Friday, 30 October 2009

Anwar The Great? Great What?

While still on the subject of Saudara Anwar Anak Ibrahim, the following is a long-winded rant by RPK which I find difficult to disagree with. It is funny RPK should use the Alexander The Great comparison. Alexander was also reputed to appreciate beauty in both men and women:

Wednesday, 28 October 2009 17:24

Anwar Ibrahim and many of the opposition leaders have this false feeling of grandeur about themselves. But they are not grand, and certainly far from great. They did not make 8 March 2008 happen. The people made it happen. And what the people make the people can break.

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Great people do great things. Great people also do the opposite after they have done great things. So, if you have a tendency to do great things, and then do a U-turn later and dismantle all the great things you have done, do not feel too bad for you will be walking amongst the great.

Alexander the Great was one such great person. He set out to conquer the world. And then his ego conquered him. By the time he reached the border of India he had killed off all his close friends and most trusted generals. When they set out to conquer the world ten years before that it was as comrades. Then, friend became foe and the benevolent became malevolent. And, by his own hand, Alexander the Great killed the very people who loved him and who he once used to love as well.

Alexander the Great was of course not the only great man to walk the face of this earth. There were many great men through the ages. Some died unknown as not all great men are listed in the history books. There are probably more unknown soldiers and unsung heroes than those who are remembered. But I have used Alexander the Great as my analogy merely because he carries the title ‘great’ in his name.

Malaysia too has no shortage of great men. And I use the term ‘men’ not to mean gender but as they would say ‘mankind’ when it can also mean women. So we can assume I am also talking about women when I say ‘great men’. And some of the great men and women of Malaysia through the ages, some known and many unknown, have lived and died and only a few are left remaining.

I would place Anwar Ibrahim as amongst those great men. Now, Anwar Ibrahim is not the only great man, mind you. There are of course many. But today I want to talk about Anwar Ibrahim, not because he is the only great man Malaysia has given birth to, but because he best reminds me of the greatest of great men, Alexander the Great.

One must read the history of Alexander the Great to understand what I am driving at. No, Alexander the Great was not the perfect man. In fact, the reverse can be said about him. He had more faults than virtues. But his greatness has been measured by his ambition and how he set out to fulfil his ambition to conquer the world and become the one ruler of all mankind. In short, he set an impossible target for himself and almost achieved it. And he almost achieved it because just short of the finishing line he went into self-destruct mode.

And that is why I want to talk about Anwar Ibrahim, not because he is the reincarnation of Alexander the Great, but because he appears to have also gone into self-destruct mode after coming so close to the finishing line.

Anwar Ibrahim’s ambition is not as unachievable or that colossal a job as Alexander the Great’s. Alexander the Great wanted to become Lord of the World. Anwar Ibrahim just wants to become Lord of Malaysia, the next Prime Minister. And the 8 March 2008 general election is almost like Alexander the Great reaching the border of India. And just like how Alexander the Great went into self-destruct mode and went home a beaten man just short of his goal after killing off all his close friends and most trusted generals, Anwar Ibrahim appears to be doing the same.

So, in that sense, I am measuring Anwar Ibrahim against Alexander the Great not by the greatness in his ‘climb to the top’ but in how he appears to be plummeting back to the bottom after ALMOST achieving what he set out to do, just like Alexander the Great.

Let’s call a spade a spade. I do not wish to hold my punches. Anwar Ibrahim has only one thing in mind and that is to become the Prime Minister of Malaysia. Now, before you fly off the handle, I am not saying that this is such a bad thing. I have no problems with Anwar Ibrahim aspiring to become the next Prime Minister. Someone has to become the Prime Minister. So if it is not Anwar Ibrahim it will have to be someone else. So why not Anwar Ibrahim?

Okay, the Anwar Ibrahim critics are going to now scream that he is a chameleon and that he is a scheming politician and that he can’t be trusted and that he plays to the gallery and so on and so forth. Agreed! But so what? This is how politicians are. This is what they do. All politicians will be exactly like how you would classify Anwar Ibrahim. This is what politics is all about.

I suppose, if you want to break out of the mould and find someone who does not have all these ‘negative’ attributes, we would have to back Tok Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat as the next Prime Minister. And I am sure more of you will reject Nik Aziz Nik Mat compared to Anwar Ibrahim because you feel he is not up to par.

So, as I said, if not Anwar Ibrahim then who if you can’t accept Tok Guru Nik Aziz or Lim Kit Siang or Abdul Hadi Awang as the next Prime Minister?

Unfortunately, in politics, greatness is not measured by piety or virtue. It is measured by ambition and how you go about meeting the goals of your ambition. And that is why Alexander the Great is called Alexander the Great in spite of his less than moral character. And if Anwar Ibrahim wants to be seen as great it would be in how he aspires to become the Prime Minister and how he goes about to become the Prime Minister from the underdog position that he has been placed in on 2 September 1998.

But Anwar Ibrahim is doing exactly what Alexander the Great did. Alexander the Great went into self-destruct mode on reaching the finishing line without crossing the finishing line. I see Anwar Ibrahim now also going into self-destruct mode on reaching the finishing line without crossing the finishing line.

But there is some slight difference here. In Alexander the Great’s case it was his army. He owned the army. And Alexander the Great demolished his own army when he went into self-destruct mode. In Anwar Ibrahim’s case, though, this is not his army. This is our army, which we lent him. So he is demolishing our army, not his own army. Therefore, while Alexander the Great could get away with what he did, Anwar Ibrahim has to be told we will not allow him to get away with it.

2,400 years ago it was different. Times were different then and the situation was also different. Today is not 2,400 years ago. Today is today. And today the leader does not own us like how Alexander the Great owned the people around him -- so he could choose to kill them off whenever he felt like it, even his close friends and trusted generals who loved him.

The 8 March 2008 general election was not Anwar Ibrahim’s victory. It was not even a Pakatan Rakyat victory. It was a peoples’ victory. It was almost like the storming of the Bastille in France 220 years ago. The only thing is, on 8 March 2008, the people did not ‘storm the Bastille’ with bullets. They did so with ballots. That is the difference and because of that, and although 50% of the people voted for change, we did not quite achieve change because 50% of the votes did not give the people 50% of the seats in Parliament.

