Category: Andrew Bolt

“Have Yourself A Merry Little Drone Strike” Andrew Bolt is the bastard son of General Ripper and never listens to what Pakistani officials might have to say about provoking revenge attacks

drone1

Have yourself a merry little drone strike, let your heart be light

From now on our victims will be out of sight

Have yourself a merry little drone strike, make the Yuletide gay

From now on our pilots will be miles away

Here we are as in olden days, happy golden days of gore

Faithful rebels who were dear to us, are not near to us anymore

Through the years we all will be together, if the courts allow

Hang a bloody corpse upon the highest bough

And have yourself a merry little drone strike now

ISLAMABAD-As Christmas Day approaches and millions of Americans are celebrating the birth of Christ by purchasing presents from Walmart, our military marked the occasion by obliterating a few suspected militants in Yemen and North Waziristan. Although administration officials declined comment on the strikes, we managed to reach General Jack Ripper USAF (Ret) for his thoughts on the matter.

Iraqi Freedom

“It has become a sort of Christmas tradition,” said General Ripper. “The holidays are the perfect time to hit the enemy because we can target weddings and other gatherings during the slow news cycle back home. Most Americans are more concerned with the mythical “War on Christmas” than with innocent people being vaporized in the name of democracy. Drone strikes are great because they are the most cost-effective way to provoke the locals and swell the ranks of our terrorist opponents. If we face growing numbers of terrorists then it is much easier to justify a bloated defense budget and intrusive information-gathering programs.”

jackdripper

General Ripper continued, “These savages living in mud huts thousands of miles away constitute a clear and present danger to our way of life and our republic, and the startling truth is that there are at least a few dozen of them. Furthermore, these guys are believed to be the masterminds behind the evil worldwide plot to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids,” said Ripper. “Our nation is a righteous one founded on Christian principles, chosen by God and Jesus to lead the free world, and if we have to blow up the rest of the globe to prove it, then by God that’s what we’re gonna do!” General Ripper had to end our phone interview at that point because it was time for the night nurse to distribute medication.

Pakistani and Yemeni government officials have protested the drone strikes as being counter-productive, saying they serve only to provoke lunatic religious fanatics. They have advised citizens living in tribal areas that during traditional infidel holidays a trip to a large town may be in order, and all New Year’s Eve celebrations should be held in caves deep underground.

Rubio Pledges To Stamp Out Progress “Wherever It Rears Its Ugly Head” Posted in politics, religion. This dude seems he could run Australia with the support of Andrew Bolt wh sure is tiring of Tony Abbott

marco-rubio-vp

THE CABIN ANTHRAX, MURPHY, N.C. (CT&P) -At a hurriedly called press conference somewhere in the bowels of Cretonia earlier today, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a Catholic, criticized Pope Francis after the pontiff played a key role in helping the United States and Cuba forge an agreement that resulted in the release of American Alan Gross from Cuba.

Rubio said he would “ask His Holiness to take up the cause of freedom and democracy.”

The pompous ass junior senator from Cretonia who intends to school His Holiness was speaking in response to the White House’s announcement about talks to normalize relations with Cuba after a nearly 50-year embargo with the country.

Marco Rubio (R-Buffoon):: Obstructionist Republican Clown

The pope played a pivotal role through personal appeals to President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro to help the two countries forge an agreement for the release of Gross, Obama announced on Wednesday.

Rubio is set to play a major role in Cuba policy as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Western Affairs, and he noted Wednesday some of Congress’ leverage points, such as funding for embassies and nomination of a U.S. ambassador to Cuba.

“I’m committed to doing everything I can to unravel as many of these changes as possible,” Rubio said.

When asked just what the hell he was talking about, Rubio replied “As I have said many times before, I’m no scientist and usually have no fucking clue what I’m talking about, regardless of the subject. However, for decades now our policy concerning Cuba has been held hostage by a tiny minority living in and around Miami. I see no reason to make any changes to that policy at this time. Cuban ex pats and their offspring make up an important voting bloc for us Republicans, to say nothing of their generous donations to our campaigns. I’m certainly not going to let them down by agreeing to a policy that could be good for the U.S. and Cuba as well.”

Rubio continued, “As a Republican I am against all forms of progress and change, and I will do my best to stamp out any change I see in any policy regarding anything at all.”

When asked to clarify his comments regarding the Pope Rubio said “This Pope is far too compassionate and helpful to be an ally of the Republican Party. They really need to get someone with experience in that position.”

Breaking ranks: Hockey, Bishop,Turnbull and Morrison were all over ambitious according to Andrew Bolt and needed to be put in their place. This always occurred when attention was drifting away from Abbott. Bolt always knows “the Facts” better than any ministers and will tell them so. He also is a braggard.

Fox News Pundits Outraged Over New Legislation: Bolt’s no-news head office demands equality for Nazis

Foxnazi-300x284

THE CABIN ANTHRAX, MURPHY, N.C. (CT&P) – Fox News anchors and pundits reacted angrily to the recent passage of H.R. 5739, or the “No Social Security for Nazis Act,” which sailed through the House and Senate with unanimous votes last week. The bill was an attempt to close a loophole that has been around for decades which allowed former Nazis to receive Social Security benefits.

horseass2

Bill O’Reilly called the act an “absolute outrage,” and Sean Hannity told his dozens of viewers that the act was “just another example of President Obama taking matters into his own hands and acting like a king” by pushing the “prejudiced and racist” legislation through Congress.

It seems that after World War II the U.S. government offered many ex-Nazis social security benefits as long as they agreed to move and live outside the U.S. on a permanent basis. Many ex-Nazis took the deal and have been living in countries all over the world for years while receiving taxpayer money courtesy of the State Department.

The bill was obviously very popular with legislators as no one wanted to be seen as supporting retired concentration camp guards and members of the Waffen SS.

However, the bill will also have the effect of denying benefits to any current Nazi Party members, which includes up to 90% of Fox News’ on air talent.

hannitynazi

Fox News CEO Roger Ailes told Reuters that the legislation was almost surely unconstitutional.

“We at Fox believe that denying a minority group social security benefits simply because of their beliefs or form of employment is un-American and undermines the foundations of this great country,” said Ailes. “There is nothing we can do about this legislation, but I firmly believe that the broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force. Therefore in the long run we will prevail and reverse this miscarriage of justice.”

Ailes went on to say that he believed that “through the clever and constant use of propaganda, the American people would be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched form of life as paradise.”

Ailes also said that he would like to see the United States annex the Sudetenland sometime early next year.

Christopher Pyne tells colleagues to hold their tongues, but he can’t control Andrew Bolt’s

Christopher Pyne
The education minister and conservative commentator tangled on television as Bolt refused to toe the Coalition line, denying his role was to help the government get re-elected

Christopher Pyne has rebuked colleagues for backgrounding the media about the Coalition’s current political woes – but has been rebuked in turn by the conservative commentator Andrew Bolt for implying the broadcaster and blogger was helping the Abbott government with its task of re-election.

Underscoring the scrappy end to the parliamentary year, the education minister fronted the Bolt Report on Sunday morning with an explicit appeal for party unity.

The past three weeks has been characterised by strategic missteps and by damaging internal leaks about Cabinet tensions. Pyne’s argument on Sunday morning was colleagues should hold their tongues – not fuel the media’s appetite for stories about disunity because journalists were not “trying to help the government be re-elected.”

Pyne made an honourable exception for Bolt, his host.

“What my colleagues need to understand is they are advocates for the government’s agenda, they are not background commentators for the media,” Pyne told Bolt.

“They also need to understand that – present company excepted of course – the media are not trying to help the government be re-elected, they are trying to get a story, therefore disunity is always a story.”

Bolt looked distinctly nonplussed with Pyne’s inference about his motivations.

He told his guest he was not, in fact, trying to get the government “re-elected” – he was trying to “get a better performance”.

The two tangled again during the interview, when Bolt asked his guest to shed more light on why the prime minister had despatched the trade minister Andrew Robb to oversee the foreign minister Julie Bishop at climate negotiations in Lima.
Advertisement

Pyne told Bolt that Robb had not been despatched by anyone but was, in fact, going to the climate change talks because he was already in the region in order to pursue negotiations around the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The education minister insisted that contrary to some reports, Robb’s task in South America was not to chaperone Bishop at the climate conference and make sure that Australia didn’t overcommit on new emissions reduction commitments. He was just in the neighbourhood.

Pyne also pointed out that Bishop was actually the senior portfolio minister, so if anything, she was chaperoning Robb.

Bolt rebuked Pyne again.

“You are denying what I know is a fact,” the broadcaster declared.

“I certainly am,” Pyne replied. “Julie Bishop doesn’t need help from anyone. That’s been proven in the last 15 months.”

When he wasn’t tangling with his host, Pyne used the interview to encourage his colleagues to stay the course. He conceded the government had finished 2014 “in a slightly ragged position but we still have two years to go before an election is due”.

Pyne said many of the current political flashpoints would be gone over the next couple of years.

It was not entirely clear from his remarks whether one of the flashpoints he was consigning to the past tense was his higher education package, rejected by the Senate. “Many of the issues running now will be bedded down over the course of the next two years and I think we’ll have a very different end to next year than we’ve had to this year.”

The education minister said the Coalition just had to keep “ploughing on with our messages” and he added “forward momentum [was a] great salve”.

Bolt zeroed in on the treasurer Joe Hockey, who has been the recipient of some of the negative internal backgrounding over the past few weeks, and also the focal point of some of the negative commentary from conservative quarters outside the government.

Bolt wondered what Hockey could do to win greater confidence from his colleagues. Pyne said Hockey enjoyed his confidence, and the confidence of colleagues within the government.

The education minister also defended the contribution of another Coalition player who has been the target of negative commentary recently – Tony Abbott’s chief of staff, Peta Credlin.

Bolt thought Credlin might need a better communications manager. Pyne thought not.

The education minister noted Credlin had done a “superb” job and his desire was that she stay and do “even better into the future”.

Attacks on public broadcasting have gone global. The ABC is no exception

rupert murdoch

The enemies of state-owned media – Rupert Murdoch among them – make the same arguments around the world. Cuts to the ABC, BBC, NPR and PBS are justified the same way

The terms of the current battle in Australia over the ABC, its budget and place in public life have been set by its most vociferous critics, mostly in the Murdoch press. If only the lines weren’t so predictable. Their campaign fits neatly into a global trend: to reduce the public’s faith in public broadcasting, and to prepare for its selloff to corporate competitors.

Neutering the BBC and ABC, and the US public broadcasters NPR and PBS, is part of the Murdoch empire’s core business. As many of its papers continue to lose money every day, it’s no surprise that their fixation on halting so-called digital “mission creep” is a worldwide obsession.
The BBC

In 2013, Rupert Murdoch tweeted about his favourite enemy, the BBC: “huge lack of balance in UK media with 8,000 BBC left wing journalists far outnumbering all national print journalists.” He added that the BBC was a “massive taxpayer-funded mouthpiece for tiny circulation leftist Guardian”.

And in 2006, James MacManus, executive director of News International, said it was “outrageous” that the BBC was able to run on public money because the broadcaster had “blatantly commercial ambitions” and was trying to “create a digital empire”.

The same criticisms were made of ABC managing director Mark Scott in the papers last week: that he is creating a “superfluous digital empire” that impinges on the commercial realities of privately-owned media.

The message from Murdoch and other commercial enterprises is that their investment in journalism and innovation keeps a vibrant press alive – and that any limit to their commercial operations is an intrusion on free speech.

What that means in practice is quite different. To the Murdoch empire, a “free” press means the right to, for instance, sponsor the tricks of prominent British Murdoch reporter Mazher Mahmood – the “fake sheikh”.

For a well-resourced and independent BBC, the Guardian’s Peter Preston argued in his commentary on the BBC’s Mahmood expose, freedom is the “in-house means to dig, expose, take risks, and clear its decks for action” – vital journalistic functions that serve democracy.

Although many in the UK still like and admire the BBC, the institution has fallen greatly in the last ten years. Scandals, mismanagement and the perception that the broadcaster remains too close to the political establishment have harmed the BBC’s reputation. The cover-up of the crimes of serial paedophile Jimmy Savile was a watershed moment for the BBC – nearly half the British public lost trust in the Beeb after the scandal broke.

The difference is, every scandal at the public broadcaster is ammunition for the critics and privatisers. As British journalist Charlotte Higgins wrote earlier this year in the wake of ongoing crises in the BBC:

“It is in the nature of BBC rows to escalate quickly to question the very basis on which it is run. Some of the corporation’s enemies clearly hold the view that if one undermines the foundations, the edifice might be more swiftly destroyed: like digging a mine in a medieval siege.”

Murdoch would be pleased to recently read that the foundations are indeed getting shaky: BBC management is considering placing leading current affairs shows into a commercial subsidiary, yet another arm of the organisation that could suffer hits to their credibility were it exposed to commercial realities. David Cameron’s government has always been amenable to Murdoch’s grander ambitions – in opposition he argued the BBC “was squeezing and crushing … commercial competition” in Murdoch’s Sun newspaper. Labour leader Ed Miliband has also had a cosy relationship with the media mogul, despite a recent critical turn.
PBS and NPR
Advertisement

The American public are fighting an even more important battle. A mere six corporations control 90% of the press, and consumer confidence in the media is at an all-time low. Publicly funded outlets PBS and NPR have been marginalised and starved of funds for so long that they now sometimes take corporate largesse, diluting their integrity.

Republican critics of US public broadcasting argue that the high salaries of top management, and the success of its childrens’ programmes like Sesame Street, are arguments for cutting it loose from taxpayer funding. Again, parallels can be drawn with the Australian example: just look at the intense interest in Quentin Dempster’s salary and the children’s show, Peppa Pig.

Were PBS or NPR to be diminished, a handful of multinational media outlets would completely dominate the US media market. Murdoch’s burning desire to still consume Time Warner would guarantee an even larger voice for the multinational.

During the 2012 US presidential election, Republican candidate Mitt Romney said Washington should “stop the subsidy” to PBS, due to his ideological set against state funding for media. In reality, like with the ABC and BBC, government support is tiny and decreasing. NPR and PBS received $445m from 2012 to 2014, .012 percent of the federal budget.

Stations in rural areas are closing and shrinking and public radio states are decreasing, leaving only corporate alternatives. A 2012 poll found 55% of voters opposed cuts in public television spending. Murdoch, through Fox News, New York Post and Wall Street Journal, tirelessly campaigns and backs candidates who argue that the digital revolution makes public media obsolete.

We hear exactly the same rhetoric in Australia. The Lewis review urged the ABC to dump digital radio and charge for online content, opening the way for Murdoch to capitalise on a reduced ABC footprint.
The ABC

The aim isn’t to kill public broadcasting outright but to force a long war of attrition that slowly chips away at public’s respect and broadcasters’ desire to fight. It’s a messy strategy, but it’s working: trust in state-owned media like the ABC is in slow decline, even though it still leaves its critics for dead.

It’s a sign of how far this debate has skewed that the vast majority of heated conversations on public broadcasting are framed in purely economic terms. Can we afford it? Should we pay for it? How much does it cost? Can we sell off divisions?

We’re never discussing that terms of the debate disallow or discourage dissenting points of view. It’s far easier to obsess over the dry economics of an industry that doesn’t make anything tangible, like manufacturing or agriculture. The ABC is forced to explain its relevance in the face of ongoing attacks, when its charter prioritises the very things its commercial critics would see diminished: multiculturalism, education, diversity – and independence.

A Wee Case Study in How Fox News Makes Shit Up…..It’s a source of Boltisms

My sprained ankle is recovering nicely, but I’m still taking more frequent breaks than usual to elevate it and keep the swelling down. Naturally that means more TV watching, which is how I ended up viewing a segment on Fox a few minutes ago about President Obama’s declining approval rating on the economy in the latest Gallup poll. Both the fill-in anchor and Fox’s poll analyst claimed to be puzzled: the economy is showing signs of life lately, after all. So how is it possible that Obama’s approval ratings were falling?

The poll analyst had an answer ready: Obamacare. You see, as it becomes ever clearer that Obamacare is a raging disaster, people are assuming that means disaster for the economy as well. They think it means higher taxes, bigger deficits, more inflation, higher copays, etc. etc. etc. And what with all the news about pieces of the law being postponed, clearly the public really is expecting a disaster of biblical proportions.

Perhaps this just sounds like standard Fox News nitwittery? Not at all! Because the two on-air personalities weren’t just shooting the breeze about stuff they had no evidence for. They did have evidence. They had the evidence of the very same Gallup poll they were commenting on in the first place. You see, Gallup actually asked people if they approved of Obama’s healthcare policy. And guess what? It’s pretty much unchanged. If the American public is expecting an epic healthcare meltdown over the next few months, they sure aren’t showing it. And they sure aren’t blaming Obama for it.

