end of American civilization” — as we rush anti-missile batteries to the Gulf. I would not be surprised to see Iran set off a bomb this year or next. In full by Hanson in the National Review...

Professor of Contempt - The legacy of Howard Zinn. With Howard Zinn, contemporary American academia found its court historian. Zinn, who died January 27 at 87, was like a gigantic echo chamber, accurately reproducing — and actively reinforcing — every left-wing cliché with which the academy has abetted its sense of election these past several decades. “You see how smart he is,” saith the tribe, “he thinks exactly as we do.” Zinn’s biography tells us that he was the author of “more than 20 books.” But only one matters: A People’s History of the United States. Published in 1980 with appropriately modest expectations — it had, I read somewhere, an initial print run of only 5,000 copies — the book went on to sell some 2 million and is still going strong. Its Amazon sales rank as of February 1, 2010, was 7. Seven. That’s a number most authors would climb over broken bottles to achieve 30 days after their books were published. Here it is 30 years on.

How to explain such phenomenal success? The publisher had doubtless assayed the book’s intellectual merits and proceeded accordingly. Left out of account was the presumption of its political message. The extremity and consistency of that message — that America is and always has been an evil, exploitative country — guaranteed its success among the tenured radicals to whom we have entrusted the education of our children. More to the point, this history “from the perspective of the slaughtered and mutilated” nudged out all other contenders for the prize of becoming the preferred catechism in American — that is to say, anti-American — history. A People’s History is the textbook of choice in high schools and colleges across the country. No other account of our past comes even close in influence or ubiquity. No other, more responsible, telling of the American story had a chance. How could it? Given a choice between a book that portrayed America honestly — as an extraordinary success story — and a book that portrayed the history of America as a litany of depredations and failures, which do you suppose your average graduate of a teachers college, your average member of the National Education Association, would choose? To ask the question is to answer it. What this means is that most American students are battened on a story of their country in which Blame America First is a cardinal principle. No element of our heritage, from the derring-do of Christopher Columbus to the valor of the U.S. military in World War II, escapes the perverting alchemy of Howard Zinn’s exercise in deflationary revision.

To his credit — well, it’s not really to his credit, since he offers the admission only to disarm criticism, but Zinn is entirely candid about the ideological nature of his opus. All history, he says, involves a choice of perspectives. Maybe so. Are we therefore to assume all perspectives are equally valuable? Zinn employs this relativist’s sleight of hand in order to promulgate his preferred species of intolerance, which appeals to latitudinarian sensitivities only because it is an intolerance fabricated in opposition to the established order. If “all history is ideological” (it isn’t really), then why not make your choice based on what appeals to your political sympathies, truth be damned? That’s the takeaway of Zinn’s admission, and it’s all he offers to explain his decision, which he details at the beginning of his book, to tell the story of

the discovery of America from the viewpoint of the Arawaks, of the Constitution from the standpoint of the slaves, of Andrew Jackson as seen by the Cherokees, of the Civil War as seen by the New York Irish, of the Mexican war as seen by the deserting soldiers of Scott’s army, of the rise of industrialism as seen by the young women in the Lowell textile mills, of the Spanish–American war as seen by the Cubans, the conquest of the Philippines as seen by the black soldiers on Luzon, the Gilded Age as seen by southern farmers, the First World War as seen by socialists, the Second World War as seen by pacifists, the New Deal as seen by blacks in Harlem, the postwar American empire as seen by peons in Latin America.

In other words, what Zinn offers us is not a corrective, but a distortion. It is as if someone said to you, “Would you like to see Versailles?” and then took you on a tour of a broken shed on the outskirts of the palace grounds. “You see, pretty shabby, isn’t it?” Continue here to page 2 of the article by Roger Kimball in the National Review...

This is going to be the second attempt to charge Sudan's president with genocide.

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) - The International Criminal Court will again consider charging Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir with genocide in Darfur, after an appeals panel ruled that judges made an "error in law" when they refused to indict him on that charge last year.

"He should get a lawyer," court prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo said after ruling Wednesday.

He accused al-Bashir of keeping 2.5 million refugees from specific ethnic groups in Darfur in camps "under genocide conditions, like a gigantic Auschwitz."

Hat tip : More... Eye On The World

"This is a verdict coming from Israel and not from America," said this vicious Muslim antisemite after she heard the verdict by C.J. Hughes for the New York Times, February 3 2010:

A Pakistani neuroscientist was convicted on Wednesday of attempted murder for trying to kill American soldiers and F.B.I. agents in Afghanistan. Federal prosecutors said the neuroscientist, Aafia Siddiqui, 37, grabbed an M4 rifle in a police station in the city of Ghazni, Afghanistan, on July 18, 2008, and fired on American officers and federal agents.