If you were to analyse the election results you will discover that all it needed was an additional 300,000 votes for Barisan Nasional to lose its majority in Parliament. Barisan Nasional won 140 seats while the opposition won only 82 seats, both on 50% of the votes each. But if you look at Barisan Nasional’s bottom 30 seats you will see that the combined majority is only 300,000 votes.

This means if the opposition had won an additional 300,000 votes then it would have won 112 seats in Parliament against Barisan Nasional’s 110. 300,000 more votes would have given the opposition a two-seat majority in Parliament. This was how close it was. And you could also say that the 300,00 votes comes to about the number of postal votes. Therefore, Barisan Nasional won 140 seats against the opposition’s 82 because of the postal votes.

Now you know why the Elections Commission will not abolish the postal voting system. Barisan Nasional depends on postal votes to stay in power -- such as how Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s 1,800 loss transformed into a 200 vote win due to the 2,000 postal votes in 1999 and the recent by-election where the postal votes gave Barisan Nasional its ‘resounding victory’.

But that is another matter and something we have discussed so many times in the past. The bottom line is: it was the people and not Anwar Ibrahim who led the opposition to victory, if we can even call it that, on 8 March 2008. So we are not talking about an Alexander the Great of 2,400 years ago situation here. We are talking about France of 220 years ago, the time when the people rose up and swept away the powers-that-be, the French Monarchy.

However, just like in France 220 years ago, the people rose up -- a people-driven movement for change of sorts -- but after that the politicians took over and hijacked the revolution. Thereafter the politicians engaged in power play and political intrigue with plots and schemes and counter-plots and counter-schemes in their bid to outdo each other and grab power for themselves. And for a while there was utter chaos and all hell broke loose. The people effected change. Then the politicians took over and turned on the very people who made it all possible.

And this is how I see the Pakatan Rakyat politicians, Anwar Ibrahim included but not confined only to him. The politicians think 8 March 2008 was their success. They think 8 March 2008 is about them and that it was their achievement.
And this is where they are wrong.

The people are on the verge of rising up, yet again. But this time it is not to storm the Bastille. It is to kick out the politicians who hijacked the revolution, like what happened in France 220 years ago. And, just like in France 220 years ago, the same politicians who sent the French Royal Family to the guillotine will in turn be sent to the guillotine by the people who are fed up with the antics of the politicians.

So Anwar Ibrahim and all those Pakatan Rakyat politicians who hijacked the 8 March 2008 ‘revolution’ better beware. The people chopped off the heads of the politicians back in France 220 years ago when the politicians hijacked the revolution that saw the end of the French Monarchy. And the people did this not just because these politicians hijacked the revolution but also because they changed direction and forgot the cause and turned on each other. And the people did not want to go through all the trouble of storming the Bastille just to remove one tyrant for another.

This appears to be happening in Pakatan Rakyat today like it happened in France 220 years ago. And PKR appears to be the weakest link in the three-party opposition coalition. No, the people have no problems with Anwar Ibrahim wanting to become the Prime Minister. As I said, someone has to become the Prime Minister. But it has to be on the peoples’ terms. Anwar Ibrahim is not Alexander the Great. Even Alexander the Great went home a defeated man and died soon after, resulting in a short-lived empire when the empire broke up and the successors turned on each other.

Anwar Ibrahim and many of the opposition leaders have this false feeling of grandeur about themselves. But they are not grand, and certainly far from great. They did not make 8 March 2008 happen. The people made it happen. And what the people make the people can break. And the people are of the opinion that the opposition leaders, Anwar Ibrahim included, have lost their direction.

In France, 220 years ago, the people sent the politicians to the guillotine when they lost their way. Unfortunately, we can’t do the same thing today. I wish we could though. But the people will certainly use the ballot where they can’t use the bullet. And with the current goings-on in the opposition, in particular in PKR, the people will do exactly what they did in France 220 years ago. They are going to axe the heads of the politicians who hijacked the revolution and forgot that it was the people and not the politicians who stormed the Bastille.

Monday, 26 October 2009

Saudara Anwar Anak Ibrahim

Can we blame a man who has spent six in Sungai Buluh and I forget how many years in Kamunting as a political prisoner, for not wanting to risk that nightmare again? No, we should not because none of us in our right minds will relish what Saudara Anwar Anak Ibrahim endured. His own frantic and embarrassing scramble for refuge in the Turkish embassy when the Saiful's buggering story first broke may indicate the fragility of his resolve and perhaps the extent of his guilt or innocence however one opines.

Yet, here is a man on whose shoulders rest the hopes of so many Malaysians (as evidenced by GE12 on 8th March 2008) who yearn for a better Malaysia; where as Malaysians we can work together as one people for the People (Ketuanan Rakyat). Can we really trust him to have overcome his personal fears and conquered his demons for us to continue to depend on him as THE icon? Or are we placing too much hopes on a mere mortal? We practically have only one roll of the dice around about 2013, and should we continue to bet on Anwar? Can we trust him not to sell us out; if he has not already done so?

The usual "who else do we have?" reason is beginning to wear thin and increasingly not able to hold water when we look more closely at the man's performance (or rather non-performance) since GE12. At best he has been indecisive and at worse he has seemed impotent. Granted he did bring PAS, DAP and PKR together but now he seems to put himself on a pedestal above the numerous highly public disagreements between the three. Is it because he said, "semua anak dia" that he is posturing as a doting father who spares the rod? Well, he has come out looking wishy washy more than anything else.

I have wondered whether behind the scenes Pakatan Rakyat is gearing up and consolidating to face further challenges to the foothold it gained in GE12 and for GE13, whether it is about to spring a counter-thrust of visionary proportions to what UMNO (forget BN) is doing to show it has begun its process of change for the better. PR has 4 States yet so far ordinary people in those states are yet to see pertinent change compared to the previous BN government. It appears those states had a change of government for the sake of change. The PR governments still suffer from opposition camp mentality and are still harping on past BN misdeeds instead of making waves with ground breaking changes. Lim Guan Eng is perhaps the only one walking the pre-GE12 talk to a certain extent.