This is what sets Fox News apart from the common herd. Aside from Shep Smith, whose bipartisan contempt for idiocy appeals to me, I barely ever watch Fox. I only do it in the mornings if I have to spend some time doing a boring exercise, or elevating my ankle, or something similar that plunks me in front of the TV. But despite the rarity of that happening, practically every segment I ever see produces some kind of obvious boneheaded misdirection that’s worthy of a blog post. Every one. It’s amazing. It’s one thing to blather on in the absence of facts, but it’s quite another to deliberately ignore evidence right in front of your face because it would interfere with whatever agitprop you happen to feel like phoning in. At some point, you’d think it would get embarrassing, especially on what’s supposed to be a straight-news show. But it never does.

Abbott’s problems go deeper than Bolt realises: The man punches with his eyes closed.

Political parties are no longer able to command the authority they once did.

A reshuffle and a better media strategy will only get the Abbott Government so far. What it needs is power and authority, both of which are in short supply in this globalised world, writes Tim Dunlop.

Andrew Bolt is worried. The Abbott Government has, he says, “a serious problem“. They are lagging in the polls and unless they do something drastic, they are going to stay that way.

His is one of those tough-love columns those on the Right like to write occasionally in order to gird the loins of those on their side of politics.

Such articles are like an intervention for a friend with a drug problem, or a who’ll-tell-you-if-I-don’t moment where a loved one softly informs you that your pits smell.

To be fair, Bolt is certainly read and respected by the Coalition, so he is within his rights to think his little truth bomb will have some effect.

Indeed, some of what he says is fair enough. But what I want to highlight here is the fact that he misses the wider significance of his own assessment.

Most interestingly, the solutions he offers betray a fundamental misreading of the underlying problems faced by not just the Abbott Government, but Australian political parties in general.

Bolt makes a long list of the things that are undermining the Government:

  • They are doing OK on foreign policy, but voters don’t care about that
  • Their broken promises continue to “kill” them
  • The budget is in “blowout” and the economy is struggling, and that undermines their “entire argument for being”
  • They are suffering an “onslaught” from the media which makes it impossible for them to sell their agenda
  • They have a lousy media strategy which is “too often defensive and reactive”
  • Tony Abbott is just too nice, which means “The Government is getting killed in bare-knuckle politics”
  • Joe Hockey is a dud “who can’t dominate the agenda”
  • They lack an effective head kicker, and so look weak
  • Scott Morrison (who Bolt, like many on the right, sees as heroic) is underutilised
  • Julie Bishop is great, but again, no-one cares about foreign affairs
  • Malcolm Turnbull’s ability to coddle “the Left-wing media” is being wasted
  • They have no “inspiring cause” they can evangelise about
  • They don’t have enough spruikers outside government, including within business circles, who will help them push their plans
  • They lack “inspiring reforms” that will “energise [their] base”
  • They need to dump fights they can’t win like Medicare co-payment and the parental leave scheme
  • They are ignoring new talent, especially women, within the parliamentary party
  • They have no senior Victorian ministers, as they have had in the past
  • They keep getting caught out in interviews on the ABC. Ministers “sit there passively while the interviewer asks the gotcha questions”

The first thing that strikes you is how much of this could have been applied to the last three Labor governments (Rudd, Gillard, Rudd).

In particular, the idea that the Government lacks an inspiring “big picture” message; that they face a hostile media and have no coherent media strategy; that their Treasurer can’t dominate the agenda; that they lack spruikers outside government; that they are lumbered with unpopular policies; and that broken promises are killing them – all of this sounds eerily familiar.

And that’s exactly the point.

The fact that governments of different political stripes end up suffering from the same shortfalls speaks not to something unique to a given party, but an underlying weakness in the political substrate.

Remember, both Rudd 1 and Abbott himself came to power with fairly decent majorities, were ostensibly swept into office on the back of electoral dissatisfaction with their predecessors, and yet both very quickly fell into a heap, shedding internal coherence and public confidence in equal measure.

This is hardly a coincidence. In fact, it is part of a wider trend in Western democracies, where political parties, long the basis of democratic governance, are no longer able to command the authority they once did.

As political scientist Peter Mair puts it in his book Ruling the Void:

The age of party democracy has passed. Although the parties themselves remain, they have become so disconnected from the wider society, and pursue a form of competition that is so lacking in meaning, that they no longer seem capable of sustaining democracy in its present form.

Memberships are down, voting is in decline, and much of the serious work of economic management now happens at the pan-national level via organisations like the G20 or the European Union. So-called free-trade agreements and other international contracts zap control from sovereign nations and hand it to these rootless instrumentalities, further undermining the role of parties and the governments they form.

What’s more, corporations distribute profits globally and thus avoid tax on a massive scale, depriving governments of the resources they need in order to function. The fiscal hole is then filled by governments destroying services which ultimately leads to the rising inequality that is plaguing the developed world.

Citizens naturally become disenchanted. They come to expect to be disappointed.

Tony Abbott’s many broken promises are thus symptomatic of a system where politicians anticipate that disappointment, feel the need to tell people what they want to hear, but then lack the authority to even remotely address the issues people want addressed.

That he even gave all these cast-iron commitments – despite the fact that it was as obvious as it could be that he would comfortably win the 2013 election – is indicative of the underlying weakness that animates so much political behaviour.

So what happens when political authority evaporates in this way?

The void is filled with tales of budget emergencies, a rhetoric of entitlement and of leaners and lifters to justify cuts, a scapegoating of the truly vulnerable such as asylum seekers and the unemployed, and the whipping up of national security concerns: anything that can make it look like the government still has some relevance.

But people see through it, which is why the polls are as they are.

Bolt’s “solutions” to the Abbott Government malaise, then, are just about pointless because he misses this bigger picture. He says the government must execute a reshuffle and then: “Get sharp. Get tough. Get assertive. Get confident. Offer inspiration. And fight.”

But these all presume that governments, or parties more generally, have some underlying authority, some power to really make a difference in people’s lives. Increasingly, though, that power and authority is absent – dissipated into the gossamer connections of a globalised world – and without it, no amount of sharpness, toughness, assertiveness, confidence, inspiration or fight is going to make any difference, especially in the long-term.

Bolt is right. The Abbott Government is in big trouble. But the nature of the problem goes way deeper than anything a reshuffle and a better media strategy is able to address.

Tim Dunlop is the author of The New Front Page: New Media and the Rise of the Audience. He writes regularly for a number of publications. You can follow him on Twitter. View his full profile here.

When broken promises become tests of character

Tony Abbott visits Arnhem Land as opposition leader.

Beyond the convenient promises of campaigning lie the deeper moral obligations of the state. How will Tony Abbott respond as Indigenous Australians face the prospect of being driven once more from their traditional lands? Jonathan Green writes.

The routine political promise is like a piece of Mary Poppins pastry: easily made, easily broken.

And do we care? Probably not so much. Trust has been worn down by the constant repetition of brazen insincerity. We are resigned.

“No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS.”

No change either to the post-truth framing of modern politics, a place where a promise is simply a piece of positioning to sway popularity whose impact is immediate and not dependent on execution.

If we wanted truth, we’d probably vote for it. As it is, we seem to prefer a more gestural approach: a sense of plausible coherence rather than too much specific commitment. We want a sense that things will be better, that things will be managed. That we all might quietly prosper and get on.

Truth is as far from the point as conviction.

It certainly wasn’t our issue with the last administration. To take the “Juliar” campaign as a pointed pursuit of honest politics is to mistake the rhetorical veneer for the character assassination it concealed. The carbon promise was a crack in credibility that subsequent consistency and unified confidence could have papered over, the same sense of confident denial the Abbott Government is using now to insist bluntly that black is almost certainly white if you consider the full ramifications of the changing context.

And to be fair, we’re flexible enough to admit that circumstances change and that campaign promises are largely rhetorical gestures that shouldn’t stand in the way of greater responsibilities.

That’s a practical as well as moral convenience, one that saves us from the awkward prospect of holding the simultaneous notions that truth matters while admitting that politics is inherently mendacious. We need that grace of flexibility.

And yet there is another level of political truth on which honesty matters very much indeed. Beyond the convenient promises of campaigning lie the deeper moral obligations of the state … to fairness, justice, equity, opportunity.

These are the sort of issues that draw broad declarations of noble intent, the sort of statements that truly go to something deeper than political character.

This kind of thing:

I want a new engagement with Aboriginal people to be one of the hallmarks of an incoming Coalition government … I hope to be a prime minister for Aboriginal Affairs.

This is more than Tony Abbott the politician, this is Tony Abbott the man dealing with an issue that is at the core of the most fundamental moral obligations of any Australian Government: to attempt some honest betterment of the state of Aboriginal Australians.

As much as any current politician he has put words to the profound necessity of a just settlement between Australia’s first and colonising peoples. As he told the Parliament in February 2013:

Australia is a blessed country. Our climate, our land, our people, our institutions rightly make us the envy of the earth; except for one thing – we have never fully made peace with the first Australians. This is the stain on our soul that Prime Minister Keating so movingly evoked at Redfern 21 years ago.

We have to acknowledge that pre-1788, this land was as Aboriginal then as it is Australian now and until we have acknowledged that, we will be an incomplete nation and a torn people.

Clearly we are far from achieving that healing. The Productivity Commission report released this week, Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage, details a people in a state of psychological crisis. A people amongst whom suicide, self-harm and mental injury are rife.

There are slow improvements in things like infant mortality, but it seems that when many young and adult Indigenous Australians confront their life circumstances, they see little grounds for hope or evidence of opportunity.

And despite the Prime Minister’s declared intention to be “a Prime Minister for Aboriginal Affairs”, a Prime Minister who might move to heal this “torn people”, they also see a leader who fits, perhaps unwittingly, into the assimilationist orthodoxies of hyper-conservative Australia, of that body of bizarre opinion that sees any gesture toward Indigenous autonomy, self-determination or recognition as some queer inverted racism visited upon long suffering white Australia.

The sort of view promoted with endless vigour by the likes of Andrew Bolt:

I am an indigenous Australian, like millions of other people here, black or white. Take note, Tony Abbott. Think again, you new dividers, before we are on the path to apartheid with your change to our Constitution.

I was born here, I live here and I call no other country home. I am therefore indigenous to this land and have as much right as anyone to it.

It’s a lunatic fringe, but its impact is borne out in documents like the Productivity Commission report, a report that was preceded by news from Western Australia that the State Government intends to close over a hundred remote Indigenous communities, communities now defunded by the Commonwealth and thrust upon the slim resources of a state that sees little future in supporting them.

Their people will be driven, once more, from their traditional lands, by a Government that fully comprehends the consequences. As WA premier Colin Barnett put it:

It will cause great distress to Aboriginal people who will move, it will cause issues in regional towns as Aboriginal people move into them.

And here is a test for the PM, to stand by those principles he presents as deep conviction, as the fundamental tenets of his moral self.

This is as far from a dumb promise shaken out in the excitement of 11th hour campaigning as you can get, and something that might stand as a serious test of character for Tony Abbott, something, that if he is not careful, might yet make a Juliar of him.

Jonathan Green hosts Sunday Extra on Radio National and is the former editor of The Drum. View his full profile here.

Audits clear ABC of bias, but don’t expect Rowan Dean agrees Bolt wont

Two ABC audits have found no widespread bias in the national broadcaster’s news coverage. But a clean bill of health for the ABC is unlikely to soothe its detractors.

Last December, ABC chairman James Spigelman said the public broadcaster would begin conducting four audits a year looking for bias in its news coverage. Spigelman told the National Press Club:

Since my appointment I have naturally been concerned with the frequency of allegations of a lack of impartiality. I do not accept that it is systematic, but I do accept that it sometimes occurs. Every news and current affairs program endeavours to ensure balance, whilst avoiding the pitfall of irrelevant dullness.”

This morning, the first two reviews were released, and they pose little to worry about for the public broadcaster. One of this morning’s audits, by the BBC’s former chief editorial policy adviser Andrea Wills, dealt with ABC radio’s coverage of the 2013 election. While it made some suggestions, it concluded that the ABC had done no wrong:

On the whole interviewers asked well-informed and relevant questions that their audience would reasonably expect to hear, and they were robust and consistent in their dealings with the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition. I have to say that it was impossible to detect any actual ‘pre-judgement’ or personal positions of interviewers in this sample.

Finally, I concluded that the 23 items analysed for this editorial audit were duly impartial within themselves and complied with Section 4 of the ABC’s Editorial Policies.”

Another audit, by former SBS director (and Coalition appointee) Gerald Stone, dealt with the ABC’s coverage of asylum seekers on Lateline and 7.30. This review was more critical — finding four reports (out of a total 97 examined) where editorial standards appeared to have lapsed — but it also cleared the ABC of biased reporting on the issue in its conclusion:

In the course of this audit I have routinely checked for indicators of bias as typical TV viewers might believe they have detected it. Were interviewers tougher on some and notably softer on others? Did there appear to be an uneven distribution of time given to one topic or another? One political side or another? To academics and other expert commentators espousing humanitarian views as opposed to those more concerned with the practical need to protect Australia’s borders and deter people from resorting to people smugglers?

As an independent observer, I found no grounds for concern in any of those measurements.

The overall coverage of both programs included as wide a range of opinions as practical. Meanwhile, the air time given to any particular topic was in keeping with the newsworthiness of the asylum seeker debate as it progressed through the weeks nominated for this audit.”

Most concerning to Stone was a 2012 Lateline report in which Helen Brown visited an impoverished Indonesian fishing village, home to people smugglers held in Australian jails. “The segment appeared to have only one purpose — to exploit the bias of imagery to evoke sympathy for crew members of people-smuggling vessels,” Stone wrote.

He also criticised the interview with the people smugglers’ lawyer, who he said made dubious claims without being questioned on them. “It portrayed them — without any semblance of proof — as frequently misled as to their real mission and too naive to understand why they are offered more money for one voyage than the average Indonesian fisherman makes in a year,” he wrote. ABC news director Kate Torney accepted the criticism that more scrutiny should have been applied.

Another Lateline story came in for criticism from for supporting the claim that Australia’s treatment of Tamil refugees is so inhumane that it should not sit on the UN Security Council (Stone said many countries with far worse human rights records sat on the council).

Another segment, aired on 7.30, was deemed not to have made it clear that a Tamil asylum seeker’s claims about being tortured by Sri Lankan intelligence officers had not been proven, with the asylum seeker himself saying he couldn’t be sure who tortured him. Stone said the story should have used the word “alleged” in relation to the claim — the program responded that it wouldn’t have fit its conversational style.

Another segment, also with Tamil asylum seekers, did not probe their responses enough, Stone wrote.

Stone’s review only considered reports aired from August 2012 and December 2013. This means the most controversial ABC story on the issue — George Roberts’ piece reporting claims that the Australian navy had burnt the hands of asylum seekers en route to Indonesia — was not examined in the audit. It aired on January 22 this year.

Spigelman has welcomed both audits, saying they showed “95% of the content examined attracted no criticism or concern”:

Consistent with other processes, these reviews have once again demonstrated that against the background of thousands of stories produced … The error rate is quite small.”

The next review, the chairman revealed, will be into how well the ABC’s daily radio programs cover the issues that matter to their audiences.

Michael Gawenda, a research fellow at the Centre for Advancing Journalism at the University of Melbourne, says it’s no wonder the ABC is happy with the result. “And why wouldn’t they be? The radio review basically said everything was hunky dory. The other one found four programs had some problems. But even with those, once the reviewer went back and spoke to the executive producers, there were explanations for a lot of the problems,” he said.

This raises another question. The audits were released by the ABC, and while the people writing them weren’t ABC employees, how much can we trust reviews commissioned by the organisation being reviewed? Matthew Ricketson, professor of journalism at the University of Canberra, says that self-scrutiny doesn’t come easily to many people, and that’s especially true for media organisations. Nonetheless, he told Crikey: “The ABC does it better than any other mainstream media organisation in this country.”

Will this be enough for the ABC’s critics? Gawenda reckons: not a chance.

But Ricketson thinks we shouldn’t be so cynical. “The ABC’s critics are not a monolithic group. A large news organisation will always have critics because of the sheer volume of material created, because of the difficulties of creating journalism against tight deadlines and because of the contentious subject matter that serious journalism necessarily delves into,” he said.

Open-minded critics will, I believe, welcome the ABC’s commitment to reviewing and improving its practices. Close-minded critics of the ABC will find material that is grist to their mill.  As Daniel Okrent, former public editor of The New York Times, once put it: such people are able to identify all biases except their own.

The Hysterical Tania Plibersek

It’s always worth remembering the origins of the word “hysteria”.

I actually can’t at the moment, but I do know that it stems from the same word family as hysterectomy. And, just as a man can’t have one of those, we should remember that only women can be hysterical.

