Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The Left openly drops all pretense
Today the Dismissal-court, headed by 'impartial' Left-wing 'judge' F. Bauduin, has confirmed the use of plural in the headline of my previous article: we indeed have Kangaroo Courts in The Netherlands: it has denied the appeal for dismissal by Mr. Moszkowicz. Geert Wilders' judge may have used some 'unfortunate choice of words' but he was 'in no terms prejuduced'.
Says Bauduin, member of (a.o.) the Morocco Fund, in which his name is one of only two Dutch ones. Looking at the list of his 'other activities' (thanks, Artikel7) it quickly becomes clear he is no friend of Geert Wilders' PVV, but prejudiced himself, so he should have stepped aside instead of heading the dismissal court.
As it is, one 'impartial' (quod non) left-wing 'judge' judges another 'impartial' (quod non) left-wing judge to be impartial, only because that other 'impartial' (quod non) left-wing judge himself claims, after showing prejudice, to be impartial. One would think that the choice of Morocco loving Bauduin as dismissal-judge is a rather 'unfortunate choice of judge' given the fact that Wilders' case touches on the issues The Netherlands have with problematic Moroccan youth...
Well, at least it becomes clearer day by day what a circus the Dutch ' justice' system really is. First, we have an unprofessional judge who lets his personal bias against Wilders prevail in his job. Then, the justice minister himself appears to have had a part in the decision to prosecute Wilders. And now we have another unprofessional, Morocco-loving judge, who 'impartially' decides that the biased judge is impartial. What's next?
These are interesting times (remember Confucius).
Says Bauduin, member of (a.o.) the Morocco Fund, in which his name is one of only two Dutch ones. Looking at the list of his 'other activities' (thanks, Artikel7) it quickly becomes clear he is no friend of Geert Wilders' PVV, but prejudiced himself, so he should have stepped aside instead of heading the dismissal court.
As it is, one 'impartial' (quod non) left-wing 'judge' judges another 'impartial' (quod non) left-wing judge to be impartial, only because that other 'impartial' (quod non) left-wing judge himself claims, after showing prejudice, to be impartial. One would think that the choice of Morocco loving Bauduin as dismissal-judge is a rather 'unfortunate choice of judge' given the fact that Wilders' case touches on the issues The Netherlands have with problematic Moroccan youth...
Well, at least it becomes clearer day by day what a circus the Dutch ' justice' system really is. First, we have an unprofessional judge who lets his personal bias against Wilders prevail in his job. Then, the justice minister himself appears to have had a part in the decision to prosecute Wilders. And now we have another unprofessional, Morocco-loving judge, who 'impartially' decides that the biased judge is impartial. What's next?
These are interesting times (remember Confucius).
Kangaroo Courts in a Banana Monarchy
Yesterday, the political trial against Geert Wilders started. While the court earlier already denied Wilders the majority of his witnesses, it allowed only three out of eighteen, claiming that it did not need to hear the same story multiple times, it yesterday once again showed its true (green+red=brown) colors: when Wilders announced he will appeal to his right to remain silent, the lead judge commented that it looked like Wilders lived up to his MSM reputation of posing a statement and then avoiding the debate.
A more clear demonstration of prejudice is hardly thinkable, as anyone following the debate knows that Wilders is always prepared to defend his opinions, and explain the delicacy of his position. Yesterday Wilders commented that he felt more like being in conversation with a D'66 (Democrats '66, the left wing traitor party more commonly referred to as Dhimmy'66) colleague than with an independent court. He also said he did not take back a single word, but that he was not responsible for statements he never made, but which were attributed to him by others.