Well I do not expect the mainstream media to report accurately on PR achievements but certainly if there was anything exciting we would see it in the alternative net media. Instead we see dissension and squabbles which was earlier attributed to testimony that democracy is thriving in PR. We could accept that earlier but a trend is developing and we look to Saudara Anwar Anak Ibrahim for leadership and answers. It appears Saudara Anwar is better at politicking and not as adept at governing. Yet, what he has allowed to brew over in Sabah about who should head Sabah PKR is not comforting. In hindsight, big bullfrogs from Sabah were supposed to be leaping over to PR on 16th September last year but if Anwar cannot even keep his own Sabah team in line what was he bull crapping about last year at Kelana Stadium?

The "new" Anwar was touted as a visionary but that image too is dimming! He is well adviced to remember the rakyat voted for PR in GE12 because they wanted change for the better and in subsequent by-elections they voted PR because they just did not want BN. Bagan Pinang is the wake up call because the rakyat is fed up that Saudara Anwar Anak Ibrahim does not appear to know how to be a good father.

For now, I will wait for the other anak Ibrahim, Zaid's Common Policy Framework (CPF) which PR will use to drive its long-promised agenda for change and reform. If Zaid can still views Anwar as a viable leader then I suppose we can give the latter a bit more time at least until the CPF. However, if the CPF turns out to be a limp dick because it is too lofty for the political class, then Saudara Anwar Anak Ibrahim may indeed be of more useful to the drive for reform by being in jail; accused of being an asshole bandit. A martyr is always a good rallying focus!

The likes of another anak Ibrahim i.e. Haris are also probably waiting to see if PR will collectively re-endorse Ketuanan Rakyat ideals through the CPF. Judging from his latest blogpost he is obviously already disillusioned.

Personally my ambivalent views on Saudara Anwar Anak Ibrahim remains ambivalent. See:

Sunday, 25 October 2009

Nothing Else Matters

Amazing video art is what I would call it. The art lies in the creation and can only be preserved for posterity in video.

One of the background songs is a classical version of Metalica's "Nothing Else Matters" by Apocalyptica. I suppose nothing else really matters with that kind of talent to be able to move an audience to tears with her art. I only wished I could understand the narration.

Tale Of Two EGMs

We must all be bored with this term EGM (Emergency General Meeting) by now. The MCA had theirs two weeks ago and before that the word had been bandied around as if it was the panacea for all MCA ills.

But when Najib brokered a so-called "peace pact" between OTK and CSL, that EGM is consigned to the annals of MCA history as what many now term the "MCA EGM Fiasco".

Since both sides lost in the EGM, OTK should have quit and CSL should have called it quits! However, they now decide to "kiss and make up" and it makes a mockery of the EGM. Two wrongs do not make one right. In any case, with the political irrelevance of MCA today, whatever happens in MCA is but a storm in the teacup. Who the fcuk cares who leads MCA anyway?

Now, the other EGM that is of total relevance to the country and all Malaysians is the EGM that PAS Spiritual Leader, Dato' Nik Aziz is insisting on convening. The results of this EGM will reverberate. This will decide whether we will be on course to becoming a Turkey or an Iran. It could also seal the fate of Barisan Nasional.

The Malaysian Insider has this insightful article:

Nik Aziz crafts an ultimatum for PAS
KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 25 — Even in a season where reform has become the most hackneyed word in the politician’s lexicon, Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat’s gambit in calling for an extraordinary general meeting for PAS has perhaps gone the furthest in defining the Malaysian political spectrum.
By proposing an EGM the PAS spiritual leader is effectively calling for fresh polls to weed out “problematic leaders”, his euphemism for the conservative spine of the party whom he feels are not totally committed to the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) coalition.
Ultimately, he is pushing for PAS to be clear once-and-for-all about its agenda and where it stands.
In doing so, the Kelantan Mentri Besar is pushing forward a proposal which is more substantive than the festival of rhetoric at the recent Umno general assembly.
Umno president Datuk Seri Najib Razak spoke of inclusiveness. Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin urged the Malays to end their siege mentality.
But neither leader’s speeches are likely to change what their party’s rank and file think about the concept of Ketuanan Melayu, or Malay Supremacy, or even money politics, the party’s euphemism for vote-buying.
It will not be plain sailing though for Nik Aziz in his campaign for an EGM.
Party leaders have been cautious in their response to the proposal.
They have pointed out that it would be up to the Majlis Syura Ulama or the Religious Scholars Consultative Council to decide whether it is necessary to hold a special muktamar.
The party’s powerful Syura council is led by Nik Aziz(picture) and most members of the central committee are also part of the council.
It is clear from ground reports that there is tension between the young progressive elements and the conservative school.
Despite some voices of disapproval, Nik Aziz said yesterday he remained firm about the party having an EGM which insiders see as a way of deposing PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang for leaders warmer towards a full-fledged opposition pact.
Abdul Hadi and his conservative allies triumphed in the last party polls over the so-called “Erdogan” faction, which is more partial to the PR coalition.
Nik Aziz’s call for an EGM is seen as a last ditch all-out attempt to bring PAS closer to the pact rather than a more detached relationship with its allies PKR and DAP.
His protege Datuk Husam Musa lost his bid to take the deputy presidency from incumbent Nasharuddin Mat Isa, who with senior leader Datuk Mustafa Ali, is seen as representing the conservative spine in PAS.
Nik Aziz however favours Husam and his faction known as “Erdogan”, named after the Turkish PM who took his Islamist party to success in Turkey and is seen as close to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
While PAS has championed its “PAS for All” slogan, conservative elements still talk about banning beer sales and other punitive laws. Nik Aziz has blasted these leaders and has asked why Hadi has not stamped out such talk and quashed efforts to get closer to Umno.
Nik Aziz is virulently opposed to any form of cooperation with Umno as the Islamist party was part of Barisan Nasional formed in 1974 but quit later due to a clash of wills that led to PAS losing Kelantan in 1978.
His EGM gambit will have wide ranging implications on PR and the growth of the two-coalition system.

Friday, 23 October 2009

Singh Is King

I am a Yeop from Perak staying in Puchong now. Gobind Singh Deo is my MP in Puchong and I am glad that he still remains barred from the Dewan Rakyat.

I am glad because the High Court ruled that legislative proceedings cannot be challenged in court and what it actually means is that the constitution was supreme and that it cannot question proceedings of the Dewan Rakyat. This upholds the generally accepted principle of Separation of Powers. It is essential for democracy.