So, Mr Dutton – who clearly can’t be accused of hysteria, because he’s a man – calls for a measured response to the Ebola crisis. After all, it’s not like the “debt crisis” or the “budget emergency”, this is only killing a few thousand people in Africa, so there’s really no problem.

Mr Dutton – for those of you who’ve never heard of him – is our Health Minister, and as such is a very measured person. He’s so measured that he didn’t ask a single question about his portfolio while he was Shadow Minister for Health.

Mr Dutton pointed out the problems with Tania Plibersek’s response:

“This has to be done in a sensible, rational way, not an emotional way that put people in harm’s way … Mr Shorten seems to have maintained his composure, whereas Ms Plibersek is quite hysterical, which is not the leadership you need in these crises.”

Plibersek, on the other hand, urged immediate action, suggesting:

“The predictions are that if we don’t get Ebola under control in the next two months or so, the spread of the virus will be completely unpredictable and very difficult to handle. We’ve had calls from around the world for Australia to send help.

“We must stop this in West Africa, and Australia must be part of an international effort. If Ebola gets to Asia there’s no guarantee of Australia’s safety.”

See, hysteria!

But that’s just typical of the Labor Party! I mean in Parliament today, they were rabbiting on about Mr Abbott’s so called promise about not changing the GST. As Mr Abbott suggested, they are incapable of having a mature, adult conversation about broken promises without tossing words like “broken promises” into the discussion. How childish!

No, we need less hysteria about things like Ebola and climate change. After all, hysteria about the end of the planet led to the carbon tax which nearly wiped Whyalla off the map and if it wasn’t for its abolition Australia would have had all its mines shifted offshore.

As Andrew Bolt wrote today, while singing the praises of another Dutchman, Van Gogh (It’s a shame these people from other countries can’t actually praise good Australian artists. Pro Hart, for example, sold more paintings than Van Gogh, so surely he must be better. If Van Gogh were in Australia today, he’d want a subsidy, but thankfully we could just say piss off back where you came from, Dutchie!):

“I quit journalism twice, thinking I’d never get the hang of it.”

Of course, once he realised that he could write for the Murdoch press without the need for journalism, he became the man he is today. Which, of course, means that he could never be called hysterical.

After all, as I just said, he’s a man. And an adult.

Unlike Tania Plibersek, who seems to think that Ebola would be a problem if it spread to Asia. Doesn’t she realise that we have much better ways of dealing with Ebola and it’d be no problem if it spread to Australia. It’d only be a problem if one of the volunteers in Africa contracted it, because we don’t have any agreement for evacuation, and, as we should have learned from World War Two, Britain’s entry into the Common Market and Tony Abbott, when it comes to helping out Australia, there’s no way we should rely on the English.

News Corp over indulges in hypocrisy when saddling up Ethics in the Journalistic Cup

People In Glass Houses Shouldn’t Work At News Corporation

By Chris Graham

Call him paranoid, but Chris Graham is starting to get the distinct impression that The Australian newspaper doesn’t much like New Matilda.

I’ve been called a lot of things in the course of my career. Andrew Bolt once referred to me as a “race warrior”, and Miranda Devine told a colleague of mine that I was “pure evil”.

Obviously, I was chuffed.

In The Weekend Australian today, Brendan O’Neill describes my colleagues at New Matilda and me as “moral crusaders”, as he leaps to the defence of Professor Spurr – the tenured Sydney University academic suspended recently over a series of racist, misogynistic emails.

I’m going to let the fact that it’s yet another white man defending yet another white man’s right to be a racist and a sexist fly through to the keeper, and focus instead on the fact that Mr O’Neill genuinely appears to have meant the barb of ‘moral crusader’ as an insult.

The fact is, I most definitely do ‘crusade’ (on a lot of issues, but in particular racism and Aboriginal rights, and increasingly refugees and climate change); and given that I like to consider myself quite ‘moral’ – although I accept many do not agree – calling me a ‘moral crusader’ is one of the nicest things that anyone at The Australian has ever said about me.

With the possible exception of this front-page accusation a month or so ago, that myself and colleague Wendy Bacon (one of the journalists, along with Max Chalmers, involved in New Matilda’s coverage about the $60,000 secret scholarship awarded to the Prime Minister’s daughter) were involved in a ‘plot’ to damage the Prime Minister.

Needless to say, ‘moral crusader’ as an insult to someone who is passionate about basic rights is about as caustic as ‘politically correct’ to someone who genuinely believes that being careful with language and concepts is important, so as not to further oppress minorities.

The ‘dirty words’ of our nation, I think, say as much about us as a society as they do about Professor Spurr and his use of terms like ‘Abos, Chinky-Poos and Muzzies’, and his apparent casual attitude towards the rape of women.

And speaking of Professor Spurr, O’Neill makes a surprising ‘concession’ in the very first paragraph of his article.

“Why is it bad to hack and expose photographs of a woman’s naked body but apparently OK to steal and make public the contents of a man’s soul?” laments O’Neill.

Wow. Seems Mr O’Neill – despite his otherwise robust defence – doesn’t think very much of Bazza. Which is puzzling, because from my reading, the official line from The Australian thus far has been that the comments by Professor Spurr were not part of his soul, rather they were, as Spurr himself continues to assert, part of a ‘whimsical linguistic game’. I suspect Brendan O’Neill – based over in London at Spiked – might not have got that News Corp memo.

The partial transcripts of the correspondence strongly suggest otherwise, but regardless, it’s surprising to me that in order to leap to the defence of a man, O’Neill and The Australian are prepared to so readily jettison something as fundamental as Barry Spurr’s soul, by suggesting that it consists of deep racism, misogyny and bigotry.

Personally, I don’t believe that for a second. Obviously, I’m not Professor Spurr’s biggest fan. But I don’t believe that the summation of a life (and in this case, apparently, a soul) can be done simply by calculating the sum total of the shittiest thing people found out about you.

Put simply, while I do believe that Professor Spurr holds deep-seated views that I, and many in Australian society, find utterly repugnant, I don’t believe that they plumb the depths of his soul. I happen to think that if souls do exist (and I’m not convinced… but anyhoo), they’re probably pretty nice, and that the nasty bits about all of us come from somewhere else. Lived experience, most likely.

But whatever the truth, I also happen to believe that the public interest, given Professor Spurr’s participation in the review of the National School Curriculum, warrants that his views – or his ‘soul’ – get a broader airing.

And that’s the other really notable thing about Brendan O’Neill’s piece. The phrase ‘public interest’ doesn’t appear once. Coming from a journalist based at the media empire in London which hacked the phones of celebrities – and that of a child who had been raped and murdered – for ‘scoops’… well, I can’t say I’m all that surprised. I’m not suggesting O’Neill defends the phone hacking scandal, but I am suggesting the awkward irony may be lost on him.

To make his point, O’Neill opines:

“… just a few weeks ago, when a hacker invaded the iCloud accounts of female celebs and rifled through their intimate snaps, there was global outrage.

“This theft of explicit private photos of actress Jennifer Lawrence and others was a sex crime, we were told.”

Well, yes, we were told that. But that’s only because it was. And there’s another irony: a Fleet Street lad from a corner of the world’s media famous for its base objectification of women appearing to intimate that it wasn’t.

The fact is, there is ‘news’ in celebrities. A case in point is this excellent article published on New Matilda today, by Dr Liz Conor. It explores the recent hubbub over plastic surgery undertaken by Renee Zellwegger, which left her apparently ‘unrecognisable’. But notably, Conor’s piece is not about the ‘tits and arse’ of Renee Zellwegger. It’s a thoughtful piece about the deeper issue of how we perceive famous women.

So there is value in exploring the public lives of celebrities, but it’s important how you explore it.

I agree, there is no value in publishing the private photos of a naked Jennifer Lawrence. It is an outrage. It may be what some sections of the public are ‘interested in’, but it is in no way ‘in the public interest’. They’re two vastly different concepts, but frequently confused by the hounds at News (and many other outlets, for that matter).

Thus, my respectful submission – both here and to the Federal Court – is that Professor Spurr’s views are in the public interest. I won’t dwell on that, because (a) my thoroughly awesome legal team is arguing that, and I don’t wish to pre-empt the judge’s findings (we’re back there on December 8); and (b) I do sincerely believe that Professor Spurr and his legal counsel are entitled to test the matter and plead their case, without it being too polluted by public discourse from the guy in the dock.

At the same time, I don’t plan to sit idly by while those at News Corporation seek to rewrite history, and in the process, hope we forget their own.

I’m specifically referring to comments like these from O’Neill: “Fast forward to last week, and some of the same people whose jaws hit the floor at the audacity of those who leaked these women’s private, unguarded pics were cheering the hacking of Spurr’s private, unguarded words.”

A News Corporation journalist seeking to point out hypocrisy. Where do I start….

There’s a simple reason why The Australian has tried so hard to link the story of Professor Spurr to ‘hacking’, notwithstanding our repeated public statements that it’s not true. It’s the same reason The Australian has so vigorously pursued Freya Newman, the whistleblower in the Frances Abbott secret scholarship saga, and a young woman of substantial courage who clearly acted ‘illegally’ – as opposed to wrongly – in the ‘public interest’.

The simple reason is, they want us to look as bad as them. They want people to make the connection to the UK phone hacking scandal. Which was, of course, perpetrated by them.

Set aside the clear ‘public interest’ differences, and let’s just look at the facts: New Matilda published information given to it by sources. News International published information from people it had paid to hack. The terms ‘gaping hole’ and ‘go and have a bit of a lie down Chris Mitchell’ leap to mind.

In News-speak, i call this the ‘If we’re all covered in shit, then we all stink the same’ theory.

But it’s ultimately a straw man strategy. The links News wants you to believe exist, do not. And nor does the history. New Matilda and the outstanding (albeit very small) team that works here would need to practice decades of breath-taking hypocrisy and gross abuse of power to look or smell anything like some sections of News Corporation (notwithstanding the fact that there are a few people in the organisation I greatly admire) .

And in case anyone has forgotten, let’s pause now, briefly, to remember some of that recent history.

The contents of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Peter Slipper’s diary was published. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe News Corporation broke that story? I can’t recall The Australian railing about an invasion of privacy. I do recall them invoking ‘public interest’ (a test, and a story, with which I happen to agree).

When the ‘private’ emails of climate scientists were hacked last year, and then republished out of context, I don’t recall howls of outrage from The Oz or News Limited about ‘privacy’. I do recall a certain level of gloating and ‘we told you so’.

And this is where and why The Australian continues to come unstuck. It’s history of ‘what’s good for everyone else is not good for us… unless we say so’.

It’s a thoroughly transparent, and, frankly, embarrassing way to run a national broadsheet. And if this stunning scoop from one of the great independent Australian media outlets (Crikey) about the slow death of News Corporation papers in Australia is anything to go by, then journalism parading as sex, sensationalism and vendettas doesn’t pay the bills either.

The Glass House Empire of News Corporation, it seems, is a fragile one indeed, and no amount of historical revisionism, nor name-calling, is going to change that.

Journalism might. They should probably give it a crack.

Barry Humphries and Barry Spurr are a comedy double act no one needs How can Barry Humphries support freedom of speech for Barry Spurr over his offensive emails when censorship is just fine for his Adelaide cabaret festival? That’s why I’ll be boycotting it

Barry Humphries

How can Barry Humphries support freedom of speech for Barry Spurr over his offensive emails when censorship is just fine for his Adelaide cabaret festival? That’s why I’ll be boycotting it

Dammit Barry! Both of you. If you’ve blocked #auspol on Twitter to save your sanity, you might have missed the uproar over Prof Barry Spurr’s heinously offensive email trails, and his subsequent suspension from Sydney university. Managing to offend Indigenous people, women, Asian Australians, African Americans, Muslims and anyone with a conscience is no mean feat, but Spurr sure gave it a go.

But he isn’t the only Barry making headlines this week. Barry Humphries, veteran of Australian comedy, has now seen fit to wade into the fray with an ill-conceived letter to the Australian referring to Spurr as the “poor professor”. He goes on to accuse those of us who prefer our educational leaders not to make rape jokes of “cultural fascism,” adding that “the new puritanism is alive, well and powerful”.

Perhaps I would have passed by this letter, dismissing it as a ranting tirade from an out-of-touch old clown, had I not been in the middle of writing an application to the Adelaide cabaret festival, that same great Australian event that has appointed Humphries as artistic director.

Aussie comedians and cabaret artists were already rankled when Humphries made a hullabaloo about banning the “F Word” in his cabaret festival programming. “I’m banning the popular expletive,” he said. “They’ll have to manage without it.”

Leaving for a moment the patronising manner in which Humphries addressed his artists, how can he support freedom of speech for Spurr, when blatant censorship is just fine for his international arts festival?

I’ve been performing comedy cabaret with my troupe Lady Sings it Better for a few years now. I was drawn to the scene’s history of vibrant political dissent, a spirit of rebellion that rumbled through the bars of Berlin and now flourishes in a thrilling neo-cabaret scene across the globe. Cabaret is no place for censorship, but it’s also no place for racism, sexism and the other charming tidbits littering Spurr’s inbox.

To see a man appointed to what is arguably the most powerful position in the Australian cabaret scene defend hate speech should be of concern to all Australian artists and audiences. The liberals of the Weimar tradition must be rolling in their graves.

Good comedy makes fun of power; it punches up, not down. Good comedy has the power to shift perceptions, to offer release in times of trouble and to shed light on unexpected ideas or viewpoints. But good comedy should not be cruel. There is nothing clever, playful or hilarious about making fun of minority groups or of yearning for a time when Australia had “no Abos, Chinky-poos, Mussies, graffiti, piercings, jeans, tattoos. BCP in all Anglican churches; Latin Mass in all Roman ones. Not a woman to be seen in a sanctuary anywhere. And no obese fatsoes. All the kiddies slim and bright eyed. Now utterly gone with the wind.” I quote Spurr here.

Well, Barry Humphries, this diversity-loving, godless fatso won’t be applying to the Adelaide cabaret festival this year, nor any year when Humphries is at its creative helm.

This is no small decision; audiences for cabaret in Australia can be small and, despite Sydney’s growing (and thrilling) independent musical theatre and cabaret scene, the opportunity to tour to the southern hemisphere’s biggest cabaret event can be huge milestone in an artist’s career. But I just can’t bring myself to send in an application.

Instead, we’ll be performing in the open-access Adelaide fringe. Open-access festivals mean increased costs for independent, emerging artists, and fierce competition in a program with hundreds of other acts. But the fringe won’t censor our work, and our success won’t be at the whim of a man who thinks racial slurs are A-OK in modern Australia.

If the powers that be down in good old Radelaide don’t respect Australian audiences enough to rein in their own nutty professor, I don’t see how any cabaret artist, Australian or international, could choose to perform. Humphries closes out his letter by urging us to “restore our reputation as a funny country before it’s too late”. I’d say the first step would be to show him the door.

Old Dog Thought

I believe Barry H read The Age under the misbelief that he was reading the News. He had a knee jerk reaction to what seemed an injustice at first glance but what has since turned out to be a closet racist’s true nature revealed and News Corps confected outrage  ho ho ho  to ” hacking” .

News Corp  calling it an invasion of privacy is  the pot calling the kettle black. They wish they had broken the story first. They did the same when it was revealed that Bill Shorten was accused of rape. They just wished they’d got to it first. Andrew Bolt sanctimoniously talked  about his ‘ethics’ and that he would never steep so low.  Had it been a group of  paedophile priests, terrorists etc one assumes the News Corp opinionators would be in full support of protecting their privacy as well..My comment on the matter

It’s noteworthy that virtually none of Gough’s reforms were repealed by the Fraser Government and most continue as part of our political identity to this day.

To the TROLLS at News Corp Bolt, McCrann, Sheridan who couldn’t have a moment of silence or bipartisan respect before dancing on his body ” virtually none of Gough’s reforms were repealed by the Fraser Government and most continue as part of our political identity to this day.” That is completely overlooked by you all in doing your masters work.

We want Gough

The list of reforms of the Whitlam government is quite unbelievable for such a short time in office.

Some of these reforms were small but significant in their symbolism — like selling the black Rolls Royce Commonwealth cars and replacing them with more modest white cars like those we see today. Some of the Whitlam reforms were momentous and truly shaped the future of the country, universal health care, land rights, free tertiary education and abolishing conscription being obvious examples.

It’s noteworthy that virtually none of Gough’s reforms were repealed by the Fraser Government and most continue as part of our political identity to this day.

After so many years in opposition, the Labor party were brimming with pent up plans for the country and were in a hurry to implement them — too much of a hurry perhaps. Whitlam polarised the nation as perhaps nobody since has done.

He also cast doubt upon our relationships with our grand old allies, the U.S. and UK.

