Time to close down the ‘tent embassy’

Posted by Chief Blogger – 26 January, 2012

Left-wing ferals tried to attack the PM and Tony Abbott on this great Australia Day.

Ugly scenes, especially to see the PM stumble like that. I don’t know if Tony needed that amount of protection however. I would have liked to have seen him have gone one on one with a couple of the occupiers. A bit of head kicking; anyway I digress. The event underlines how utterly repulsive the people that occupy the front lawns of Old Parliament House are. It is an ugly eye sore in the heart of the national capital. My game plan to get these vagrant trespassers out is as follows:

  1. At around 0300 hours turn the ground sprinklers on hard – we are talking tent destroying water pressure;
  2. When the occupiers come too from their drunken drug induced stupor they will invariably try to shut the sprinklers off through destructive means;
  3. At that point riot Police can move into to arrest them for destroying public property, while using electronic jamming techniques to stop the occupiers calling in backup;
  4. The site would then cleared by a covert team of removalists to take away the squalled remains of the embassy, including a bio-hazard team to deal with any extra nasties; and
  5. Follow up at around 0600 with a team of gardeners to remove the grass and begin construction on a new and large rose garden where the tents, shacks and toilets once were.

By the time morning news gets started the whole operation will have been complete and the site closed off due to the new garden construction. Any follow-up invasion of the site would be a breach of trespasser and OHS laws, which would result in further arrests.

What is happening to centre-right media?

Posted by Chief Blogger – 24 January, 2012

Listening to Alan Jones this morning it became clear to me how utterly inconsistent his positions are across a range of issues. For instance, AJ opposes subsidies for the auto industry and rails against JGill for driving up the cost of energy – fair enough – but is okay with sweet heart deals for ethanol producers in NSW, where Barry O’Fail is abolishing regular unleaded to be replaced with the less energy efficient E10 fuel. A fuel that is more expensive to use and will force tens of thousands of non-E10 compliant vehicles onto more expensive higher non-ethanol fuels. Governments have an incredibly bad record of mucking of energy prices in Australia, and Barry O’Fail’s latest eco venture into nanny state knows best should have sounded warning bells to AJ. Instead, AJ let his vested rural interests get the better of him and consumers bear the hard financial consequences.

Also today, AJ ventured into US politics with Paul Sheehan, and to put it mildly it was embarrassing. Apparently AJ sees no problem with Bill Clinton having had 12 separate affairs and so sees no moral conundrum with Newt Gingrich’s sordid martial history and the implications it has for his character, such as when he sat in judgement of Clinton yet was carrying on an affair of his own. No mention of Newt’s ethics violations, a polite way of saying he was corrupt, and that he got kicked out of the House of Representatives. No mention either of Newt’s lobbying efforts in his post-political career and his attempts to miss-represent what he was doing promoting socialist mortgage financing with Freddie Mac. No mention either of Newt’s pro-global warming ad with Nancy Pelosi and his past attempts to promote Co2 regulation and pricing. Like Andrew Bolt on MTR, AJ presented a mostly fact free analysis and you wonder if he bothers to brush up on the details prior to his show. And then there is AJ’s unholy alliance with the Greens to take down exploratory gas and oil interests.

If AJ is an indication of where the centre-right media are at the moment it is going to be even harder for the Coalition to regain office. Analysis should be considered and based on facts.

Bad news for ALP from ALP pollster

Posted by Chief Blogger – 23 January, 2012

According to the latest Essential Media Report the Coalition outpoll the ALP across nearly every single issue:

The biggest gap is in managing the economy and fiscal matters, an issue the electorate rank as number 1 for government. Curiously Essential Media did not ask respondents to rank national security as an issue.

Julia Gillard is not a moral woman

Posted by Chief Blogger – 23 January, 2012

It is a new year of Federal political shenanigans, so let’s recap JGill’s path to power:

  1. JGill promised not to challenge KRudd for the leadership, yet hours later reneged on that promise – catching KRudd out and leaving him unprepared for a vote – thereby becoming PM.
  2. JGill promised the electorate not to introduce a Co2 tax during the 2010 election, yet within days after the election reneged on that promise to secure Greens support.
  3. JGill promised a Tasmanian forestry deal with the Greens to secure their votes in House of Representatives, yet even Bob Brown is claiming that the PM failed to live up to the deal, calling it a ‘breach of honour’.
  4. JGill promised to Andrew Willkie a deal on poker machines to also win his support in the HoR, yet Willkie is now claiming that JGill has ‘trashed democracy’ by this week going back on the deal.