As a Perakian I was disgusted by what mere frogs could do to upset the apple cart. The Perak debacle still persists because a Federal Court ruling in April said it was allowed to inquire into legislative proceedings but yerterday's High Court decision contradicts this.

Okay, the High Court is lower than the Federal Court but I do not think Mr Karpal Singh will be in a hurry to tell his son to appeal yesterday's decision. Even if Gobind did "lose" in High Court. The Rakyat won!

Personally I would not want to be on the wrong side of these "Countrymen". They see from too many sides! Yesterday's court decision was a "tails you lose, heads I win" scenario that only they can think of! Devious!

I see this as being akin to what Dr Porntip Rojanasunan's testimony at the TBH Inquest indirectly did; it shows out the deep rooted culture in public service organizations that has made public servants forget they serve the public and not their political masters.

Please read for yourself:

Court differs from Perak decision as Gobind remains barred
By Shazwan Mustafa Kamal

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 22 — Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo(picture) remains barred from the Dewan Rakyat after the High Court ruled today that legislative proceedings cannot be challenged in court, in a decision which appears to go against an earlier Federal Court ruling.

The decision by the High Court today relies on a generally accepted principle of Separation of Powers but contradicts a Federal Court ruling in April which said it was allowed to inquire into legislative proceedings.

The Court ruled today that the constitution was supreme and that it cannot question proceedings of the Dewan Rakyat.

But in April, the Federal Court panel of Augustine Paul, Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, Arifin Zakaria, Nik Hashim Nik Ab. Rahman, and Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin was willing to depart from this precedent, which gives respect to the doctrine of separation of powers in a case between ousted Perak Speaker V Sivakumar and Barisan Nasional assemblymen in Perak.

In that case the Federal Court ruled Sivakumar did not have the power to suspend Datuk Zambry Abd Kadir, the mentri besar, and six BN executive council members from attending the state assembly.

The ruling cleared the way for the seven men to attend the state assembly and head off attempts to mount a no-confidence vote against the Perak BN government.

With that decision the Federal Court appeared to have punctured the hallowed doctrine of separation of powers upheld by court decisions on five previous occasions.

In the previous decisions, the court had followed provisions in the constitution which says the courts cannot interfere in proceedings of the legislative assembly.

In the case of Gobind today, the High Court appeared to be returning to that doctrine.

In his decision earlier, Judicial Commissioner Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof took pains to point out that Gobind’s case was different from the Perak case because nobody was questioning the “validity” of the committee that suspended Gobind, unlike the committee chaired by Sivakumar.

He also noted that there were clear provisions in law for the Dewan Rakyat committee to decide if Gobind’s act was an offence that could be categorised as “contempt of the house”.

For those reasons, he said, the court was not reviewing Gobind’s 12-month suspension.

But the novice judge also pointed out that the courts exist to provide “check-and-balances” to the arbitrary decisions made in Parliament, which were not backed up by clear provisions in law.

Mohamad Ariff ruled that the first-term MP cannot take part in the lower house proceedings until March 18 next year, but is entitled to his monthly salary and other monetary benefits as clearly stated in Article 64 of the Federal Constitution.

He noted that under the law, Gobind could only be fined a maximum of RM1,000 for breaking the rules in Parliament, and be arrested if he does not pay the fine.

The judicial commissioner also ruled that an interest rate at eight per cent a year to be added to Gobind’s pay and be backdated to March, when Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia passed the motion to suspend the fiery man for contempt.

Gobind’s lawyer and father, Karpal Singh, said it was a fair ruling and they would not be appealing.

“It’s a fair decision. The judge has done a lot of work.

“While what Gobind had said was tantamount to contempt, they had no right to take away benefits,” the veteran lawyer said.

Karpal, who is also DAP chairman highlighted that today’s decision held “far reaching consequences” for Parliament Speakers from now on.

“A landmark decision has been reached where the decisions of Parliament are now subject to judicial review.

“Parliament must be careful of decisions it adopts. It can’t do as it likes anymore,” he told reporters outside the courtroom.

“This judgment shows that the Speaker’s decision can be questioned in a court of law,” he added.

Karpal, who is also Bukit Gelugor MP, joked that Pandikar and Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, as minister in charge of parliamentary affairs, should get a copy of the written judgment when it is completed.

“Parliament is not absolute,” he stressed, and ended: “it goes against what they believed all along.”

Gobind, who is also a lawyer, said that he was satisfied with the ruling, but moaned about not being able to take part in the upcoming Budget 2010 debate.

“The suit was filed as a matter of principle,” he said.

“I was hoping to get back to Parliament, but at the same time I am relieved that the judge did say that I am still the MP for Puchong,” he added.

Thursday, 22 October 2009

Monday, 12 October 2009

PAS In The Past

The main reason why (so it was said) there was objection within UMNO ranks to the selection of Tan Sri Isa as candidate for Bagan Pinang was that the victory which was in the bag, risked being tainted by the putrid smell of corruption. UMNO did no need to field Isa to win this seat...any decent candidate would have done the job.

Regardless of what PAS (PR) may have hoped, lets not be mistaken that the real fight was over the margin of loss that PAS would suffer. How did PAS hope to narrow the loss? It was hoping the Chinese and Indians are just as stupid as some of the PAS leaders. This time around PAS was shown the middle finger and that is what sitting on past March 8th laurels gets PAS. A middle finger that is just nice for the hole in the PAS logo.

If truth be told, speaking as a Chinese even I would have voted for UMNO if I was registered to vote in Bagan Pinang. Why not!?! Negeri Sembilan is a BN state and BN needed to win and retain this constituency as a showcase for GE13. The constituents of Bagan Pinang will benefit with UMNO compared to allowing it to fall to PAS (PR). This was almost the case in Manik Urai and the skin of the teeth 65 vote margin PAS victory would easily have been a reverse routing if Manik Urai is located anywhere else except Kelantan.