He gave us a new national anthem to replace God Save the Queen. He abolished royal titles in Australia (that Abbott has now reinstated). He opened the question of whether or not Australia should host secret U.S. intelligence facilities, like Pine Gap. He ended conscription for the Vietnam War and ordered an end to Australian involvement in the U.S. orchestrated overthrow of the democratically elected government of Chile.

Never before or since has Australia so substantially chartered its own course with respect to significant international events.

I recently wrote a series of articles at The Guardian on the sorry state of our democracies. Most of the points I discussed in those pieces didn’t relate to the Whitlam Government.

Love them or hate them, you have to admit that they didn’t sail close to the political wind and they weren’t afraid to lead. They stated their aims and they implemented reforms to achieve them. Gough Whitlam had a powerful vision for a different Australia and he tried to lead Australia towards that vision. Despite the high speed train wreck that ended the Whitlam Government, to a very large extent they succeeded in radically reshaping the country to more resemble their vision.

I, for one, think our country is immeasurably better off for having had that brief period of genuine political leadership. I may have lost my love of the Australian Labor Party but I never lost my love of Gough — warts and all.

Thank you Gough Whitlam, rest in peace.

 

Bolt is a mamal too he tilts his head at concepts like climate change and gay marriage the same as my dog when he hears a strange sound

Nation In Mourning As Dallas Residents Released From Quarantine

Across the country conservatives from all walks of life donned black and lit candles today as 43 residents of Dallas, Texas were released from quarantine after showing no signs of Ebola three weeks after possible exposure to the deadly virus.

Health officials said that 43 of the 48 initial contacts of Ebola victim Thomas Eric Duncan are free to resume their lives after 21 days of isolation.

obama444

And while Dallas officials celebrated the milestone, they pleaded with the community not to stigmatize the people returning to their normal routines.

“There is zero risk that any of those people who have been marked off the list have Ebola,” Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins said at a news conference. “They were in contact with the person who had Ebola and the time period for them to get Ebola has lapsed.

“They are people who need our compassion our respect and our love,” Jenkins added. “Treat them the way you would want your own family treated if you were in their place and they were in yours.”

Jenkins called the reintegration process a “defining moment” and urged Dallas residents to trust the science behind their recommendations.

“We have to believe in science,” Jenkins said. “That’s what separates us from other mammals.”

zombiesmelbourne

In response, Speaker of the House John Boehner called his own press conference and insisted that there was no real difference between Republicans and any other mammal that roams the planet living in fear of things it does not understand.

A tearful Boehner told journalists that “Many times I’ve tilted my head in confusion when I just could not comprehend certain concepts like gay marriage, climate change, or equal pay for women, and I’ve seen my dog do the very same thing when he hears a strange sound, so I really don’t know what Jenkins is talking about.”

Senator Lindsey Graham, who began self-flagellating on the steps of the Capitol when he heard the news, wholeheartedly agreed.

“Since when have we Republicans ever listened to scientists about anything? This whole Ebola thing is part of the Benghazi-ISIS-Obamacare conspiracy to kill every single American, and I won’t rest until the whole country is just as terrified as I am!”

Pundits from both Fox and CNN paused briefly during ISIS doomsday coverage long enough to remind America that although the Ebola crisis in Dallas appears to be contained for the time being, it could always defy the laws of physics and crop up all over the country at once, causing millions of deaths. Dr. Keith Ablow of Fox reminded viewers that of Ebola didn’t kill us all, a huge asteroid could wipe us out any minute anyway, so by far the best thing to do is to live in abject fear for the rest of our lives.

Risk assessment – Kay Lee can’t be cut short – must to read

Risk-Assessment

http://theaimn.com/risk-assessment/

Life is a series of choices and decisions.  Within the constraints of time and finite resources, decision makers must learn to prioritise – to decide what is most important.

If you listen to anyone outside Australia, the greatest challenges facing us at the moment are climate change caused by anthropogenic global warming, income inequity leading to poverty, the Ebola crisis, pollution, peak resources, health and education in developing nations, the growing tide of refugees, providing enough food and clean water, sanitation, overpopulation, unemployment, species extinction, human rights abuses, affordable housing….and a fair way down the list would be a group of some tens of thousands of disaffected testosterone-filled teenagers that someone has been crazy enough to give guns and rockets to.

When faced with these global problems, the response of the Abbott government brings into question their ability to assess risk and respond appropriately.

On climate change, our Prime Minister tells us that “coal is good for humanity” while our Treasurer denies the fact that we are the world’s largest per capita emitter and that does not even take into account our exports.  (When you hear the phrase “I deny the premise of your question” that is Coalition for “I can’t hear you, here comes the Party line”)

As reported in the Guardian:

“Australia’s coal is one of the globe’s fourteen carbon bombs. Our coal export industry is the largest in the world, and results in 760m tonnes of CO2 emissions annually. The urgent goal of Tony Abbott’s government, and his environment minister Greg Hunt is to ship as much climate-devastating coal as possible, as quickly as possible.

Every day, this Liberal-National government, led by Tony Abbott, provides new examples of its nastiness, its short-sightedness, and its willingness to destroy livelihoods, communities and the environment to enrich coal barons.”

A new report by The Australia Institute “The Mouse that Roared: Coal in the Queensland Economy” demonstrates that the coal industry’s risks and damage completely outweigh its benefits.

Felicity Wishart the AMCS Great Barrier Reef Campaign Director said that the Queensland Government was prepared to risk the Great Barrier Reef, its international reputation and its $6 billion tourism industry for a coal industry that employs less people than Reef tourism, exports most of its profits and provides just 4% in royalties.

“The Australia Institute report reveals that there are under 25,000 jobs in coal mining in Queensland and 80% of the profits go overseas. This compares with 69,000 jobs in the tourism industry, and almost all the profits stay in Australia.”

When the world’s leaders met to discuss climate change, our leader couldn’t make it due to a prior engagement with Rupert to get his lines about why the war is good straight. Our deputy leader couldn’t make it because he is too busy planning thousands of kilometres of bitumen heat islands to carry millions of fossil fuel burning imported cars.  Our environment minister didn’t even seem to be considered or mentioned which is hardly surprising when he points to his plan for the Great Barrier Reef as a success.  Ignoring ocean acidification, warming, and salinity while approving the dumping of dredged silt and the expansion of coal ports is considered a success?  Oh that’s right, you removed a few starfish by injecting each one by hand.  Instead we sent Julie Bishop because she is good at stonewalling and death stares.

As representatives from the Philippines and Kiribati make heartfelt pleas about the damage being done to their nations, we have reneged on our promised contribution to the Green Fund to help developing nations deal with the havoc we cause. As marathon runners in Beijing choke on the pollution, we tell them that burning more coal will make them richer.

Everyone from the Pope to the head of the IMF has pointed to poverty and income inequity being a growing scourge, yet every action taken by this government will have the effect of increasing poverty and widening the gap. Internationally we have slashed Foreign Aid and domestically we have hit the poor with the budget from hell.

Joe Hockey and Mathias Cormann say, because the poor get more government handouts, they have more to give back when looking for spending cuts. Raising revenue will not be considered.  The poor, the sick, the elderly, the disabled, the students, the unemployed, single parents, low income families – these are the people to provide Mr Hockey with a surplus to brag about.  In the meantime, one in seven Australians live in poverty with that number predicted to rise.

Austerity and trickle-down economics are failed experiments which this government seems intent on pursuing despite the mountain of evidence and advice warning against such measures. As the majority of people get less disposable income, demand will dry up, production will fall, unemployment will rise, and the downward spiral will continue.

While we seem to have endless money to bomb countries, the money to help build infrastructure and provide humanitarian aid has dried up.

Our response to the Ebola crisis is hugely inadequate. The excuse about evacuation of affected health workers just will not wash.  We already have in place agreements with the US about medical evacuation of military personnel to Germany should they become critically ill.  Australian doctors and nurses are highly-trained and if they feel that they have adequate protective regimes in place then It is unlikely that we would be talking about a large number of people needing evacuation.  Considering the urgency of addressing this emergency, I cannot believe that the US or the UK or Germany would deny health workers the same service they offer to our military personnel.

Our Immigration Minister smugly claims success for his quasi-military war on refugees. He tells us this has been the humanitarian thing to do because he cares so much about asylum seekers that he can’t have them risking their lives at sea.  Unfortunately, he also cut our humanitarian intake by 7000 and has failed to successfully resettle anyone.  He would rather spend billions on OSB and offshore gulags and bribes to corrupt officials of other countries to absolve us of any responsibility at all rather than a cent on helping refugees.  All he has done is bottle refugees up in other countries while we sit back and refuse to help.

In response to growing unemployment, this government has removed restrictions on 457 visas encouraging employers to hire people who will work for less than award wages, no workplace entitlements and no job security. They have removed industry assistance from manufacturing to help them during a time when the high Aussie dollar hit the industry hard while giving billions of dollars in subsidies to the mining industry which caused the problem in the first place.

When Toyota, Ford and Holden leave the country for good in 2017, around 50,000 people who work in the automotive supply chain, mostly in Victoria and South Australia, will face the risk of unemployment.

Despite Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane telling us that ”Australians are smart, innovative and creative. We have the ability to remake our industry sector and the time in which to do it.”, according to European Union data from 2011, only 2.3 per cent of materials shipped out of Australia are high-tech – far less than the US, where the figure is closer to 20 per cent.

The OECD found in 2012 that Australia’s investment in high-tech industries was lower overall than other advanced economies yet the latest budget has slashed funding for research and development and decimated bodies like the CSIRO.

Remy Davison, the Jean Monnet Chair in politics and economics at Monash University, says despite the talk little has been done to create a realistic transformation scheme for industry.

”We talk about investing in smart industries and moving into high-tech industries, but nobody actually does it – not state governments, not federal governments, and to be fair the private sector doesn’t really invest in it either.”

When it comes to the war against ISIL, this is where the Abbott government steps up with seemingly unlimited resources to provide military assistance and to conduct over-the-top raids and surveillance at home, but where is the discussion about what led to the rise of this group? Where are the questions about how we are failing members of our own society so badly that they can be lured into this conflict?  Where is the strategy to help young people here to feel like they belong and encouragement to help them become productive members of our society?  Where is the support for our Muslim community?

Risk assessment is part of life and a crucial factor for all businesses. How much more so for a government when the consequences of their decisions are so far-reaching?  We have a government who came to power with a specific agenda to which they are determined to stick.  They are deaf to the advice of experts other than their hand chosen sycophants and choose to ignore the risks.  On all counts, in the most pressing problems facing the world, Australia has been found wanting.

Before casting your vote at the next election, Australians should consider the risk of allowing the Abbott government to continue down the path of nationalism and corporate greed at the expense of our duty as global citizens and our responsibility to protect the vulnerable.

16 Completely Life-Changing Things Australians Can Thank Gough Whitlam For. Whitlam gave Bolt an opportunity…he failed

1. Free medical care.

Free medical care.

ABC News / youtube.com

Gough Whitlam created Medibank as a key policy proposal in 1972. It gave Australians free access to hospitals and a range of medical services. The heart of the proposals are now seen in the scheme known as Medicare.

2. Scrapping university fees for a generation of students.

Scrapping university fees for a generation of students.

Dean Lewins / AAP Images

Gough Whitlam removed fees for universities in 1974 seeing a huge increase in the number of Australians receiving tertiary education.

3. Aboriginal land rights.

Aboriginal land rights.

Gough Whitlam returned the traditional lands of the Gurindji people to Vincent Lingiari in 1975. He poured the red dirt into his hands signaling the returning of the Wave Hill Station.

4. The Racial Discrimination Act.

The Racial Discrimination Act.

Gough Whitlam enacted the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975, making it illegal to discriminate in Australia based on ethnicity or country of origin.

5. A diplomatic relationship with China.

A diplomatic relationship with China.

Gough Whitlam was the first Australian Prime Minister to visit China, with Prime Minister Abbott crediting him with creating the modern relationship.

6. Women in power.

Women in power.

Gough Whitlam was the first world leader to appoint a dedicated adviser for women’s affairs, when he gave the position to Elizabeth Reid in 1973.

7. Ending Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War.

Ending Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War.

Australian War Memorial / Via whitlam.org

Gough Whitlam announced all Australian troops would be withdrawn and by 1973 he officially ended involvement in the Vietnam War.

8. Ending conscription.

Ending conscription.

Gough Whitlam brought an end to conscription in the early days of his government and those who had been jailed for refusing to join the army were released.

9. Ending the death penalty.

Ending the death penalty.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation / Via abc.net.au

Gough Whitlam abolished the death penalty for federal crimes in 1972 and it hasn’t been back since.

10. Legal aid.

Legal aid.

Paul Miler / AAP Images

Gough Whitlam created the Australian Legal Aid Office in 1973 with an office in each state in the country providing state money for those who need legal representation.

11. The Australian national anthem.

The Australian national anthem.

Ben Radford / Getty Images

Gough Whitlam announced a national competition for a new anthem to replace “God Save The Queen” in 1972. After public polls and votes, “Advance Australia Fair” became the new anthem in 1984.

12. The Order of Australia.

The Order of Australia.

ABC News / Via abc.net.au

Gough Whitlam created the system of national decorations known as the “Order of Australia” in 1975, seeing the scrapping of the old titles of “Knights” and “Dames”. Of course the imperial titles were re-instituted by the current Abbott Government this year.

13. Protected environmental sites.

Protected environmental sites.

The National Archives of Prime Ministers / Via primeministers.naa.gov.au

Gough Whitlam ratified the World Heritage Convention in 1974 which gave the government the power to protect environmental sites designated significant by UNESCO.

14. Lowering the voting to 18.

Lowering the voting to 18.

Gough Whitlam lead the charge to lower the voting age to 18, which was brought about in 1973.

15. Young people in politics.

Young people in politics.

Getty Images / Via sbs.com.au

Gough Whitlam is widely credited with bringing young people into politics with his socially progressive policies and revolutionary “It’s Time” election campaign.

16. Oh and of course there’s always Triple J.

Oh and of course there's always Triple J.

Gough Whitlam started 2JJ in 1975 just before being dismissed from government. It spawned into a national youth radio network now known as Triple J.

Lest history forget Gough, Nixon, CIA, Nugan Hand. Peter Carey hasn’t,Bolt doesn’t know because News Corp = Conspiracy

Chasing Nugan Hand

Email Danny Casolaro and Michael Hand tip-offs to nuganhand@live.com

Whitlam, the CIA and Nugan Hand

Sunday, November 21, 2010

By John Jiggens

Protest in support of Gough Whitlam after the constitutional coup, Sydney. Photo: Qu1j0t3/Flickr

Rumours (which turned out to be true) that Kerr was moving to call out the army.

Former Australian prime ministers Robert Menzies, Howard Holt, John Gorton, Bob Hawke and John Howard all compliantly sent Australian troops to fight US wars. But in the early 1970s, Whitlam’s government had the courage to bring Australian soldiers home from the US war in Vietnam.

For this audacious action, Labor would never be forgiven by then-US president Richard Nixon, the CIA, Rupert Murdoch, the CIA, and corrupt conservative premiers Bob Askin (NSW) and Joe Bjelke-Petersen (Queensland) — who all hated Whitlam as though he were Che Guevara.

Whitlam’s election in 1972 began a short-lived era in which the stated aims of the new Labor government were to promote equality and involve the people in decision-making processes.

Within two weeks of Whitlam’s election, conscription was abolished and draft resisters released from jail. Voting rights were extended to all Australians over 18, and university fees abolished.

Whitlam’s youth constituency also gained community radio stations, and the Whitlam government intended to decriminalise marijuana. Aborigines were granted land rights in the Northern Territory.

Whitlam was less subservient than his Liberal predecessors to Washington’s foreign policy directions. He took a more critical line in foreign policy, condemning Nixon’s 1972 bombing offensive against North Vietnam and warned he might draw Indonesia and Japan into protests against the bombing.

The People’s Republic of China was recognised and the Whitlam government spoke up in the United Nations for Palestinian rights. The French were condemned for testing nuclear weapons in the South Pacific, and refugees fleeing the CIA-backed coup in Chile were welcomed.

Nixon and the CIA found such independence intolerable. After Whitlam was re-elected in 1974, and Jim Cairns became his deputy, Nixon ordered the CIA to review US policy towards Australia. Although the CIA’s response to Nixon has never been released, it seems it began a covert operation to destabilise the Whitlam government began then.

The puppet masters who led the coup were Ted Shackley and Marshal Green. Nixon appointed Green as US Ambassador to Australia in 1973. Nick-named “the coup-master”, Green had been involved in several countries where the CIA had masterminded coups, such as Indonesia (1965) and Cambodia (1970).

Green’s goals were to maintain US bases in Australia and to protect US economic interests.