After slightly more than two days of deliberations, a jury in Federal District Court in Manhattan found her guilty.

As the jurors began leaving the courtroom, Ms. Siddiqui, who studied at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Brandeis University, turned in her chair to face them.

"This is a verdict coming from Israel and not from America," she said, holding her right index finger in the air. "That's where the anger belongs. I can testify to this, and I have proof."... Source...

Full transcript here. Eurabia is not Europe, it is its enemy. It does not represent the majority of Europeans nor all its politicians. When I speak of Eurabia I refer to an ideology, a strategy, a policy and a culture whose nerve-centre and way of working are exemplified by the Anna Lindh Foundation in Alexandria, linked to the Swedish Consulate. At the origin of this vision in the 1960s, one can identify Charles de Gaulle and Haj Amin al-Husseini , former Mufti of Jerusalem, whom de Gaulle saved from the Nuremberg trial in 1946.



Implemented after the Kippur War, this view promoted an alliance between the European Community and the Arab world - operative at all levels of the European Community, regionally and internationally, and linked with the European Common Foreign and Security Policy. It aimed to create a strategic Euro-Arab pole hostile to Israel, supporting Arafat and the PLO, and opposed to America. Without much difficulty, France was able to carry along the rest of Europe into this programme from 1973, after the Arab oil embargo. In full.........

I refer to the Malaysiakini report Najib's aide to resign over 'racist' remarks.

It is quite obvious that the ranting of Nasir Safar is not an isolated act from one of the fanatical Umno members who have of late started crawling out of the woodwork.

Rather, it appears to be part of a well-drawn out plan to create havoc in the country, a plan to offend and insult the non-Malays and non-Muslims so much that they would finally retaliate only for Umno to then fully let loose the dogs of war, a plan that hitherto has miraculously not succeeded.

Nasir Safar is not your common run-of-the-mill government servant; he is an aide to the prime minister no less and thus it would be unthinkable for him to take a stand or make a statement so diametrically in contradiction to his boss.

He is part of that plot to keep on pushing the envelope so that something cracks, racial turmoil breaks out and with it, perhaps the Malays will once again rally behind Umno's unsheathed kris.

His act was not something done in the dark of night as was the case previously. This time the insults were brazenly poured openly on an audience of non-Malays.

What will they do next? Enter church during Sunday service and again desecrate all that is holy to Christians?

The existence of a 'Greater Plan' can be seen in the aftermath of what Nasir did - the prime minister's office went out of its way to defend him, saying that: 'Nasir never intended to make any derogatory remarks. He spoke at length on the contributions made by all races in developing the country'.

Really? Then why did he resign? Malaysiakini

By Martyn Brown for the Express, February 3 2010: A NOBEL prize-winning author has accused England of being a "cesspit" that nurtures Islamist terrorism, in a damning indictment of Labour's failed multicultural experiment. Wole Soyinka, the first African winner of the literature prize, claimed the Nigerian student who tried to blow up a jet over Detroit on Christmas Day, was radicalised during his time at University College London. The criticism comes amid a growing row between Nigeria, Britain and Yemen about where Umar Farouq Abdulmutallab turned to violent extremism.

Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, said last week that "ideology knows no boundaries" and the blame for Abdulmutallab's extremism could not be "pinned on any one place".

But Mr Soyinka, 76, who was born in Nigeria and studied at Leeds University in the 1950s, said: "England is a cesspit. England is the breeding ground of fundamentalist Muslims.

"Its social logic is to allow all religions to preach openly. But this is illogic, because none of the other religions preach apocalyptic violence. And yet England allows it."... In full....

By Lydia Statz in the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Daily Cardinal, February 3 2010:

Hirsi Ali said she uses her personal experiences as a former Muslim to form her views on the treatment of Muslim women. Originally from Somalia, she fled to the Netherlands to escape an arranged marriage, and began to question much of what she had been taught.

"I had wholeheartedly embraced Islam," Hirsi Ali says of her teenage years. "And yet, there was this deep part of me that rebelled, and I had questions about things that I had no right to ask questions about."

She said those questions included the topics of modest dress for women and the view of women as the property of their husbands. She cited cases in the Arab world and in the U.S. where violence against women was justified through the Qur'an and Islamic teachings in illustrating her argument.

In countries under Islamic rule, Ali said, "It is law to disclude [sic] women from rights and freedoms enjoyed by men. Marriage and divorce, testimony in court, dress, inheritance. In these issues, Islam scripture is implicit that women are inferior to men." Read it all here...