Yup! The Indians and the Chinese of Bagan Pinang did well to vote for UMNO and they did so with a clear conscience even if there were gifts galore! Why? Here's why...(from
Malaysians Unplugged Blog and Hakim Joe in Malaysia Today)

Bagan Pinang By-Election: Chinese and Indian Voters Returned to UMNO/BN. Selangor PAS's Hassan Ali's Role in PAS's Disastrous Result
Monday, October 12, 2009

The Fall-Out on Neighbouring Negeri Sembilan PAS from Selangor PAS's Hassan Ali's PRO-UMNO Publicity Antics on:
  • Beer Banning,
  • Attacking fellow Exco DAP Ronnie Liu and
  • His "Ketuanan Melayu" Support of the DOs against the Selangor Govt.
UMNO /BN Victory Came from Chinese and Indian Voters
Read here for more

A landslide win for Mohd. Isa could only signify a few pertinent things. Bagan Pinang is a small township:

  • It has three army camps and eight army outfits within its boundaries.
  • It has registered voter base of 13,664 voters (14,192 in 2008) made up from 62.3% Malays, 20.7% Indians, 11% Chinese and 6% Others.
  • Postal votes account for 33.7% of the total votes.
  • The turnout according to the Election Commission is 81.65%.
The Election Result:

  1. Mohd. Isa collected 8,013 votes (71.8 %). Of which, 3,521 came from postal votes (ie 31.6 %). To be fair, the postal votes were real killers. To win 85.4% of the postal votes or 31.6% of the total votes finished off whatever high hopes Pakatan dreamt of. Even if there were zero postal votes or if the votes were tied, Isa would nevertheless have had an easy romp home.
  2. Zulkefly Mohamad Omar’s 2,578 votes. (28.2 %) He got only 601 from postal votes
The CHINESE and INDIANS Overwhelmingly Voted for Isa Samad
Look at the percentages. The figures do not lie.
The Malay vote only accounted for 62.3% but Mohd. Isa won by 71.8%. Hypothetically, if 80% of the Malays voted for Isa, that would mean that only 50% of the 71.8% is accounted for.
Where did the other 21.8% come from?
The answer is easy. It came from the Indian and Chinese voters.
The total of both the Indian and Chinese voters is 31.8%.
This means that more than two-thirds (68.6%) of Chinese and Indians voted for Mohd. Isa.
The swing back to BN is 14.2% (from 2008).
Implications for Pakatan Rakyat
Pakatan had better start doing something about it cos they need to win over such rural voters, and not just rely on the urban voters.
Relying on the non-Malay voters in Bagan Pinang was evidently disastrous.
In 2008, about 80% of the Indians and 65% of the Chinese voted opposition. (These figures are obtained from political analyst Dr Wan Abdul Rahman Wan Abdul Latiff.) That is approximately 74.8% non-Malays voting for the opposition. Now it has dropped to 31.4%.
What exactly happened here? Can the actions of one PAS Commissioner (in Selangor) be so damning on another PAS Commissioner (in Negeri Sembilan)?
Why are these state seats so important when the formation of the federal government is decided by parliamentary seats?
The answer is this – can Pakatan guarantee parliamentary victory during the next elections?
If the answer is in the negative, then it is these state governments that Pakatan must attempt to secure and subsequently be utilized as a home base to propagate the Opposition ideology and to inhibit the BN propaganda.
So, what does this BN victory means? It damn well means a lot of things but mostly,it means that :

  1. Pakatan can no longer contend to split the Malay vote and allow the non-Malay vote to be the deciding factor.
  2. The NON -Malay votes are not entirely swinging to the Opposition.
  3. Rural voters are still voting for BN.
  4. Time for Pakatan to start selecting their potential candidates now and permit them the time to start campaigning in their selected constituencies.
  5. Pakatan needs to be more prominent in the rural constituencies.
  6. Public spats between the three parties and party back stabbing are having a definite negative effect on the voters.
If Pakatan does nothing, the next election is as good as lost.
2013 is another 3 years plus of BN rule and Najib will be utilising this time to consolidate his position.
If Pakatan does not make any progress between now and then, it will be 2018 before anything can be done and who knows whether Malaysia will still be solvent then.

Next Up...Port Klang?

The Grim Reaper aside, what's up next? Will it be N46 Pelabuhan Klang?

Sunday, 4 October 2009

Fast Forward 2013. Will Our Questions Be Answered?

GE13 is supposed to take place not later than 2013. Suppose we have a new government after that. Whether it will be a government that can take this country to greater heights based on promises being made now, is left to be seen and for history to judge later.

Personally, I am still apprehensive but for a start, I would settle for indications that election promises will be kept.

One such indication would be to start giving the rakyat answers to major questions that are not possible to know now. Will questions we are asking now (and until 2013) be answered by a new regime based on declassification of information and new investigations? Or will we be taken for a ride on the merry-go-round? I do not mean launch a witch-hunt but will we get this indication from a new government as part of sincere efforts to cast in stone government policy of new transparency and accountability?

The major questions to which we seek answers relate to the squandered billions and the truth behind the seeming bias of investigators and the judiciary in numerous high profile cases (there are just too many to mention).

I hope we will not be in the same position as the US rakyat today...still asking old questions! Last year Barack Obama rode into the US presidential office on a tide of change and continued demand for change by the people of the US of A. The hopes of the whole nation rested on his narrow shoulders and obviously as far as Obama's ability as President, it is still too early to call.

However, it seems Obama's charm and the lustre of his new presidency is starting to wear off (ref. Malaysian Insider report here). Also disconcerting and perhaps of great concern is that the American people are beginning to expect less from him. This You Tube shows Charlie Sheen's questions to Obama regarding possible conspiracies in 9/11 and following that, is a FICTIONAL transcript of an interview which has yet to take place where Obama is portrayed as vague and condescending. I nicked them (i.e. without permission) off Antares. We all better hope.

Charlie Sheen: 20 (?) minutes with Obama

A Despatch from Charlie Sheen:

I recently had the pleasure of sitting down with our 44th President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, while he was out promoting his health care reform initiative. I requested 30 minutes given the scope and detail of my inquiry; they said I could have 20. Twenty minutes, 1200 seconds, not a lot of time to question the President about one of the most important events in our nation’s history. The following is a transcript of our remarkable discussion...

Charlie Sheen – Good afternoon Mr. President, thank you so much for taking time out of your demanding schedule.

President Barack Obama – My pleasure, the content of your request seemed like something I should carve out a few minutes for.