Green let it be known that if the Labor government honoured one of its key election pledges to reclaiming ownership of oil refineries and mining industries, the US would respond. Green carefully cultivated the Fairfax, Murdoch and Packer dynasties that controlled the Australian media.

Ted Shackley, known as the “Blond Ghost”, joined the CIA in 1951. Over the next two decades, he emerged as the agency’s “dirty tricks” specialist, directing the CIA’s campaign against Cuba and Fidel Castro’s government in 1962.

In 1966 he became Chief of Station in Laos and directed the US secret war there — earning his other nickname, “the Butcher of Laos”.

In 1971, he became head of the CIA’s Western Division (covering North and South America) where he plotted the overthrow of Allende. In 1974, Shackley became head of the Eastern Division of the CIA, covering Asia and Australia.

Shackley’s speciality was financing black operations through the drug trade and he learned the dark art of running drug armies during the secret war in Laos. One of his foot soldiers in Laos was Michael Hand, co-founder of the Nugan Hand bank.

Michael Hand helped forge documents used by the media to discredit the Whirtlam government, while his partner Frank Nugan was the conduit for CIA money to the Liberal Party. Millions of dollars flowed to the conservative parties via Nugan Hand.

Shackley played a key role in the security crisis of November 1975, which revolved around the US military base at Pine Gap. Whitlam had threatened that if the US tried to “bounce” his government, he would look at the presence of US bases in Australia.

The lease for Pine Gap was due for renewal in December 1975. On 10 November 1975, the day before Whitlam was sacked, Shackley sent an extraordinary cable from the CIA to ASIO’s director general, threatening to remove ASIO from the British-US intelligence agreement because he considered Whitlam a security threat.

The cable was published by the Financial Review in 1977 and has been widely reprinted. It shows Shackley’s involvement in the security crisis.

Shackley was furious that Whitlam had accused the CIA of funding the opposition conservative parties and had claimed CIA money was being used to influence domestic Australian politics. In particular, Whitlam was asking questions about the close relationship between Richard Stallings, who ran the so-called joint facility at Pine Gap, and National Party leader Doug Anthony.

“The CIA has grave concerns as to where this type of public discussion may lead”, Shackley’s cable said.

In his 1977 speech calling for a royal commission into the activities of the CIA in Australia, Whitlam called Shackley’s cable “a clear example of the attempted deception of the Australian Government by the American intelligence community … The message was offensive in tone, deceitful in intent and sinister in its implications.”

For the Australian media, the message of Remembrance Day 2010 was clear: sleeping dogs must be allowed to lie. There could be nothing nobler to aspire to than the service of our imperial overlords, and to remind the Australian people that these imperial overlords had subverted a democratically elected government was well off message.

[John Jiggens has been involved in civil liberties and anti-corruption campaigning for many years. He is the author of a number of books, including the recently released The Killer Cop & the Murder of Donald Mackay, about the drug trade, Nugen Hand Bank and the overthrow of the Whitlam government.]

‘Bolt and News Corp want a pound of something’: defamation case kicks off. David Barrow vs Andrew Bolt

 

‘Bolt and News Corp want a pound of something’: defamation case kicks off

David Barrows, an accountant and recently graduated lawyer, is representing himself as he sues News Corp and Andrew Bolt. The case starts in Melbourne today.

Andrew Bolt and News Corp will be defending themselves against charges of defamation in Victoria’s Supreme Court today.

The case revolves around a matter lawyer and accountant David Barrow referred to the Press Council in 2012.

Suing Andrew Bolt so I may Speak Freely

I am suing Andrew Bolt in the Supreme Court of Victoria

The Courts provide the hope of a levelling field where we can vindicate ourselves against the sorts of personal attacks that Andrew Bolt has recently made against me.

I am a law student and have some court experience, so have decided to go the full David v Goliath route of running my own court case (yes, I will need “good luck with that”).

I want to be able to raise the issues I feel should be raised with the Press Council. To have a fair hearing. Bolt’s false accusations that I am a Vexatious Litigant* stifle this.

So I have sued Bolt in the Supreme Court of Victoria to do what Bolt will not do: clear my name so that I may speak freely.

Via David Barrow

No major Religion was started by a white man Mr Bolt all were started by brown eyed dark skinned people…..we are taught otherwise

If we are to believe are to believe ideology and psychology are co-dependant then the man has been busted. ASIO does.

Professor Barry Spurr

The man maybe a joke but what he thinks laughs at aren’t. What if whimsy was pedophile?

Chris Graham, editor of New Matilda, which broke the story, described the emails as extreme hate-speech.

“He doesn’t just object to Aboriginal people who he calls Abos and human garbage, he makes references to ‘Mussies’; ‘Chinky-poos’ is a word that he uses frequently; he’s very dismissive of women,” Mr Graham told the ABC.

The emails were written over the past two years and sent to senior academics and officials within the university.

One said “Abo-lover” Mr Abbott would have to be surgically separated from his “Siamese Twin”, Australian of the Year Adam Goodes.

He also said Sydney University Chancellor Belinda Hutchinson was an “appalling minx”, while other women were “whores”.

A group of up to 100 students protested outside Professor Spurr’s office today, demanding his sacking.

Professor says emails part of a game

Professor Spurr, a specialist in poetry and poetics who has been at the university for 38 years, defended the emails and told New Matilda they were mainly to one recipient and were part of a “whimsical” game to outdo one another in extreme statements.

He said they were in no way a reflection of his views.The University of Sydney said it was “deeply disturbed” by the emails and was investigating the matter.

Australian Education Union federal president Angelo Gavrielatos said someone with such outdated ideas should never have been chosen to review the national English curriculum.

“The review is ostensibly about restoring balance to an imbalanced curriculum,” he said.

“These views are hardly the views that one would describe as balanced.”

Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane was worried the emails might also reflect the way the academic behaves.

“It does raise questions about whether this will translate into unfair treatment of others,” Mr Soutphommasane said.

“People may well think that racism is just a whimsical game of words, but ultimately it’s something that wounds others.”

Gabrielle Pei Tiatia, Ethnic Affairs Officer with the University of Sydney’s Students Representative Council, called on the university’s Vice-Chancellor to sack Professor Spurr immediately.

Undergraduate Student Fellow of the University Senate, Patrick Massarani, doubted there was any reasonable explanation for the comments.

“I’m exceptionally disappointed in having seen the comments that have been made,” he said.

“As a student, I do wonder how somebody who could make these comments could be placed in any sort of pastoral care role within the university.”

Our new laws on terror certainly believe ideology Islam, Marxism, Racism influence a persons thinking. ASIO certainly doesn’t regard it as whimsical or a game. They believe it needs to be taken very seriously. Andrew Bolt would are up in alms at the whimsy climate alarmists will bring to the ABC review board. It’s no joke to the right wing critics of the ABC. This is a far more serious a matter to be called a joke

A letter on this debate is moderated by Herr Bolt and baloney free speech Blog

 

 

Abbott and his Moderator of  Free Speech ….It’s my Blog and my Report Bolt

Well written, Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey! You have summed up the loathsome Abbott perfectly. Abbott is the weakest excuse for a human being to have EVER crawled into Australian politics and in only 12 short months, this nasty vile little man has done so much to destroy everything Australians hold dear, eg our international reputation as a generous and welcoming country that has respect for other nations and their leaders, our free speech, our democracy, our precious environment, our sense of pride in our lovely country! All these things Abbott is denigrating. On behalf of ordinary Australians, I would like to apologise to Mr Putin and to the Russian people for the appalling manner in which the Troglodyte Tony Abbott (known throughout Australia as Phony Baloney Tony) is making senseless, stupid threats against Mr Putin. Quite frankly, Phony Tony, is a constant source of embarrassment to us all. His never ending faux pas, foot-in-mouth clangers and stumbling, inarticulate ignorant comments are on par with the other great moron, George W Bush! Baloney Tony crawled across the electoral line on a platform of reprehensible LIES and broken promises. His party of neoliberal fascists rule by hateful racism, rampant xenophobia, regressive misogyny, ramped up fear, war mongering paranoia and baseless hysteria. Abbott is a knuckle dragging, insignificant little political pariah with delusions of grandeur! He loves to throw his weight around .. the space between his enormous ego and his lowly IQ is bigger than the Vostok Towers, lol! Abbott is INTERNATIONALLY despised, scorned and condemned and his accusations against Mr Putin border on sanctimonious hypocrisy considering the unbelievable inhumanity and savage brutality inflicted on vulnerable asylum seekers. Did you know that Abbott and his psychopathic Immigration Minister, Scott Morrison are locking up LEGAL asylum seekers in off-shore concentration camps in Nauru, Manus Island and now under the care of Hun Sen, (who was a high ranking soldier in the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pott) in Cambodia! Already, TWO asylum seekers have died by callous neglect and brutal mistreatment under Abbott’s watch! I have travelled to Russia and fell in love with your beautiful country and its lovely people and I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of Australians are absolutely APPALLED at Abbott’s disgraceful, thuggish behaviour. Please, please don’t judge ordinary Australians by the reckless, staggering idiocy of Abbott and his despised cabinet of sociopaths .. they won’t last long! The day their arses are kicked to the kerb .. at the next election .. will be the most joyous day in Australia’s political history. Kindest regards to you all xxx

Compare anything written by Bolt and Henchey and and Bolt is soooooo second rate

Open Letter to Tony “Shirt-Front” Abbott

14.10.2014
Open Letter to Tony

So, Australian Prime Minister wants to shirt-front Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, does he? It is difficult to find a more blatant example of childishness, incompetence for the position, criminal intent, downright nastiness and an indication of a disturbed mind crying out for therapy. Don’t the Australian people deserve better?

Dear Mr. Abbott,

After your reckless remarks and unfounded, slanderous insinuations about Russia shooting down a civilian aircraft and murdering Australian civilians we now have apparently a statement attributed to you by the media of your country about intending to “shirt-front” President Putin on his visit to Brisbane in November for the G-20 Summit.

Perhaps, as someone who was not born in Australia, you do not have a full grasp as to the implications of the word you used, or perhaps, as someone who is so obviously challenged in the intellectual area, you do not have a full grasp over what you say. There are three possibilities here, which I would like to address

Firstly, you knew the meaning of the word “shirt-fronting” very well when you chose it and in this case, if you seriously think you can physically confront your guests and assault a visiting Head of State and walk away freely, then you are mistaken. For a start, the very use of the expression possibly renders you liable for prosecution for criminal intent and incitement to violence and in any civilized country you would be forced to resign for using it. Like yesterday. Next, while I do not speak for President Putin, if someone “shirt-fronted” me, then I would throw the perpetrator over my shoulder, slam him onto his back on the floor behind me, place my boot on his face and ask “What was that you were saying?” before I saw him scurry away sniveling to his sister’s for a clean pair of Y-fronts.

The second possibility is that by “shirt-fronting” you meant “confronting”, in which case in your position you should learn the implications of your words, because threatening a visiting Head of State is perhaps the most crass example of stupidity the world has seen since the USA, the UK and Australia murdered Iraqi civilians in an illegal and criminal series of war crimes, quite apart from being the most blatant case of irresponsibility demonstrated by any Australian since the slaughter of the Aborigines.

The third possibility is that you are full of hot air, or in plain English, piss and wind, and what you say, the promises you make, can be taken with a pinch of salt. Here today and gone tomorrow. The sort of “man” who feels the need to make teenage-type comments and threats against a visiting Head of State belongs in a grade school playground bullying the primary school kids…but like any bully, there comes a day when you pick on the wrong person, get your teeth smashed in and go running home to mummy blabbering like a ninny. Do I hear a collective cheer from the Australians as they read this?

So Mr. Abbott, if you hadn’t made your puerile comments about President Putin and Russia, you wouldn’t be defending yourself in one of the largest uproars in recent Australian politics. A civilized politician in a civilized country would wait for the results of the enquiry into the plane crash before mouthing off in all directions saying Russia did it.

Mr. Abbott, I invite you to put up, or shut up. Where is the evidence that Russia did it? I said, where is the evidence that Russia did it? Stop fidgeting, stop playing with Willy and answer the Goddam question. Where is your evidence that Russia downed the aircraft? If you haven’t got anything other than hearsay to go on, then you have yet again made a prize orifice of yourself in public, have you not?

So when you confront President Putin with that line about Russians murdering Australians, the answer will be keep your slanderous comments to yourself and mind your own business, especially after your country took part in the illegal and murderous campaign in Iraq. How many civilians did Australian forces murder or torture over there? When you confront President Putin about Russians murdering Australians, ready yourself for a law suit over slander.

Russia, like every other member of the international community, deplores the death of civilians, whether they are Malaysians, Australians, Dutch or whatever and like everyone else called for a full enquiry. It is not yet clear even whether the aircraft was downed by a surface-to-air missile, an air-to-air missile or machine-gun fire from a Ukrainian Su-25, so wait for the enquiry before making your odious accusations and sounding like a foul-mouthed, despicable, pith-headed and uncouth, loutish oaf.

Mr. Abbott, what is wrong with this world is people like yourself, political opportunists who hold their people and country to ransom while they obediently kowtow to the lobbies which pull their strings. President Putin’s popularity ratings are up above 90 per cent, that is ninety per cent. What are yours?

Andrew Bolt is so pissed his doppelganger Bancroft- Hinchey is getting all the attention because of Tony Abbott. Brat!

Tony Abbott Vladimir Putin shirtfront gif

Interview with Pravda columnist Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey about Tony Abbott’s ‘shirt-front’ comment

1. Are you a mouthpiece for Vladimir Putin? 

Well, I am not an official mouthpiece but I would say I represent the feelings of most Russians, yes.

2. Did anyone in the Kremlin authorise your last opinion piece? 

No, they don’t have to. I have been working with the Russian media for many years. I place my pieces directly into Pravda.Ru English version, I have written for Russian foreign ministry publications, I am director of the Portuguese version of Pravda.Ru and place my pieces directly, and never have I been subjected to any restrictions or censorship.

Advertisement

3. Why is Russia so sensitive to Australian’s requests for co-operation regarding Moscow’s role in Ukraine and the downing of MH17?  There is evidence of a Russian missile being used and taken back over the border shortly after the plane came down.

Well, is there? What evidence is that? When that question is answered or not, we can then see why Russia is sensitive.

4. Do you accept that Australia has a right to demand justice over MH17? 

Well, obviously, as Russia has done and did from the beginning.

5. You keep attacking (Australian Prime Minister Tony) Abbott personally, and you seem to take great offence at Mr Abbott’s comments about Mr Putin, are you oversensitive? 

Well to be honest, if someone made those threats to me I’d say bring it on and call the person responsible a shit-faced, pig-headed arrogant piece of crap. The fact that a head of government makes such thuggish statements about a visiting head of state just about puts the perpetrator at the bottom of the pile. So I don’t think I am being over-sensitive. No, in fact I wish I had been more vociferous.

6. Will President Putin come to Australia and what will his message be for Australians? 

Well that’s up to him and his office. There has been no indication he won’t come, and anyway he is going to Australia not to meet Abbott but to participate in the G20 Summit. His preoccupation is economic issues not the infantile and puerile drivel of a wannabe political lightweight.

– Interview by Latika Bourke

Why Speech isn’t free. David Barrow Vs Andrew Bolt and the full force of News Corp’s lawyers behind him.

 

 

Australian Right Wing Ambition……

Bolt calls for the socialisation of University investment funds. How long would it be before they start instructing us where we should invest our money.”

Malcolm Fraser and John Hewson back ANU fossil fuel divestment decision

Former Liberal leaders sign open letter in support of university’s decision to divest from a number of fossil fuel companies

Dock the universities the cost of what they’ve helped block  Andrew Bolt’s leftist call to socialise/ and or police and regulate university investment funds. Challenging Christopher Pyne’s call for ‘free market’ independance

“We cannot understand why a government that is committed to deregulating the university sector would question the ability of a university to make investment decisions,” the letter says.

The university has announced its offloading holdings in Iluka Resources, Independence Group, Newcrest Mining, Sandfire Resources, Oil Search, Santos and Sirius Resources for ethical reasons.

The decision represents 1% of the university’s total investment holdings.

Treasurer Joe Hockey and education minister Christopher Pyne have criticised the move.

Hewson warned against bullying from vested interests.

“The mining industry has bought this government like it bought the last one,” Hewson told ABC Radio.

The Liberal party was supposed to stand for freedom and individual choice.

“It’s a totally unjustified intervention by government,” he said.

“If I was a superannuation fund manager I would wonder how long it would be before they start instructing us where we should invest our money.”

Filed under:

Man Booker prize winner Richard Flanagan ‘ashamed to be an Australian’ Novelist says he is saddened by the Australian government’s environmental policies and prime minister Tony Abbott’s statement that ‘coal is good for humanity’

Richard Flanagan wins the Booker prize

Man Booker prize winner Richard Flanagan ‘ashamed to be an Australian’

Novelist says he is saddened by the Australian government’s environmental policies and prime minister Tony Abbott’s statement that ‘coal is good for humanity

Andrew Bolt’s  uniform response

image

Notice however the T is on a dummy. He really wants his passport withdrawn

 

The winner of the Man Booker prize, Richard Flanagan says he is “ashamed to be an Australian” because of Australian prime minister Tony Abbott’s environmental policies.