Detect a pattern yet? JGill lied her way into office. She put her own lust for political power above the commitments she made to others, including the nation. How can anyone believe a word JGill says.

JGill’s lack of morality extends to her shady past as an Australian Workers Union lawyer and partner of the corrupt Bruce Morton Wilson. JGill set up bank accounts to funnel union fees into a home renovation, but she claims she didn’t know what the money was for. The media are not permitted to talk about her shady past least they receive a nasty call from the PM and threats from the government media regulator and a grilling at the Senate media inquiry.

Then of course we really get into the mud with her home wreaker relationship with Craig Emerson; another topic off limit to the media.

Let’s be clear: JGill was not elected by the people. If every MP had done as their electorate had wanted them to do back in 2010, Tony Abbott would be the PM. From this we can gain some solace, that the Australian people are by far and away more honest and true than the current PM.

More Barry O’Fail

Posted by Chief Blogger – 23 January, 2012

Another idiotic left-wing policy desgined to drive up the cost of energy for people:

UP TO 750,000 drivers in NSW will be forced to pay at least $150 more for petrol each year when the government bans regular unleaded petrol in July.

NSW is the only government in Australia to ban regular unleaded petrol and replace it with fuel blended with 10 per cent ethanol.

But modelling by the University of Queensland and the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce obtained by the Herald shows 25 per cent of NSW cars cannot use ethanol fuel and will be forced to use premium fuel instead.

E10 is also far less fuel efficient than regular unleaded, pretty much negating any initial cost savings at the petrol station. I won’t use it my vehicle, makesmy car run rough even though it is E10 certified.

Gingrich is not a moral man

Posted by Chief Blogger – 22 January, 2012

Conservative media have been going ape about a question Gingrich received during last week’s GOP debate regarding his past extra-martial affairs. A different take:

And then there are Gingrich’s ethics violations and his post-political lobbying career.

MORE

Gingrich may have won South Carolina, but he will struggle in virtually every state that comes before Super Tuesday, including: Maine, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Colorado, etc… It is not just Florida that he has to worry about and he could not even get on the ballot in Virgina, which has 50 delegates.

There is still life in the ALP

Posted by Chief Blogger – 22 January, 2012

Somewhat reassuring that the ALP has still not been completely overrun with progressive types:

Labor for Life was formed last month to link members with conservative views and, partly, in response to the party’s official recognition of gay marriage.

The move is being seen by progressive MPs as a sign Labor’s socially conservative rump is muscling up for a fight on issues such as abortion.

Given that homosexual marriage is now an ALP national policy, I wonder if these socially conservative MPs will be punnished for speaking out.

I’m still in two-minds

Posted by Chief Blogger – 19 January, 2012

I see the arguments for both sides, but if we are going to get rid of auto car subsidies lets get rid of all business subsidies, especially for ‘renewable’ energy.

Senator Carr said that one million Australians are employed in some form of manufacturing and that the automotive industry is the foundation stone of manufacturing.

He said that, at only $17.80 per taxpayer, the Australian government’s level of support for the car industry was very low compared with Canada ($96.39), France ($147.38), Germany ($90.37), Sweden ($334) and the UK ($27), let alone “the great home of free enterprise”, the US ($264).

“Nowhere in the world – nowhere – does the automotive industry survive without substantial co-investment by the governments,” said Senator Carr.

Just say no to these tax-payer funded rent seekers

Posted by Chief Blogger – 19 January, 2012

No is a very simple quick word and it is the best way to sum up my reaction to the proposal to give ‘aboriginal’ people special legal entitlements in our constitution:

“negative reply,” early 13c., from O.E. na (adv.) “never, no,” from ne “not, no” + a “ever,” from P.Gmc. *ne (cf. O.N., O.Fris., O.H.G. ne, Goth. ni “not”), from PIE base *ne- “no, not” (see un-). Second element from PIE *aiw- “vital force, life, long life, eternity” (see aye (2)). As an adj. meaning “not any” (c.1200) it is reduced from O.E. nan (see none), the final -n omitted first before consonants and then altogether. No-no (n.) first attested 1942. No problem as an interjection of assurance, first attested 1963. Phrase no can do “it is not possible” is attested from 1914. Construction no X, no Y attested from 1530s (in no peny no pardon).

A few issues stand out.