CS – I should point out that I voted for you, as your promises of hope and change, transparency and accountability, as well as putting government back into the hands of the American people, struck an emotional chord in me that I hadn’t felt in quite some time, perhaps ever.

PBO – And I appreciate that Charlie. Big fan of the show, by the way.

CS – Sir, I can’t imagine when you might find the time to actually watch my show given the measure of what you inherited.

PBO – I have it Tivo’d on Air Force One. Nice break from the traveling press corps. (He glances at his watch) not to be abrupt or to rush you, but you have 19 minutes left.

CS – I’ll take that as an invitation to cut to the chase.

PBO – I’m all ears. Or so I’ve been told.

CS – Sir, in the very near future we will be experiencing our first 9/11 anniversary with you as Commander in Chief.

PBO – Yes. A very solemn day for our Nation. A day of reflection and yet a day of historical consciousness as well.

CS – Very much so sir, very much so indeed... Now; In researching your position regarding the events of 9/11 and the subsequent investigation that followed, am I correct to understand that you fully support and endorse the findings of the commission report otherwise known as the ‘official story’?

PBO – Do I have any reason not to? Given that most of us are presumably in touch with similar evidence.

CS – I really wish that were the case, sir. Are you aware, Mr. President, of the recent stunning revelations that sixty percent of the 9/11 commissioners have publicly stated that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11 and that the Pentagon was engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack?

PBO – I am aware of certain “in fighting” during the course of their very thorough and tireless investigative process.

CS – Mr. President, it’s hard to label this type of friction as “in fighting” or make the irresponsible leap to “thorough,” when the evidence I insist you examine regarding 6 of the 10 members are statements of fact.

(At this point one of Obama’s senior aides approaches the President and whispers into his ear. Obama glances quickly at his watch and nods as the aide resumes his post at the doorway, directly behind me.)

PBO – No disrespect Mr. Sheen, but I have to ask; what is it that you seem to be implying with the initial direction of this discussion?

CS – I am not implying anything Mr. President. I am here to present the facts and see what you plan to do with them.

PBO – Let me guess; your ‘facts,’ allegedly supporting these claims are in the folders you brought with you?

CS – Good guess Mr. President.

(I hand the first folder of documents to the President)

CS – Again sir, these are not my opinions or assumptions, this is all a matter of public record, reported through mainstream media, painstakingly fact checked and verified.

(the President glances into the folder I handed him)

CS – You’ll notice sir on page one of the dossier dated August of ‘06 from the Washington Post, the statements of John Farmer, senior council to the 9/11 commission, his quote stating, “I was shocked how different the truth was from the way it was described.”

PBO – (as he glances down at the report, almost inaudible) …. um hmm….

CS – He goes on to further state “The [NORAD Air Defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years….”

(the President continues to view the documents)

CS – On pages two and three, sir, are the statements, as well, from commission co-chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, commissioners Bob Kerrey, Timothy Roemer and John Lehman, as well as the statements of commissioner Max Cleland, an ex-Senator from Georgia , who resigned, stating:“It is a national scandal. This investigation is now compromised. One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9/11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up.”

He also described President Bush’s desire to delay the process as not to damage the ‘04 re-election bid. They suspected deception to the point where they considered referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation. Mr. President, this information alone is unequivocally grounds for a new investigation!

PBO – Mistakes were clearly made but we as a people and as a country need to move forward. It is obviously in our best interest as a democratic society to focus our efforts and our resources on the future of this great nation and our ability to protect the American people and our allies from this type of terrorism in the coming years.

CS – Sir, how can we focus on the future when THE COMMISSION ITSELF is on record stating that they still do not know the truth??

PBO – Even if what you state, might in some capacity, begin to approach an open discussion or balanced debate, I can’t speak for, or about the decisions certain commission members made during an extremely difficult period. Perhaps you should be interviewing them instead of me. Wait, don’t tell me; I was easier to track down than they were?

CS – Not exactly sir, but let’s be honest. You’re the President of the United States, the leader of the free world, the buck stops with you. 9/11 has been the pretext for the systematic dismantling of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Your administration is reading from the same playbook that the Bush administration foisted on America through documented secrecy and deception.

PBO – Mr. Sheen, I’m having a difficult time sitting here and listening to you draw distorted parallels between the Bush/Cheney regime and mine.

CS – Mr. President the parallels are not distorted just because you say they are. Let’s stick to the facts. You promised to abolish the Patriot Act and then voted to re-authorize it. You pledged to end warrantless wire tapping against the American people and now energetically defend it. You decried the practice of rendition and now continue it. You promised over and over again on the campaign trail, that you would end the practice of indefinite detention and instead, you have expanded it to permanent detention of “detainees” without trial. This far exceeds the outrages of the former administration. Call me crazy Mr. President, but is this not your record?

PBO – Mr. Sheen, my staff and I authorized this interview based on your request to discuss 9/11 and deliver some additional information you’re convinced I’d not previously reviewed. Call me crazy, But it appears as though you’ve blindly wandered off topic.

CS – Sir, the examples I just illustrated are a direct result of 9/11.

PBO – And I’m telling you that we must move forward, we must endure through these dangerous and politically challenging years ahead.

CS – Mr. President, we cannot move forward with a bottomless warren of unanswered questions surrounding that day and its aftermath.

PBO – I read the official report. Every word, every page. Perhaps you should do the same.

CS – I have sir, and so have thousands of family members of the victims, and guess what; they have the same questions I do and probably a lot more. I didn’t lose a loved one on that horrific day Mr. President and neither did you. But since then I, along with millions of other Americans lost something we held true and dear for most of our lives in this great country of ours; we lost our hope.

PBO – And I’d like to believe that I am here to restore that hope. To restore confidence in your leaders, in the system that the voting public chose through a peaceful transfer of power.

(An odd moment of silence between us. Precious time ticking away).

CS – Mr. President, are you aware of the number of days it took to begin the investigation into JFK’s assassination?

PBO – If memory serves I believe it was two weeks.

CS – Close. Seventeen days to be exact. Are you aware sir, how long it took to begin the investigation into Pearl Harbor?

PBO – I would say again about….two weeks.

CS – Close again sir, eleven days to be exact. Are you aware Mr. President how long it took to begin the investigation into 9/11?

PBO – I know it must have seemed like a very long time for all the grieving families.