Flanagan has won the prestigious award for his novel The Narrow Road to the Deep North, about prisoners and captors on the Burma railway.

Speaking on the BBC’s Newsnight program after the award ceremony, the Tasmanian author and committed environmentalist was asked about Abbott’s recent comment that “coal is good for humanity”. The prime minister made the comment while opening a coalmine in Queensland on Monday.

“I’m very saddened because Australia has the most extraordinary environment and I don’t understand why our government seems committed to destroying what we have that’s unique in the world,” Flanagan said.

“To be frank, I’m ashamed to be Australian when you bring this up.”

Flanagan was also asked about the repeal of the Tasmanian forestry peace deal between environmentalists and logging companies last month.

“I genuinely believe that people of Australia want to see these beautiful places, these sacred places, preserved, [but] the politics of the day is so foolishly going ahead and seeking to destroy them when there isn’t even an economic base to it, when there is no market for the woodchips that would result from the destruction of these forests,” he replied.

“I think it’s unnecessary and I think it’s just politics being used to divide people that could otherwise be brought together on all that is best and most extraordinary in our country.”

If ever you needed further confirmation that News Ltd is the Liberal Party’s unofficial PR department, it came on the weekend on NSW television

NSW Premier Mike Baird — News Ltd cast member

Where would we be without the ABC.

ON THE WEEKEND, I saw something on television that I found quite disturbing.

It was not the fake enthusiasm of an X Factor judge, nor was it the announcement of yet another NCIS — as show that will have a gazillion spin offs just like CSI (maybe they should just do one called WTF).

What disturbed me was, in fact, a commercial.

We all hate to see our taxpayer money wasted, particularly on commercials. However the commercial I’m referring to was not a government commercial — although some have commented that the company being advertised could be confused for the Coalition’s marketing department.

The commercial that disturbed me so much was the current commercial for News Ltd’s Sydney tabloid the Daily Telegraph and can be viewed below:

And I know what you may be thinking, but it was not the sight of Andrew Bolt and Miranda Devine that made me uncomfortable — although it’s true I normally do find them and their extremist far-right views rather disturbing.

It was actually the guy sitting opposite them who really disturbed me.

It would seem that while the taxpayer pays his wages, the NSW Premier is off filming commercials for News Ltd.

Frankly, I have significant reservations about whether that is a good use of taxpayer funds. Then again, Baird is the guy that, as NSW treasurer, managed to misplace a cool billion dollars, so I guess he probably considers donating his taxpayer billed time as a political favour as small change.

For years, there have been theories about how News Ltd is biased towards the Coalition, now News Ltd have embarked on an advertising campaign that seems to be suggesting Premier Baird is of their team.

If anyone ever needed confirmation of News Ltd’s bias — this is it.

Also alarming is who they have Mike Baird associated with in the commercial — Miranda Devine and Andrew Bolt. Andrew Bolt has already been found by a court to have breached the law in his racial vilification of a minority group and Devine is also known for her anti-Islamic scare mongering and angry rhetoric.

If they had sat a woman in a burqa near that particular group it could have ended in one of those racist rants that keep coming out on YouTube. It must comfort Tony Abbott to see one of his Party’s premiers sitting there smiling with a couple of the country’s finest “preachers of hate

News Ltd and the Coalition are making a mockery of the public and have formed the assumption that the public are too stupid to realise it.

 

Andrew Bolt claims to be faithless, doesn’t have much belief in history except for WA-CC. Islam holds no values he aspires to because it’s an ideology of death.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XlvpGshhTrI

Bolt says he is faithless a humanist, a scientist who only believes in Western Anglo- Christian Civilization there in itself is more twists an turns than a freakish carnival ride.

The Oxford Union, the university was the Alma Mater of his mate Tony Abbott who left with a blue in boxing and has been bluing ever since. Given that imaginary great minds are never individuals and are usually moderated by the likes of Peta Credlin. I thought I’d throw this in, as it contradicts Andrew Bolt’s being, and might hurry forward his existential death.

Welcome to Andrew Bolt’s Freedom of Speech in a civilised world

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TZRtpLh-5K8

A Liars welcome. Scott Morrison made space for Yzidis we went to save. Where are they

Politicians and media let us down in fight to curb rising Islamophobia

Many incidents of violence and harassment directed at Australian Muslims have been reported recently. These are visible confirmation of fears expressed by their community, that support for the government’s…

Many incidents of violence and harassment directed at Australian Muslims have been reported recently. These are visible confirmation of fears expressed by their community, that support for the government’s new security laws and military action in Iraq would be rallied with “racist caricatures of Muslims as backwards, prone to violence and inherently problematic”.

Policing and intelligence operations have focused exclusively on members of the Muslim community. This has contributed to a public backlash against Muslims and supposed Muslims. The immediacy and scale of this outbreak of Islamophobia is alarming.

Stereotypes do terrible damage

Australia has emerged as a fertile environment for Islamophobia. Stereotypical representations of Muslims in the early years of the “War on Terror” – which linked terrorism, violence and Islam – gained wide currency by the mid-2000s.

Sections of the news media, politicians and social media have re-activated these stereotypes. Muslim Australians are made to feel they are targets – for everything from the everyday racism encountered in schools and on the streets, to draconian counter-terrorism legislation that restricts civil liberties, to war and the preparations for war.

Social psychological research has shown that when public figures and media endorse negative stereotypes this legitimises prejudicial attitudes. This can influence the translation of such attitudes into discriminatory actions, as we have seen in the recent spate of attacks.

Australia now has several openly Islamophobic far-right social movements and political parties. Until recently these were generally small and operated largely in isolation. However, such groups have begun to collaborate on campaigns.

These groups also appear to be attracting more support from the wider community. The re-emergence of anti-Muslim rhetoric in public discourse has provided legitimisation for their views.

Those Australians who are openly hostile to Muslims and their institutions feel emboldened by anti-Islamic rhetoric in public discourse. AAP/Tertius Pickard

Muslims suffer when Coalition dons khaki

The government also appears to be a political beneficiary of the resurgence in Islamophobia. As national security concerns top the news agenda, pressures on the government on a range of other fronts, particularly the deeply unpopular May budget, have faded into the background.

The increased “terror threat” was followed by rises in the approval rating of Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Coalition voting intentions.

The amplification of threats to national security has worked for struggling conservative governments before. In 2001, the Howard government was polling poorly, yet managed to snatch victory later that year. The Coalition election campaign played on racial anxieties and national security fears following the “children overboard” affair and the September 11 terrorist attacks.

In 2010, with the Coalition again languishing in the polls, then opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison sought to replicate this strategy. He urged the shadow cabinet to “capitalise on the electorate’s growing concerns about “Muslim immigration” and Muslims’ “inability to integrate”.

Tony Abbott’s each-way bet in his remarks on Muslim women’s dress sent a terrible message. AAP/Alan Porritt

The Prime Minister has not been nearly as forthright in condemning acts of Islamophobia as he has been in denouncing Islamic extremists. He even weighed into the debate to dismiss Muslim community concerns. And Abbott failed to condemn the inflammatory push from within his party for a “burqa ban”.

This is in contrast to the firm and admirable stance taken by Western Australian Premier Colin Barnett. He emphasised that “Australia as a country has a history of respecting different cultures and faiths”. The reported taunting and terrorising of Muslim women and children in Perth was “unacceptable”.

Media reports that marginalise harm us all

The media is not blameless either, as some journalists have acknowledged. Australian Muslims have consistently identified the media as a central social institution that contributes to their marginalisation and exclusion.

Media reporting has frequently perpetuated stereotypes. It has also failed to reflect the diversity of origins, outlooks and aspirations of Muslim Australians. Journalism of this sort negatively affects other Australians’ perceptions of Islam and the Muslim community.

My research has shown that articles with lower levels of Islamophobia feature the voices of “ordinary” Muslim men and women. They humanise them. Such articles contextualise conflicts and avoid simplistic frameworks such as “good versus evil” or “War on Terror”.

The media can do more to highlight positive efforts by individuals and groups to resist and respond to oppression and conflict. More balanced perspectives can reduce the reinforcing and perpetuation of Islamophobia.

The “newsworthiness” of stories related to Islam and conflict, and the concentration of negative reporting patterns, suggest that adoption of conflict reporting standards could be another key way to curb Islamophobia.

The mass media and our politicians will be central to either exacerbating or stemming Islamophobia. Gestures of support and solidarity from the non-Muslim community, and standing up to racism, are also important.

Combating Islamophobia is vital to the wellbeing of the Muslim community, to wider community cohesion and to limiting recruitment for groups such as Islamic State (ISIS)/Da’ish. To curb Islamophobia, we must contest the political spectacle that gives rise to discriminatory and violent treatment against Muslims by the state and some non-Muslim Australians.

The powerful leaders of the eugenics movement once controlled the city. Have they gone or hidden with the born to rule??

Berry’s legacy

In Britain Richard Berry continued to preach his uncompromising theory of “rotten heredity”. In 1934 he would argue that to eliminate mental deficiency would require the sterilisation of twenty-five per cent of the population. At the same time he also advocated the “kindly euthanasia” of the unfit.

But his legacy in Australia continued, with the Eugenics Society of Victoria operating until 1961.

Although Melbourne may wish to forget its dark past,

According to Andrew Bolt they are just destroyng life in Malvern and the ABC are just Left Wing ideology. The mining company really car

Garrawa families ready to march against what they is fracking and mining destruction at McArthur River.

Painted protesters march against NT’s McArthur River zinc mine ‘pollution’

Protesters opposed to one of the world’s largest zinc mines have painted their faces white and called for an end to what they say is destruction of their local environment.

People from the Borroloola area in remote eastern Northern Territory marched this morning in protest against the nearby McArthur River zinc mine in the Gulf of Carpentaria.

Waste rock at the Swiss-owned mine had been smouldering for several months and people from the area said they were worried about potentially toxic smoke plumes in the air and acidic run off into the river.

Borroloola is about 70 kilometres from the mine and 970 kilometres south-east of Darwin.

Elders and people from the four clan groups of Borroloola met at the Markirra (White Ochre) Kangaroo Dreaming site, which they say is threatened by the mining operation.

Jack Green, a senior elder from the area, said his people wanted to sit down and talk with the mine’s operator, Xstrata, a subsidiary of Swiss-based Glencore.

“We’re really worried about it. It’s very important to Aboriginal people – not only Aboriginal people, important to pastoralist and tourists that come down here do their fishing and that. It’s sort of like a garden to all Australia,” he said.

It’s sort of like a garden to all Australia.

Jack Green, senior elder

“This land lies all our sacred sites, our dreaming lies all over this area. We want land to be looked after more better for our future kids. They want a land where they can go out and hunt and learn more about cultures.

“We’ll do a short one (protest) in town and then we’ll sit around and do a bit of dancing and things like that. Anyone wants to comes along and find out we welcome to sit down and talk to them.”

Mr Green said he was concerned about the impact mining had on the nearby waterways.

“We’re worried about the fish and the river, the water that runs down the McArthur.”

Gadrian Hoosan, a Karrwa custodian from the area, said the action was part of an “ancient fight to keep the land healthy for all of our children, black and white, in unity with the four clans”.

David Morris from the NT Environmental Defender’s Office called on McArthur River Mining to be “open and honest” about health impacts from water and air pollution around its Borroloola site.

The Environmental Protection Authority this week issued the mine a notice to carry out an environmental audit.

“We’re very concerned on behalf of our clients about issues of health and also issues of environmental health and damage to the surrounding environment. One of my clients described it as a man-made volcano and that’s certainly how it appeared when I was in Borroloola recently,” Mr Morris said.

Mr Green said he was worried for future generations.

“This land lies all our sacred sites, our dreaming lies all over this area. We want land to be looked after more better for our future kids. They want a land where they can go out and hunt and learn more about cultures.”

Xstrata admits long fight against combustion

In July the mine’s operator Xstrata said it was trying to extinguish the smoke plumes but admitted that could take two years to achieve.

It said the mine’s rock pile began combusting in December 2013 when pyrite iron sulphide was dumped on its top layers.

When the volatile mineral met oxygen while covered over by other rocks it started igniting in oven-like conditions and now constantly belched from the mine’s waste rock pile.

Xstrata had been trying to manage the problem by coating the rocks with lime and clay.

It said it had managed to stop combustion of new pyrite waste rock it is depositing into the waste rock site by layering it in much shallower tiers and immediately covering them with clay.

Xstrata said it discharges no water from its site into surrounding waterways “except under approved conditions” and all discharges meet Australian water quality standards.

It said monitoring showed fish from McArthur River and nearby Surprise Creek were safe to eat.

200 attended no number on the members, the CPA, Maoists, Bikies, Satanists,Bolt,Jones, tax evading schemes, better in the open than underground

Ismail Al-Wahwah

World ‘deserves’ an Islamic caliphate, says Bankstown sheik Ismail Al-Wahwah

Hardliner tells gathering in Sydney’s west that capitalism has failed and criticises US-led campaign in Iraq and Syria

A hardline Islamic leader from a group advocating an Islamic caliphate says Muslims should be ready to make sacrifices to achieve it.

“We believe this world deserves a new world order,” Ismail Al-Wahwah declared at an event headed by the controversial Hizb ut-Tahrir organisation.

More than 200 people attended the lecture at Lakemba in Sydney’s west on Friday night where Al-Wahwah, a sheik from Bankstown, denounced Australia’s involvement in the US-led campaign in Iraq and Syria aimed at fighting Isis extremists.

The crowd was engaged and calm except for a moment of slight tension when an audience member asked the sheik about the penalty under sharia law for a Muslim leaving the Islamic faith.

A 70-year-old woman also hit out at Al-Wahwah for criticising Australian values and told him to stop waving his finger around.

Hizb ut-Tahrir advocates that secular governments be replaced and Muslim-majority countries unite under a global caliphate governed by Islamic law.

Al-Wahwah said capitalism had stopped leading the world and Muslims were ready to make sacrifices.

“If you want to change, you have to pay the price,” the preacher told the lecture – titled The War to End a Blessed Revolution.

Weeks after 16 people were detained in a counterterrorism operation across western Sydney, Al-Wahwah denounced the police officers who burst into the bedrooms of Muslim women in the pre-dawn raids.

Australian civilisation would pay the price for this for a thousand years, he said. “Who is going to fix the harm done to the women?” he asked.

The prime minister, Tony Abbott, said earlier this week that Hizb ut-Tahrir was a deplorable organisation that had an ideology that justified terrorism.

Al-Wahwah shot back and criticised Australia’s involvement in the US-led operation in Iraq.

The issue was not Iraq or Syria but America wanting to control the world, he said.

“This new invasion will kill hundreds of thousands again and the blood will be on the hands of politicians again,” he said.

Meanwhile it was reported that the convicted terrorist Abdul Nacer Benbrika has been influencing jihadist recruits from prison in a quest to become the spiritual leader of a new generation of Australian extremists.

Concerned over his growing influence, authorities have moved him to a different Victorian prison after several of his followers travelled to Syria to fight with the Islamic State group after visiting him in jail, News Corp Australia reported on Saturday.

Quoting security sources, News Corp says authorities believe Benbrika is seeking to model himself on jailed Indonesian cleric Abu Baku Bashir, the spiritual leader of the Bali bombers, who recently embraced Islamic State.

A self-proclaimed Islamic cleric, Algerian-born Benbrika is serving a 15-year jail term for leading a terrorist group in 2005 that talked of attacking Melbourne’s Crown casino and bombing the MCG.

Andrew Bolt , Gerard Henderson and News Corp tell us regularly that this is Social Welfare…. you know their right. Abbott is the MP

Seeking justice: Sandra Kitching stands on the remains of the Retta Dixon home where she once lived.

Sex abuse and violence: Secrets of Retta Dixon home for Aboriginal children laid bare at royal commission

Darwin’s Retta Dixon home was supposed to be a place of God, but that is far from how it was portrayed at a royal commission.

During eight days of hearings in Darwin, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse heard graphic testimony of what went on at Retta Dixon, a facility that operated from 1946 until 1980.

It was enough to cause some in the gallery of Darwin’s Supreme Court to shudder. Others shed tears.

A child at Retta Dixon who suffered seizures was allegedly tied up like a dog to a bed, and fed on the ground with an enamel plate.

Children at the home were raped, the inquiry heard, including some so badly they were forced to go to hospital where they were watched by their abuser to make sure they did not alert authorities.