  1. The proposal is driven by self-interest, not what is in the best interests of the country. A panel of self-apportioned tax payer funded ‘experts’ – usual suspects – have come up with the proposal. Normally referendums are initiated by the people via some type of convention, not a closed elitist shop. There is no mass movement wanting these changes. The only support for this proposal is from those that stand to benefit, both in status and financial standing.
  2. The whole proposal seems to give legal status to a latter-day leftist endorsed aristocracy, where special legal privileges and access to taxation are provided to a group of people based on genealogical connection, and where rights are hereditary – able to be passed on to children without recourse to merit or justice (not fake social justice). Unlike the Queen however, these people would actually enforce their claims over laws and taxation. As a consequence the whole proposal is hideously anti-democratic and an affront to the principles of private property, individual liberty and equality before the law. Better suited to some type of medieval kingdom than a democratic Commonwealth.
  3. What is an aborigine and how does one qualify? Recent legal cases seem to suggest that one need only have a vague distant genealogical connection to have the cash registers ring and emblems thrown in your direction. Is this a fair method of determining who gets access to these aristocratic like privileges over laws and taxation?
  4. The proposal claims that the constitution racially discriminates against aborigines. I’ve read the constitution and I can’t find the section that is racist. There is a section that allows the Commonwealth to make laws for Aborigines, which was passed overwhelmingly in a referendum. There is nothing racist about the constitution. Presumably the ‘expert’ panel would not want that section abolished and along with it the privileged access it affords them to Commonwealth taxation.
  5. The whole proposal is predicated on an historical fraud. The concept of Australia is a strictly non-indigenous idea. The first people to recognise that Australia was an island continent, to call themselves Australian and to envisage a nation for a continent and a continent for a nation were not Aboriginal. So for instance, when the ‘experts’ claim that: “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages are the original Australian languages..” they are mistaken. The original Australian language is English.

MORE

Looks like the advocates are going to take there time:

THE deadline for holding a referendum to acknowledge indigenous Australians at or before the 2013 election has been abandoned, because the expert panel fears it would face certain defeat if it were rushed.

I’m pretty confident it would face certain defeat, period.

Andrew Bolt is not a conservative – part VII

Posted by Chief Blogger – 16 January, 2012

Previous coverage of Bolt’s yes/no conservative credentials can be found here.

On MTR today the following conversation took place between Steve Price and Bolt, around the 24 minute mark:

Bolt: Obama will win the election.

Price: Yes, I’ve written that down as well.

Bolt: Bugger.

Price: The republicans in that whole country of 350 million people can’t find a decent candidate.

Bolt: Yep, yep, amazing. That’s astonishing. How could that be?

Price: A whole bunch of loonies and religious freaks and nut cases…

Bolt: …and people as absurd as the Mormons….

Apart from the fact that this conversation sounds a good deal like one might find at the ABC, a few issues come out of this puerile exchange.

The Australian media seem to know virtually nothing about US politics. It is as if the internet does not exist and the media can’t be bothered looking. As an example of this, the GOP front runner Mitt Romney consistently out polls Obama or is within the margin of error.

No mention of this in the discussion, not even a mention of any of the candidates by name. I doubt Price and Bolt know them. If listeners were tuning into MTR to be informed then they would have been disappointed.

For Price to say and for Bolt to agree that the GOP field are “…a whole bunch of loonies and religious freaks and nut cases…” is probably a reflection of their own ignorance and Bolt’s disingenuous attempt to be a conservative on issues Australians care about, but on more obscure issues default back to his leftists tendencies as he has done previously (see first link). For instance, Jack Welch said recently on CNN that Romney is the most qualified Presidential candidate in 50 years. Does Bolt even know who Romney is? Or that Newt Gingrich has written 13 New York Times best sellers. And we could go on, but don’t expect to get any facts from Bolt on MTR.

I admit that some of the GOP candidates are not my cup of tea, but I would not come close to characterising them as Bolt and Price have. If Price and Bolt had watched every GOP debate so far as I have, it would have become obvious to them that the GOP field are full of people of substance who care deeply about their country. They are not ‘nut cases’, while people’s religious persuasion should not be considered relevant. There is no religious test for office. Can you imagine Bolt saying: “…and people as absurd as the homosexuals…”.

I have pretty much given up on Bolt. I urge readers to study the details found in the link at the top of this post and make up their own minds. What I have documented so far is really only the tip of the iceberg. A more intense and comprehensive study of all that Bolt has written and said would likely reveal more conservative ‘game breakers’. Get real – Bolt is not a conservative.

MORE
From today’s GOP debate. Gingrich is not my first choice, but how can Bolt agree with the statement that the GOP candidates are ‘…a whole bunch of loonies, religious freaks and nut cases…’ after watching this video. Bolt is either extremely ill-informed, intellectually lazy or is not a conservative.