CS – It was a very long time Mr. President – four hundred and forty days. Roughly 14 months. Does it bother you Mr. President that it only took FIVE HOURS for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after the initial attack to recommend and endorse a full scale offensive against Iraq?

PBO – I am not aware of any such purported claim.

CS – I have the proof Mr. President, along with scores of documents and facts I’d like you to take a look at. Here.

(I hand him another file – much thicker than the first)

PBO – I see you came prepared Charlie.

CS – No other way to show up Mr. President. When in doubt over prepare I always say.

PBO – Now you sound like the First Lady.CS – That’s quite a compliment sir.PBO – As you wish. Please continue.

CS – Sir, I’d like to direct your attention to the stack of documents in the folder I just handed you. The first in from the top is entitled “ Operation Northwoods“, a declassified Pentagon plan to stage terror attacks on US soil, to be blamed on Cuba as a pretext for war.

PBO – And I’d like to direct your attention to the fact that the principle draftsman of this improbable blueprint was quickly denied a second term as Joint Chiefs chairman and sent packing to a European NATO garrison. Thank God his otherworldly ambitions never saw the light of day.

CS – I wouldn’t be so certain about that Mr. President.

PBO – I could easily say the same to you Charlie.

(the President checks his watch)

CS – The next document reads “Declassified staged provocations.” Now, Honestly Mr. President I wish I was making this stuff up. I’m certain you are familiar with the USS Maine Incident, the sinking of the Lusitania, which we all now know brought us into WW1, and of course the most famous, the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

PBO – Of course I am familiar with these historical events and I’m aware that there’s a measure of controversy surrounding them. But to be quite frank with you, this is all ancient history.

CS – Mr. President, it has been often said; “Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.” And I concede to you sir, these events are the past.

PBO – A vastly different world young man, shouldering a radically disparate state of universal affairs.

CS – No argument sir, I’m merely inviting you to acknowledge some credibility to the pattern or the theme. Case in point; the next document in your folder. It was published by the think-tank, Project For a New American Century and it’s entitled “ Rebuilding Americas Defenses“, and was written by Dick Cheney and Jeb Bush. To quote from the document sir –

(the President interrupts)

PBO – “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

CS – Touche, sir. Your thoughts on this statement Mr. President?

PBO – I would call this a blatant case of misjudgment fueled by an unfortunate milieu of assumption. For some, the uninformed denial of coincidence.

CS – Interesting angle sir. Nevertheless, Vice President Cheney didn’t stop there. In early 2008, Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh and MSNBC, both reported that Cheney had proposed to the Pentagon an outrageous plan to have the U.S. Navy create fake Iranian patrol boats, to be manned by Navy Seals, who would then stage an attack on US destroyers in the Strait of Hormuz. This event was to be blamed on Iran and used as a pretext for war. Does any of this information worry you Mr. President? Should we just ignore it, until these realities can be dismissed years from now by our children, as ancient history as well?

PBO – Of course this information worries me, yet it’s not nearly as worrisome as you sitting here today suspiciously implying that 9/11 was somehow allowed to happen or even orchestrated from the inside.

CS – Mr. President I am not suspiciously implying anything. I am merely exposing the documents and asking the questions that nobody in power will even look at or acknowledge. And as I stated earlier, I voted for you, I believed in your message of hope and change. Mr. President I have come to you specifically hoping for a change. A change in the perception that our government has not yet made itself open and accountable to the people. These are your words Mr. President not mine. The lives of thousands were brutally cut short and those left behind to suffer their infinite pain are with me today Mr. President. They are with me in spirit and flesh, and the message we carry will not be silenced anymore by media fueled mantras insisting how they are supposed to feel. Deciding for them, for 8 long years, what can be thought, what can be said, what can be asked.

PBO – And I appreciate your passion, I appreciate your conviction. In spite of your concerns, in spite of what your data might or might not reveal, what you and the families must understand and accept is that we are doing everything we can to protect you.

CS – Mr. President , I realize we're very short on time, so please allow me to run down a list of bullet points that might illuminate some reasons why we don’t embrace the warm hug of Federal protection.

PBO – We’ve come this far. Fire away.

CS – Please keep in mind Mr. President everything I’m about to say is documented as fact and part of the public record. The information you are holding in your hands chronicles and verifies each and every point.

PBO – You have five minutes left. The floor is yours. Brief me.

CS – Thank you Mr. President. Okay, first; On the FBI’s most wanted list Osama Bin Laden is not charged with the crimes of 911. When I called the FBI to ask them why this was the case, they replied: “There’s not enough evidence to link Bin Laden to the crime scene,” I later discovered he had never even been indicted by the D.O.J.

CS – Number 2; FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, was dismissed and gagged by the D.O.J. after she revealed that the government had foreknowledge of plans to attack American cities using planes as bombs as early as April 2001. In July of ‘09, Mrs. Edmonds broke the Federal gag order and went public to reveal that Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban were all working for and with the C.I.A. up until the day of 9/11.

CS – Number 3; The following is a quote from Mayor Giuliani during an interview on 9/11 with Peter Jennings for ABC News. “I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.”

WHO TOLD HIM THIS??? To this day, the answer to this question remains unanswered, completely ignored and emphatically DENIED by Mayor Giuliani on several public occasions.

CS – Number 4; In April 2004, USA Today reported, “In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.” One of the targets was the World Trade Center.

CS – Number 5; On September 12th 2007, CNN’s ‘Anderson Cooper 360′, reported that the mysterious “white plane” spotted and videotaped by multiple media outlets, flying in restricted airspace over the White House shortly before 10am on the morning of 9/11, was in fact the Air Force’s E-4B, a specially modified Boeing 747 with a communications pod behind the cockpit; otherwise known as “The Doomsday Plane”.

Though fully aware of the event, the 9/11 Commission did not deem the appearance of the military plane to be of any interest and did not include it in the final 9/11 Commission report.

CS – Number 6; Three F-16s assigned to Andrews Air Force Base, ten miles from Washington, DC, are conducting training exercises in North Carolina 207 miles away as the first plane crashes into the WTC. Even at significantly less than their top speed of 1500 mph, they could still have defended the skies over Washington well before 9am, more than 37 minutes before Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon, however, they did not return until after 9:55am.