A more clear demonstration of prejudice is hardly thinkable, as anyone following the debate knows that Wilders is always prepared to defend his opinions, and explain the delicacy of his position. Yesterday Wilders commented that he felt more like being in conversation with a D'66 (Democrats '66, the left wing traitor party more commonly referred to as Dhimmy'66) colleague than with an independent court. He also said he did not take back a single word, but that he was not responsible for statements he never made, but which were attributed to him by others.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Fascism in The Netherlands
While on July 1st 2008 fascism was already introduced into the horeca sector when Dutch Government took away the right of bar owners to run their property as they saw fit with the introduction of the smoking ban, Labour (PvdA) in Amsterdam overbid the CDA smoking ban by taking away the right of home owners to do with their home as they see fit, a living ban. Here's the deal:
Anybody owning a small home or apartment with a purchase price of up to 163.000 euros (upping that to 200.000 is under consideration) and not living there permanently (i.e. the owner has not registered in Amsterdam) will be forced to rent his property out to the social sector, even if the property is used during the week to avoid commuting to the owner's proper home, which happens quite a lot.
Anybody owning a small home or apartment with a purchase price of up to 163.000 euros (upping that to 200.000 is under consideration) and not living there permanently (i.e. the owner has not registered in Amsterdam) will be forced to rent his property out to the social sector, even if the property is used during the week to avoid commuting to the owner's proper home, which happens quite a lot.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Dutch Elections and the PVV ban
As I'm involved in other activities, I do not find the time to write at the moment. For an update on what's going on with Dutch Elections, please read this excellent article on Gates of Vienna. Don't miss the comments either.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Controversy on Smolensk air crash
A couple of videos have surfaced on YouTube which have stirred some controversy on the Smolensk air crash in which the Polish president Lech Kaczynski died, amongst others. Below the fold you'll find two videos, one by Jane Bürgermeister, questioning what really happened, and the other an enhanced version of a video mentioned by Bürgermeister, which appears to show that shortly after the crash, before any emergency services arrived, survivers were being shot and killed. While some of Bürgermeisters comments seem a little far fetched, she poses a number of legitimate questions to which, to date, no answers are being given.
Allegedly, the person who shot the second video was stabbed and killed in hospital, in an incident referred to by authorities as an accident. I haven't been able to confirm this claim, and neither why this person would have been in hospital in the first place. If true, this would be a bit too coincidental for comfort.
What struck me first about the crash is the fact that apparently so many 'important' persons were on that single flight, something any security adviser worth his paycheck would have vehemently protested against. Businesses won't let strategic staff or specialists fly together, as a precaution against endangering the businesses' future by such an accident. So why would a government. Did they all deem themselves so important that they had to be on the government plane? Whatever the reason, it's bad strategy, as is so painfully proven here.
Allegedly, the person who shot the second video was stabbed and killed in hospital, in an incident referred to by authorities as an accident. I haven't been able to confirm this claim, and neither why this person would have been in hospital in the first place. If true, this would be a bit too coincidental for comfort.
What struck me first about the crash is the fact that apparently so many 'important' persons were on that single flight, something any security adviser worth his paycheck would have vehemently protested against. Businesses won't let strategic staff or specialists fly together, as a precaution against endangering the businesses' future by such an accident. So why would a government. Did they all deem themselves so important that they had to be on the government plane? Whatever the reason, it's bad strategy, as is so painfully proven here.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Nigel Farage in plane crash
This morning, UKIP politician Nigel Farage was involved in a plane crash, while taking off for a day of campaigning over parts of the UK. Today, the UK holds elections. The plane landed upside down, while still on the airport. Although information is limited, Nigel is reported to be only mildly injured, while his pilot is worse off, but not life-threatening.
Lets hope both recover soon, and that the cause of the accident will be not only found out, but honestly reported. Nigel has made a lot of enemies within the establishment, by freely speaking his mind and questioning authority, and one can only hope his plane was not sabotaged.
Lets hope both recover soon, and that the cause of the accident will be not only found out, but honestly reported. Nigel has made a lot of enemies within the establishment, by freely speaking his mind and questioning authority, and one can only hope his plane was not sabotaged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