One man told the inquiry of having to wear nappies to school as a boy to stop the bleeding after being sexually assaulted.

Other children were allegedly flogged with a belt until they bled.

The facility housed mainly Aboriginal children, including many who identified as being part of the Stolen Generations, and had been taken from their families far away.

It was run by Aborigines Inland Mission, a religious group now known as Australian Indigenous Ministry (AIM).

More tears were shed when the royal commission took those who lived at Retta Dixon down to the site where the buildings once stood.

Alleged victims at Retta Dixon are now looking for answers, hoping to see perpetrators brought to justice and trying to make sure the errors of the past are not repeated.

Allegations included rape of children

In the 34 years it operated only one worker at Retta Dixon – Reginald Powell – was ever convicted of crimes allegedly committed there.

Powell admitted molesting a 10-year-old boy and two 13-year-old boys in early 1966, but blamed weariness, work pressures and Darwin’s climate for his actions.

He said in statements to police that the affections of the children were “more or less encouraging” him and after apologising for what he did he was handed a $250, three-year good behaviour bond.

But there were numerous other allegations made over the years.

Scores alone concerned one man – paedophile Donald Bruce Henderson – who worked as a so-called “house parent” at Retta Dixon during the 1960s and 1970s.

“Once I was taken to the old Darwin hospital with a bleeding anus from being abused by Henderson. I was about nine years old.

“I was not allowed to speak to the hospital staff as Henderson was standing next to me.

“Sometimes we had to wear diapers to school so the blood didn’t come out on the school uniform.

“Some of the other kids at school knew and we used to protect each other if the other kids teased us.”

– Kevin Stagg statement to the royal commission

Mr Henderson twice had court action against him for sexually abusing children dropped, once in 1976 and again in 2002.

He was convicted in 1984 of molesting two boys at Darwin’s Casuarina Pool, long after Retta Dixon had closed, but was freed on a $500, two-year good behaviour bond.

A police document showed 86 counts against Mr Henderson that included charges of buggery, sexual assault and indecent assaults between 1966 and 1973, were withdrawn by authorities.

References were made at the royal commission to Mr Henderson adopting two children from Retta Dixon, and a note on a police file indicated the sex offender may have been linked to the YMCA.

Other allegations of sexual assault were levelled against Retta Dixon house parents and by younger kids against older ones.

None of the allegations have so far led to convictions.

The royal commission heard that despite some people who worked at Retta Dixon being concerned about mistreatment of the children, police who spoke to a manager at the facility were told he was unaware of the claims.

Resident ‘chained like dog’

Lorna Cubillo, 76, lived in the home for about nine years until she was 16.

She told the commission about being groped by house parent Desmond Walter, and then beaten for refusing to clean his residence.

One of the disturbing allegations from Ms Cubillo was that a friend of hers, Ruth Dooney, was chained up like a dog to her bed, from where she was fed on the ground and forced to use a bucket as a toilet.

“Ruth used to have fits and was chained up with a dog chain to her bed because of the fits,” Ms Cubillo said.

“[She] often had bad chaffing around her ankle where the chain would rub.”

Faeces rubbed in face

There were numerous other types of mistreatment of children at Retta Dixon described during the royal commission.

One witness, known only as AKV to preserve anonymity, said their sister was punished by being tied up and having faeces rubbed in her face.

“My sister would sometimes be tied to the clothesline, or have faeces rubbed in her face, maybe just for looking at Ms Parker the wrong way. [The sister] was very young at the time. I remember one time she was deliberately burnt with hot water by Ms Parker.”

– Evidence from AKV to royal commission

Several witnesses talked about being physically abused.

Ms Cubillo said she was usually hit with a belt across the legs as punishment.

She told the commision that when she was 14 years old, house parent Desmond Walter made her bleed.

“He hit me on the legs, hands and back. He hit me with the buckle end of the belt and it cut me on my breast, near the nipple,” Ms Cubillo said.

Another witness at the hearing, 64-year-old Sandra Kitching, said as punishment for confronting a house parent she was stripped of some of her clothes and chained up in a spare room by a house parent called Mr Pounder.

‘Mistakes’ in investigation, prosecution

The royal commission heard details of how allegations against Mr Henderson took a long time to be investigated and, despite solid evidence to support the charges, they were dropped by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

Former police detective Roger Newman began his investigation into Mr Henderson in the late 1990s and came under fire in the commission for taking too long to find out that Mr Henderson had abused other children in the past.

John Lawrence SC, who represented some of Mr Henderson’s alleged victims, grilled the former policeman for not following up witnesses for statements.

“That wasn’t something, that wasn’t the line of inquiry that I was following and if I’ve made a mistake now, so be it,” Mr Newman said in evidence.

The inquiry also heard that once the investigation had been completed there were problems with the way it was handled by the DPP’s office.

Current NT magistrate Michael Carey worked as general counsel to the DPP in November 2002.

He was the one who at the time gave pivotal advice that saw charges against Mr Henderson dropped, shortly before the trial.

“In my view there is no prospect of having this matter go before the jury, let alone obtaining a conviction.”

– Former general counsel to DPP (now NT magistrate) Michael Carey in 2002 memo

At the royal commission he said he had no “independent recollection” of the advice, which he admitted did not meet prosecutor guidelines.

The guidelines showed it should have had a reference or analysis for new trials for Mr Henderson, and include references to Mr Henderson’s history as a convicted sex offender.

Neither of those were done.

The advice was contentious as the 15 allegations against Mr Henderson had already passed the committal stage of the court action, meaning they were found to have enough evidence to take to trial.

Mr Carey also admitted the decision in 2002 was made within 24 hours of getting the file on Mr Henderson but could not explain why it was done in such haste.

Commission chair Justice Peter McClellan said there was “crystal clear” evidence to support charges against Mr Henderson.

“In these cases from what you have read there was plainly evidence to support the charges.”

– Royal commission chair Peter McClellan to current NT DPP Jack Karczewski

The NT’s current DPP, Jack Karczewski QC, said if the charges came before him, he would pursue them.

Where to now for former Retta Dixon residents?

Some alleged victims of Retta Dixon say they are determined to get redress for what they went through, and are seeking fresh charges to be laid against Mr Henderson.

At least one was angry alleged perpetrators did not appear, and thought they were getting off too easily.

After the royal commission wrapped up its Darwin hearings a group formally complained to police to try to get new charges against Mr Henderson laid.

The ABC understands that an NT policeman with the Sex Crimes section sat in on some of the commission hearings, and has been in touch with at least one alleged victim.

Some people who were housed at Retta Dixon are also seeking financial compensation.

The commission heard that one former Retta Dixon resident has been paid nearly $27,000 for abuse suffered in 1975, although the money was said to be for events unrelated to their time at the home.

There is nothing to stop alleged victims at Retta Dixon from claiming Victims of Crime compensation, even though their allegations have not been proved in court.

Such claims are decided on the balance of probabilities, not the tougher test of beyond reasonable doubt, which court cases rely on for convictions.

Some former Retta Dixon residents have pointed the finger at AIM, which ran the home, and want them to pay compensation.

The current head AIM, Reverend Trevor Leggott, apologised at the royal commission for the sexual and physical abuse people suffered at Retta Dixon, but has indicated his group cannot offer money to the victims.

He said to do so would jeopardise the group’s current work.

“I know there can be recompense in terms of money, but I know the hurt that has been caused to these people is not going to be fixed by money.”

– Reverend Trevor Leggott, general director of AIM

Documents handed to the inquiry showed AIM had net assets of about $4.4 million last year.

Some have said the assets should be sold off to pay for compensation claims, but Reverend Leggott indicated properties were mostly held by trusts and local churches, not by AIM itself.

The inquiry also heard that the Commonwealth Government, not AIM, may have been ultimately responsible for the welfare of children at Retta Dixon.

Other legal options being considered involve civil action against the 78-year-old Mr Henderson.

At the royal commission Reverend Leggott said the proceedings had driven the name of his organisation into the ground.

The Retta Dixon home was levelled by Cyclone Tracy in 1974 and the site where the facility once stood is now a fairly barren public park.

A group of Retta Dixon survivors say they will push to have the land returned to them.

Police pepper spray black teen because he couldn’t possibly be part of white family

Andrew Bolt would argue that race had nothing to do with this if it happened to and Indigenous person in his Malvern

Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina

Foster parents Ricky and Stacy Tyler left the side entrance door unlocked for 18 year old DeShawn Currie, on Monday afternoon – aware DeShawn was coming home early that day to an empty house. A neighbor spotted the teen entering the home and called 911 to report a break in. Three officers responded in pavlovian fashion, handling the teen as a suspect rather than putting aside racial bias and giving the black kid the benefit of the doubt. After ordering DeShawn to put his hands on the door,

said DeShawn. “I was like, ‘For what? This is my house.’ I was like, ‘Why are y’all in here?'”

the cops pointed to photos of the Tyler’s three white children and decided he didn’t belong there. DeShawn, justly upset, objected to being treated like a criminal in his own home. Of course, in Copworld, that translates to being threatening and belligerent so that’s a pepper spraying to the face. Stacy Tyler arrived home to find E.M.S workers tending to DeShawn. Cops didn’t pepper spray her.

“My 5-year-old last night, she looked at me and said, ‘Mama I don’t understand why they hated our brother, and they had to come in and hurt him.'”

In addition to DeShawn still being alive, the best part of this story is being reminded that yes, wonderful people still exist.

“He’s my baby boy just as much as my other three children are,” said Stacy.

Unholy colusion fear for profit and polls. Business and Government the unholy link. Keep the mothers terrified

 

Depleted or derelict?

What sentient members of the Fourth Estate could ever set foot, for example, inside the offices of the Courier Mail? This is, let’s not forget, Brisbane’s only morning newspaper, a monopoly provider, and, by dint of journalistic volume, the most significant newsroom in Queensland.

This is the newspaper that in recent times advised its readers of an “AUSSIE FATWA” just days after it reported on the terror raids that swept through the suburbs of Sydney and Brisbane on September 18.

“Terror Australis: Cops foil horror attacks,” said the Courier Mail, blending the journalist’s fatal instinct for a pun with the paper’s absolute commitment to distortion, amplification and the propagation of fear to sell papers: for commercial gain.

It would only be days before a man was shot dead in Melbourne after the brutal, angry stabbing of two police officers. Did the Courier Mail report the simple and sufficiently horrifying facts? Well no, it reported the most sensational peak in the sea of supposition surrounding them: “Gunned down after PM terror threat: POLICE KILL ABBOTT JIHADI.”

There was of course no plot against the Prime Minister, unless what is described here by the Courier Mail constitutes an elaborate conspiracy:

Slain teenage extremist Numan Haider googled Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s movements in the days before being shot dead during a knife attack on counter terrorism agents.

The Courier Mail is of course just one among many. This is the house style of the major market tabloids that are the dominant organs of news in all our capital cities. They cry wolf, they cry terror, they fan the flames of disquiet and distrust.

Because fear sells.

Then there are the Fairfax papers, either so depleted or abjectly derelict they managed to splash the face of an utterly innocent man across the country after the Haider killing, with the indelible label “teenage terrorist”.

The Daily Telegraph sends a columnist to write a slovenly and misanthropic caricature of Lakemba, or as the Tele put it, “Sydney’s Muslim Land” as evidence of the threat that walks among us.

The Herald Sun publishes a full-page column headed “Islam’s violent tendencies”, illustrated with a half-page photo of a gesticulating Adolf Hitler.

And then we discover yesterday that the sword carried so ominously from the police raids of mid September, the one featured in page after page of reporting of raids that had apparently prevented “demonstration killings” and was thus by implication a weapon that might be used to sever innocent necks from heads, turns out to be a piece of plastic souvenir shop junk.

In this moment of high anxiety, the players in our commercial media have seen opportunity in a population made fearful and anxious for information.

Who threatens us? Where are they?

To which the answers seem universally to be “them” and “everywhere”.

Our politicians are not much different, but in the best of all possible worlds it would be our journalists who hold them to account.

And the consequence of this self-serving collusion in the fostering of paranoia?

This summary from the #WISH (Women In Solidarity with Hijabis) campaign is self-reported, and thus tricky to verify. But even if half right, it’s telling.

  • A woman in a hijab is physically attacked and her car subsequently vandalised with profanities spray-painted across it (Western Sydney)
  • A mother and her baby are verbally abused and spat on, and the pram is kicked (Sydney)
  • A woman in hijab has a cup of coffee hurled through the window of her car (Brisbane)
  • A mother and her baby are approached by three men, has her hijab ripped off, is spat on and pushed to the floor (Brisbane)
  • A woman is approached by a man and told to take her hijab off so he can burn it (Brisbane)
  • A woman in a hijab is approached by men in a shopping centre who try to rip her hijab from her head (Perth)
  • A mother and her child are verbally abused and the woman is told to take her child away from the other children at a playground (Melbourne)
  • A woman is verbally abused by three men who threaten to burn her hijab as she walks past a pub
  • A woman is verbally abused by man who threatens to burn her house down (Queensland)
  • A woman sitting on a bus with her son is filmed by a man who verbally abused her and said that he would use the video footage as means to identify her
  • A heavily pregnant woman is verbally abused and intimated (Sydney)
  • A mother and daughter are verbally assaulted and a passer-by who intervened is physically assaulted (Newcastle)
  • A young woman takes off her hijab out of fear for her safety (Canberra)

There is an issue here in the treatment of a serious social issue and one highly sensitive to the sort of reckless, and inflammatory reporting that has become typical – almost universal – in the Australian media mainstream.

But beyond that point, there is a lack of restraint, a grasping of commercial opportunity at whatever the cost and a lack of regard even for the fundamental truth, that is even more worrying.

In these end times for corporate journalism, in these desperate days when any sale is worth the compromise of basic standards of integrity and social tact, we might we wonder whether we’d be better off without a media apparatus that can sink so low.

What Turkey thinks of it’s Allies the Kurds fighting against Daesh. Bolt the fools fool blames Obama

 Photo

Kurds protest in Turkey over besieged Syrian town, at least nine killed

(Reuters) – At least nine people were killed and dozens wounded in demonstrations across Turkey on Tuesday, local media reported, as Kurds demanded the government do more to protect the Syrian Kurdish town of Kobani from Islamic State militants.

NATO-member Turkey has taken in more than 180,000 refugees who fled Kobani but has refrained from joining a U.S.-led coalition against the Sunni Muslim militants, saying the campaign should be broadened to target the removal of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Kurdish politicians, part of Turkey’s fragile peace process with the jailed leader of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) to end a three-decade insurgency, have criticized Turkey for inaction.

Ankara rejected the criticism. “It is a massive lie that Turkey is doing nothing on Kobani,” Deputy Prime Minister Yalcin Akdogan said on Twitter. “Turkey is doing whatever can be done in humanitarian aspects.”

He accused Turkey’s pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) of adopting an “irresponsible way of conducting politics” and called the protests “a big injustice to Turkey’s well-meant efforts”.

The Kurdish party had issued a statement saying: “The situation in Kobani is extremely critical. We call on our people to go out into the streets, or support those that have gone onto the streets, to protest the ISIL (Islamic State) attacks and the … stance of (Turkey’s) AKP government against Kobani.”

The fight in Kobani against Islamist militants has become a rallying point for Turkey’s Kurdish community. They see Ankara as partly responsible for Islamic State gaining power.

 

Bolt’s Newscorp Mastheads find this front pages newsworthy because they “rate”, unlike the ABC which doesn’t

Senate Inquiry into Queensland Gov’t reveals Courier-Mail’s corruption. Andrew Bolt was a no fact contributor “grubby.grubby,grubby”

 

Murdoch’s Brisbane masthead The Courier Mail has clearly displayed bias and inconsistency in its hysterical coverage of the Senate Inquiry into the Newman Government, writes Alex McKean and Stephen Keim SC.

THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF A SENATE INQUIRY into certain aspects of the Newman Government in Queensland has been greeted with howls of derision from Brisbane’s daily print newspaper, the Courier-Mail.

There was little evidence of balance in the coverage of the issue on 2 October 2014, when the paper contained a two-page spread condemning the Inquiry (nor again in today’s issue).

Liberal Senator Eric Abetz was reported as sounding the dire warning that the Inquiry, an instrument of Clive Palmer’s retribution, would cost Queensland 70,000 jobs.

Dennis Atkins said that the Inquiry would render Parliament a crime scene.

Another story, authored by Steven Scott, Sarah Vogler and Renee Viellaris, stated that the ‘taxpayer-funded’ Inquiry would double as a ‘PUP pre-election spruik’.

Yet another article, by Greg Stoltz, drew a connection between the Inquiry and outlaw bikies, who were said to be thanking Clive Palmer for taking up their fight against the Newman Government. Mr Stoltz said that both Clive Palmer and Senator Glenn Lazarus had emerged as ‘heroes of the violent motorcycle gangs that police have spent years battling to bring under control’.