Andrews AFB had no armed fighters on alert and ready to take off on the morning of 9/11.

CS – Number 7; WTC Building 7. Watch the video of its collapse.

CS – Number 8; Flight 93 is fourth plane to crash on 9/11 at 10:03am. V.P. Cheney only gives shoot down order at 10:10-10:20am and this is not communicated to NORAD until 28 minutes after Flight 93 has crashed.

Fueling further suspicion on this front is the fact that three months before the attacks of 9/11, Dick Cheney usurped control of NORAD, and therefore he, and no one else on planet Earth, had the power to call for military sorties on the hijacked airliners on 9/11. He did not exercise that power. Three months after 9/11, he relinquished command of NORAD and returned it to military operation.

CS – Number 9; Scores of main stream news outlets reported that the F.B.I. conducted an investigation of at least FIVE of the 9/11 hijackers being trained at U.S. military flight schools. Those investigations are now sealed and need to be declassified.

CS – Number 10; In 2004, New York firefighters Mike Bellone and Nicholas DeMasi went public to say they had found the black boxes at the World Trade Center, but were told to keep their mouths shut by FBI agents. Nicholas DeMasi said that he escorted federal agents on an all-terrain vehicle in October 2001 and helped them locate the devices, a story backed up by rescue volunteer Mike Bellone.

As the Philadelphia Daily News reported at the time, “Their story raises the question of whether there was a some type of cover-up at Ground Zero.”

CS – Number 11 – Hundreds of eye witnesses including first responders, fire captains, news reporters, and police, all described multiple explosions in both towers before and during the collapse.

CS – Number 12; An astounding video uncovered from the archives shows BBC News correspondent Jane Standley reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. Tapes from earlier BBC broadcasts show news anchors discussing the collapse of WTC 7 a full 26 minutes in advance. The BBC at first claimed that their tapes from 9/11 had been “lost” before admitting that they made the “error” of reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it happened without adequately explaining how they could have obtained advance knowledge of the event.

In addition, over an hour before the collapse of WTC 7, at 4:10pm, CNN’s Aaron Brown reported that the building “has either collapsed, or is collapsing.”

CS – Number 13; Solicitor General Ted Olson’s claim that his wife Barbara Olsen called him twice from Flight 77, describing hijackers with box cutters, was a central plank of the official 9/11 story.

However, the credibility of the story was completely undermined after Olsen kept changing his story about whether his wife used her cell phone or the airplane phone. The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004. American Airlines confirmed that Flight 77 was a Boeing 757 and that this plane did not have airplane phones on board.According to the FBI, Barbara Olsen attempted to call her husband only once and the call failed to connect, therefore Olsen must have been lying when he claimed he had spoken to his wife from Flight 77.

CS – Number 14; The size of a Boeing 757 is approximately 125ft in width and yet images of the impact zone at the Pentagon supposedly caused by the crash merely show a hole no more than 16ft in diameter. The engines of the 757 would have punctured a hole bigger than this, never mind the whole plane. Images before the partial collapse of the impact zone show little real impact damage and a sparse debris field completely inconsistent with the crash of a large jetliner, especially when contrasted with other images showing airplane crashes into buildings.

CS – Number 15; What is the meaning behind the following quote attributed to Dick Cheney which came to light during the 9/11 Commission hearings? The passage is taken from testimony given by then Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta.

During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, “The plane is 50 miles out.” “The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the Vice President, “Do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?”

As the plane was not shot down, in addition to the fact that armed fighter jets were nowhere near the plane and the Pentagon defensive system was not activated, are we to take it that the orders were to let the plane find its target?

CS – Number 16; In May 2003, the Miami Herald reported how the Bush administration was refusing to release a 900-page congressional report on 9/11 because it wanted to “avoid enshrining embarrassing details in the report,” particularly regarding pre-9/11 warnings as well as the fact that the hijackers were trained at U.S. flight schools.

CS – Number 17; Top Pentagon officials cancelled their scheduled flights for September 11th on September 10th. San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, following a security warning, cancelled a flight into New York that was scheduled for the morning of 9/11.

CS – Number 18; The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004, and even by that point it was only in the trial phase. Calls from cell phones which formed an integral part of the official government version of events were technologically impossible at the time.

CS – Number 19: On April 29, 2004, President Bush and V.P. Cheney would only meet with the commission under specific clandestine conditions. They insisted on testifying together and not under oath. They also demanded that their testimony be treated as a matter of “state secret.” To date, nothing they spoke of that day exists in the public domain.

CS – And finally Mr. President – Number 20; A few days after the attack, several newspapers as well as the FBI reported that a paper passport had been found in the ruins of the WTC. In August 2004, CNN reported that 9/11 hijacker Ziad Jarrah’s visa was found in the remains of Flight 93 which went down in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

At least a third of the WTC victim’s bodies were vaporized and many of the victims of the Pentagon incident were burned beyond recognition. And yet visas and paper passports which identify the perpetrators and back up the official version of events miraculously survive explosions and fires that we are told melted steel buildings.

(The Senior aide appears again beside the President whispering in his ear. He then quickly moves off).

PBO – Well Charlie I can’t say this hasn’t been interesting. As I said earlier you’ve showed up today focused and organized. Regardless how I feel about the material you’ve presented, I must commend your dedication and zeal. However, our time here is up.

(the President rises from his chair , I do the same).

CS – Mr. President! One more second!

(The President starts towards the door – I follow him quickly step for step).

CS – Mr. President, I implore you based on the evidence you now possess, to use your Executive Power. Prove to us all Sir, that you do, in fact, care. Create a truly comprehensive and open Congressional investigation of 9/11 and its aftermath. The families deserve the truth, the American people and the rest of the free world deserve the truth. Mr. President -

(He pauses. We shake hands).

CS – Make sure you’re on the right side of history.

(The President breaks the handshake).

PBO – I am on the right side of history. Thank you Charlie, my staff and I will be in touch.

(I watch as he strides gracefully out of the room, the truth I provided him held firmly by his side; in the hand of providence.)


A comprehensive bibliography containing all of the evidence presented above can be viewed at

Author’s Note: What you have just read didn’t actually happen… yet.

This is an open letter to the President requesting a new investigation.

Charlie Sheen
9 August 2009