The big guns have been brought to bear, with Andrew Bolt contributing a lengthy piece in which he described the Inquiry as a ‘witch-hunt’. Bolt said the Inquiry was a ‘posse’ which had been created to ‘dig for dirt’ on the Newman Government.

Readers were exhorted to ‘be in no doubt that this is personal’ and were directed to ‘look at the grubbiness’. Bolt derided the Labor Party for ‘sinking to Palmer’s level’ by backing the Inquiry before signing off with the phrase: ‘grubby, grubby, grubby’.

The editorial ran many of the same lines, accusing the Palmer United Party of cynically playing Labor and the Greens to set up the Inquiry.

The Inquiry, itself, was described as

‘… one of the most outrageous abuses of power and process seen in the history of the Senate.’

The editor’s language became even more intemperate when he described the Inquiry as a

‘… voodoo mix of conspiracies and prejudices about the Newman government.’

Readers of the Courier Mail might be forgiven for missing, amongst the hyperbole, the facts that the Inquiry is targeted at investigating the disposition of moneys flowing from the Commonwealth toward Queensland in the days after the Newman Government came to power; the propriety of the Commonwealth’s devolving powers to issue environmental approvals to the Queensland State government; the separation of powers and judicial independence in Queensland; and the extent to which Queensland government policies and practices are consistent with international human rights obligations.

These terms of reference raise, among other things, issues of possible misappropriation of Commonwealth funds, originating from the taxpayer, by a State government. The focus of the inquiry appears to be whether those funds were applied to party political purposes here in Queensland.

These are important issues involving possible high-level government corruption and misuse of taxpayer funds.

The prospect of the Newman Government being released From federal restraints on approval of development on environmental grounds is disturbing and, seemingly, an appropriate area for inquiry by a body truly independent of that government.

There has been a series of revelations of political donations to the Newman Government or individuals, therein, principally, by proponents of development and mining proposals being closely followed or preceded by favourable legislation or administrative actions which have benefitted those donors.

The premier, Campbell Newman, is strongly supportive of developers and miners, seemingly, over many other public policy considerations.

Premier Newman has declared, on a number of occasions, that Queensland is ‘open for business’.

In very recent times, legislation was rushed through the Parliament under cover of darkness to remove, effectively, the public’s right to object to huge mining developments.

It is informative to compare the response of the Courier Mail to this decision by the Senate to establish an Inquiry to its editorial reaction to the announcement of other recent inquiries which may have been thought by some to have political, as well as public policy, motivations .

For example, on 9 February, this year, the newspaper’s headline blared

Royal Commission into Trade Unions is Overdue’.

This opinion piece was attributed to unidentified ‘staff writers’. It is tempting to speculate that none of the ‘staff writers’ wished their by-line to be used to identify them as endorsing the establishment of an inquiry that clearly had a strongly partisan purpose.

The ‘staff writers’ began with a series of unsupported assertions, an example of which was:

‘It is no secret that unions… are a haven for crooks and swindlers.’

The writers then heaped praise upon Prime Minister Tony Abbott for having the courage to look into the shadowy world of trade unions. The writers compared PM Abbott, favourably, with Premier Newman, who was also cast in a favourable light.

The staff writers drew favourable connections between PM Abbott’s campaign against the criminal trade unionists and Premier Newman’s legislative campaign against motorcycle gangs in Queensland. It is worthy of note that the manner in which Mr. Newman’s government has legislated, purportedly, against “bikies” has also been controversial, including among experts on law enforcement.

The staff writers ended their by laying down the gauntlet to the Opposition Leader, Bill Shorten, to

‘… play a prominent role in stamping out the cancer of corruption.’

Similarly, on 7 October 2013, the same or different ‘staff writers’ welcomed the announcement of the Home Insulation Program, or ‘pink batts’ Inquiry by the then newly elected Abbott Government. Many observers felt that the decision to establish this Inquiry into a subject that had been investigated by a Parliamentary Committee, an administrative inquiry, the CSIRO, coroners from New South Wales and Queensland, and the auditor-general was politically motivated.

 

Political motivation was not a word in the vocabulary of Courier-Mail staff writers on that occasion.

The opinion piece ran under the headline:

Next insulation inquiry merits the whole truth’.

The piece concluded by expressing the satisfaction of the authors that the terms of reference drawn up by the Abbott cabinet,

‘… included the ability to call former Labor ministers, including Mr Rudd and Mr Garrett, to testify as to what they really knew.’

It is the case that political institutions can establish inquiries with mixed motives. Very few decisions of politicians do not involve some calculation of political advantage as well as public benefit.

It is a legitimate concern, however, when the political calculus appears to dominate the considerations of the public good.

It is important that journalists and news organisations monitor and report both the public benefit and political advantage aspects of politicians’ actions so that the public is informed about these matters.

The public and, especially, the journalists’ readers are entitled to accept a degree of balance, consistency and impartiality in the way this task is carried out.

The recent history of the Courier-Mail in reporting the establishment of public inquiries shows that that news organisation, and its journalists (who, presumably, have little choice in the matter), have fallen well below these basic journalistic standards.

You can follow Stephen Keim on Twitter @StephenKeim1.

 

 

 

 

Christianity, is the foundation of our freedoms according to Andrew Bolt the man who maintains I’m not a Christian. 6/10/2014

 

 

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/islams-violent-tendencies/story-fni0ffxg-1227080641770

The man with bilge for  brain gives yet another one of his interpretations of the history of the world. A thumbnail sketch that wouldn’t fit on the back of a stamp. Freedom had nothing to do with Christianity the concept of citizen was Greek the separation of  church and state had a much greater impact. Bolt seems to have overlooked the influence of the French Revolution.

The idiot says the “the names of organizations  tell the story” is he for real? Does the KKK spell Christian Racists? Did the Branch Davidians  tell their stories? Did Jones Town represent Bolt’s Christian ‘s ideal of freedom? They and many others like them made claims to the true Christianity. Where was the freedom in any of it? The Church of Scientology according to Bolt it’s in the name. The Boers in South Africa justified the lack of freedom  in their version of Christ message. So a mix Sunni radicals calling themselves Daesh, IS whatever they  aren’t representative of Islam.

Oh ISIL claiming to have a mandate means fuck all crazies throughout history claim mandates shit Tony Abbott claims a mandate for all sorts of things strange who amongst the Islamic world believe IS has a mandate ” Some non-Muslims might believe they  have a mandate and have converted. Some Muslims might as well however the majority don’t. Sunni and Shia  in India aren’t slaughtering each other. In Indonesia homosexuals, transvestites and transgender persons aren’t killed or stoned to death. Women are educated run for the highest office in the land and run businesses more so than here.

Again Bolt’s fact three  is totally meaningless. It’s strange that Bolt a professed non-Christian believes in  and quotes the bible as fact. The fact of  Christs  life. He sounds like a Dutch Calvinist a Reformationist. The bible is the word. That book has been interpreted and reinterpreted over the years so much it has people dancing with snakes in the name of god. Speaking in tongues in the name of god. Justifying violence against the state in the name of god ( Timothy Mcveigh).  Christians have slaughtered apostates throughout history and found it biblically justified. Here we have Bolt a declared non believer telling us the word. What a bullshit artist the man is and such a bad one at that

The Nazi’s had an ideology maybe not god at the centre. Social Darwinism the natural order the evolution of things. It was an Ideology nevertheless  to justify their existence. Eugenics was their proof. God wasn’t a central tenet  so it had no guilt breaking any agreements it made with the Catholic church. Science ,Eugenics were nominated as their god

“Islam’s violent tendencies” is Bolt’s unsophisticated figment and simplistic justification for his Ultra Racism

 

Production Company Newscorp Script writer Gerard Henderson, Director Andrew Bolt

Fox News Americas News Corp and Andrew Bolt’s Mentors. [no fear no favours] He stole that from the ICA and CPA of Australia

Laura Ingraham To Be Placed In Quarantine

Conservative media personality Laura Ingraham speaks during the inaugural Freedom Summit meeting for conservative speakers in Manchester

Radio talk show host and Fox News pundit Laura Ingraham has been detained and will be placed in quarantine facilities in Atlanta, according to Dave Daigle, a spokesman for the CDC. The action comes only two days after Ingraham blamed President Obama for the current cases of Ebola that have cropped up in the United States.

lauraingraham

On Wednesday’s edition of “The Laura Ingraham Show,” the child-hating anti-immigrant pundit made some despicably naive and misleading comments about President Barack Obama’s handling of the Ebola crisis, using faulty logic: even though President George W. Bush did more for Africa, Obama’s “familial connection with Africa” and compulsion to aid the impoverished region is much more dangerous.

Ingraham wants her listeners to believe that like every other problem in the known universe, the Ebola crisis is Obama’s fault.

lauraingraham2

At a press conference on the steps of the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, Daigle told reporters that Ingraham had exhibited symptoms of “pretzel logic, bigotry, and an inability to make any sense whatsoever” while on a national broadcast. “We just could not take the chance that Ingraham would spread the infection to her listeners,” said Daigle. “We already have enough conspiracy theory wing nuts running around the country as it is. God help us if she spreads the malady to even more dim witted Americans.”

Daigle stressed that the quarantine was “only a precaution,” and Ingraham would be placed on the same ward with Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, who were already under observation.

palin-spider

“We just want to make damn sure that this special form of idiocy doesn’t spread, and we intend to ere on the side of caution, after all, a disease that threatens our ability to reason is just as deadly as Ebola or Dengue Fever to our national well being.”

As she was being transported into the facility in a straight-jacket Ingraham screamed at reporters that she was not insane. “I always make perfect sense! I’m not crazy! This is what you get when you let illegal immigrants into the country! All those kids should be shot!”

Ingraham’s audience of over 1200 listeners are expected to take the quarantine in stride and tune into Glenn Beck instead until she is released.

Unfortunately Andrew Bolt is not a Social Experiment He is Very Real

For our sake

For Bolt’s sake

Andrew Bolt got his “alleged” “alleged” story from the Guardian doesn’t mention Scott M. New Security laws what are the chances of Truth vs 10 years jail?

Nauru child sex abuse allegations to be examined in new inquiry…..Andrew Bolt

Because Morrison wants to stop the “chatter” Not mentioned in Andrew Bolt’s Blog.

This is the source and the bullshit attributed to the lies Bolt gets paid to distribute and why his lawyers are paid hefty amounts to protect Newscorp from conviction.

 

 

Scott Morrison says reports charity workers helped children protest against offshore detention policy will also be investigated

nauru asylum seeker protest
Families in the Nauru detention centre protest against Australia’s deal to resettle refugees in Cambodia. Photograph: Supplied

The federal government has announced a further inquiry into children in detention on Nauru,

The immigration minister, Scott Morrison, confirmed 10 employees of Save the Children, a non-government organisation contracted to provide welfare, education and protection for children on Nauru, had been told to leave the island.

Morrison has appointed former integrity commissioner and acting department head Philip Moss to head the wide-ranging inquiry investigating “all of these matters”.

The 10 staff members told to leave Nauru are not alleged to have engaged in misconduct against children, but are accused of encouraging protests, complaints of abuse and even of coaching self-harm.

The chief executive of Save The Children, Paul Ronalds, rejected the minister’s allegations and said the governmement had not provided his organisation with any evidence of staff wrongdoing before the claim was leaked to the media, or since.

Nor had it received the report cited by Morrison.

Five Save The Children staff were suspended in August over allegations they had supported a detainee protest by giving a “thumbs up” sign to demonstrators.

“In that case, all of the allegations against Save the Children staff were found to be unsubstantiated, and all of the staff returned to full duties,” Ronalds said.

Save the Children said in an earlier statement instances of child self-harm were “a reality that has been well-documented”.

“The evidence is very clear to us: the long-term and prolonged detention of children has a devastating impact on the mental and physical well-being of children. This can no longer be denied.”

Morrison said he would be appalled if accusations of sexual abuse proved true, but that the fabrication of allegations to further a political agenda was also serious.

 

Guardian Australia has published extensive evidence of child abuse and instances of self-harm on Nauru, including:

Australian federal police confirmed to Guardian Australia it had received a referral from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. It had not started an investigation.

Tony Abbott’s foreign affair disaster September. Bridget Bardot wishes she’d done more……..Andrew Bolt Exclusive Incite!!! Care of Newscorp

Personally this man decided to put himself on the front page months ago by sounding off like the leader of the war pac-t. He wanted to be noticed for other than his home-grown stupidity. It worked he is noticed for his International stupidity. However this man has a history of stupidity and viciousness since a student he’s left a trail of blood behind. However as a student he wasn’t noticed in Australia he wasn’t noticed until Murdoch took control of our media. The world however noticed and it’s not all Left wing.  Let’s hear some opinions from other than Newscorp and Fox.

 Number 40 The Slate in the USA headlined its piece:

‘The Saudi Arabia of the South Pacific: How Australia became the dirtiest polluter in the developed world.’

Its critique was blunt:

‘In the year since they took office, Prime Minister Tony Abbott and his Liberal-led coalition have already dismantled the country’s key environmental policies. Now they’ve begun systematically ransacking its natural resources. In the process, they’ve transformed Australia from an international innovator on environmental issues into quite possibly the dirtiest country in the developed world.’

The judgment is based on three visible reversals: logging Tasmania’s forests, recalcitrance at the recent UN climate summit in New York and the carbon tax/price repeal.

Number 39 was the decision to follow the US into Iraq in yet another attempt to meet violence with violence — and, incidentally, boost the popularity of warmongering ‘leaders’.

The threat this poses to Australia was widely highlighted:

In the UK, The Guardian headlined its report:

‘Isis instructs followers to kill Australians and other disbelievers’

In the U.S.:

‘ISIS threatens to attack the US, France & Australia’

In Russia:

‘High alert: Australia ups terror threat level as intelligence warns of ISIS-related attack’

Number 38 was the deal with Cambodia to ‘sell’ some of the world’s most desperate refugees to one of the world’s poorest countries.

France’s prestigious Le Monde headed its report:

‘L’Australie souhaite 1000 réfugiés vendre au Cambodge’ [Australia wants to ‘sell’ 1,000 refugees to Cambodia]

CNN in the US:

‘Australian deal to settle refugees in Cambodia slammed as new low’

In the UK:

‘Cambodians protest Australia using country as refugee dumping ground’

In Indonesia:

‘Activists outraged over Cambodia-Australia refugee deal’

Number 37 was Australia’s appallingly cruel treatment of refugees.

France’s Le Monde ran a story titled,

‘En Australie, une fillette de 6 ans contre l’enfer des camps de migrants’ [In Australia, a 6 year old girl protests the ‘hell’ of migrant camps]

It recounts the case of an incarcerated child suffering untreated toothache, allergies, bed-wetting, stuttering and other symptoms of depression due to separation from her mother.

The New York Times ran an outraged editorial:

‘Australia is pursuing draconian measures to deter people without visas from entering the country by boat. In doing so, it is failing in its obligation under international accords to protect refugees fleeing persecution.’

Number 36 was the Budget decision to slash overseas aid from the miserable level promised before the 2013 election – already a reduction of $4.5 billion – by a further $3.1 billion.

The UK’s Daily Mail quoted aid advocate and rock legend Sir Bob Geldof, saying he was dismayed Australia had reduced overseas direct aid (ODA) when it was one of the richest nations in the world.

Said Geldorf:

“The Australian government promised to increase ODA to 0.5 per cent [of GDP]. The Australian people gave their word to the poorest people on this planet. You can’t mess with a sovereign promise to the poor, they’re too weak, they’re too vulnerable. You can’t f*** around with them.”

So let’s briefly recap the earlier 35:

Abbott’s advisers hate rationality it interferes with money….their’s

Blessed Are The Stupid For They Shall Inhibit The Earth – Tony Abbott, Maurice Newman and What To Do About People Who Insist On Looking At Facts!

Strange that during the period of so-called “global cooling”, there was no suggestion that the figures may be wrong. These were “facts” that the green movement were told were indisputable.Yet now it seems that the BOM may be fallible after all. How do we know? Well, Maurice Newman says so! And he’s Tony Abbott’s Business Adviser, so he must know what he’s taking about. I mean, he was attacking wind farms even before Joe realised that they were incredibly ugly and lacked the raw beauty of a coal-fired power station.

Maurice Newman has refused meet with scientists about his comments. After all, scientists are part of that whole conspiracy that began with the Age of Enlightenment. They probably even suggest that just transporting convicts to Australia won’t actually put an end to crime.

Mr Newman, like Tony Abbott, arrived in Australia by boat from England as a young boy, but neither were convicts as the English stopped sending their convicts here some time before either of them arrived. In the twentieth century, they only sent people who understood the superiority of the English class system while preferring the Australian weather.

Mm, perhaps there is a strong case for stopping the boats, after all.