Month: September 2010

Obama: Indonesia more important than Australia

Posted by Chief Blogger – 24 September, 2010

Obama has again called off his trip to Australia,though he has kept his trip to Indonesia. No excuses  or explanation offered. This move is consistent though with Obama’s general disdain for traditional allies and his multi-lateral view of the world. Does not say much for Gillard’s pulling power either. Not to mention Rudd’s little trip to Washington DC this month to try and convince the leaders to come. I guess his ‘show you a good time’ routine didn’t go down that well.

Here is a big call: John McCain would not have canceled a trip to Australia on two consecutive occasions. Pretty shabby treatment.

The Climate War is Won!

Posted by Chief Blogger – 22 September, 2010

Hilarious post by the UK Telegraph’sJames Delingpole about the Guardian’s number one climate alarmist, George Monbiot, admission that the climate war is lost. .

But anyone who takes any comfort from Monbiot’s confession of “failure” is living in a fool’s paradise. Yes, he’s absolutely right that green taxes and decarbonisation are an entirely pointless exercise, which will be of no benefit whatsoever to the planet. Where’s he’s wrong is in his fatuous contention that “greens” are having their efforts thwarted by ” industrial lobby groups, the cowardice of governments and the natural human tendency to deny what we don’t want to see.”

More like the eco-facist fact challenged agenda killed itself. Atleast Monbiot has had the honesty to point out the obvious:

An analysis published a few days ago by the campaigning group Sandbag estimates the amount of carbon that will have been saved by the end of the second phase of the EU’s emissions trading system, in 2012; after the hopeless failure of the scheme’s first phase we were promised that the real carbon cuts would start to bite between 2008 and 2012. So how much carbon will it save by then? Less than one third of 1%.

Worse still, the reduction in industrial output caused by the recession has allowed big polluters to build up a bank of carbon permits which they can carry into the next phase of the trading scheme. If nothing is done to annul them or to crank down the proposed carbon cap (which, given the strength of industrial lobbies and the weakness of government resolve, is unlikely) these spare permits will vitiate phase three as well. Unlike the Kyoto protocol, the EU’s emissions trading system will remain alive. It will also remain completely useless.

So the EU ETS is not working, what hope then for Gillard’s ETS agenda or carbon taxation agenda?

If you want a taste of the loony positions the Guardian takes on climate change read this article.

It is time to acknowledge that mainstream environmentalism has failed to prevent climate catastrophe. Its refusal to call for an immediate consumption reduction has backfired and its demise has opened the way for a wave of fascist environmentalists who reject democratic freedom….Democratic, anti-fascist environmentalism means marshalling the strength of humanity to suppress corporations. Only by silencing the consumerist forces will both climate catastrophe and ecological tyranny be averted. Yes, western consumption will be substantially reduced. But it will be done voluntarily and joyously.

I’m Convinced, Ban the Burqa

Posted by Chief Blogger – 20 September, 2010

Senator Cory Bernardi kicked off the ‘ban the burqa’ debate in Australia a few of months ago.

The burqa isolates some Australians from others. Its symbolic barrier is far greater than the measure of cloth it is created from. For safety and for society, the burqa needs to be banned in Australia.

At the time I didn’t have much of an opinion either way, but I have slowly come round to supporting a ban. Not least since this recent protest by an Islamic political party in Australia supporting the burqa. At the event the participants denounced secular western society, claiming that Islamic society was superior – same old anti-western rhetoric. They do so of course without any sense of irony. It is western society that allows these people to protest and live their religion. If I was a democratically minded Christian in Iran or Saudi Arabia would I be afforded the same privilege? Cearly not.

I’m no fan of rampant secularism, but the burqa is an affront to the Christian and social conventions of Australia. Conventions that people should respect. So for instance, I shouldn’t be allowed to walk down George St. in Sydney completely nakedand by the same token I shouldn’t be allowed to walk down George St. completely covering my entire body – head to toe – in black cloth with only a small slit across my eye line.

The WSJ editorial board has an interesting debate about the issue.

At the core of liberalism is the concept of the individual. Individual choice is important, but ultimately not as important as the individual who makes it. In the public sphere, the individual is defined first by her face; it is the principal way we can recognize her as such. The purpose of the burqa/niqab is not to protect “female modesty,” which in Islam (and, indeed, Judaism) can be practiced by covering one’s hair. Instead, the purpose is to erase the individual. So to allow the burqa/niqab violates the most basic precept of liberal society….

Same discussion different author:

We participate in public life not as identities but as individuals; to do that, to exist as actors in the public square with rights and responsibilities, we need to be able to recognize others and be recognizable in turn (and not just by way of biometric scanners). One of my objections to the burqa/niqab is that it violates that basic norm; it creates a one-way mirror by which some members of society can recognize others while remaining invisible themselves.

The use of the burqa is the Muslim community symbolically saying: ‘We want no part of Australian society.’ At the very least people living in Australia should recognise that they are part of a greater whole.

The great euthanasia lie

Posted by Chief Blogger – 19 September, 2010

Bob Brown is seeking to pressure his political partner Julia Gillard to push through plans to allow the territories to pass euthanasia bills. Euthanasia is merely legalised suicide. Invariably it starts out to assist terminally ill patients, then those without terminal illness, then those with mental conditions and eventually people that have simply given up any hope to live for a range of social and psychological reasons. Australia’s number one euthanasia advocate Phillip Nitschke has publicly stated that he wants very few restrictions on the practice, be it for age or reason. In every country where euthanasia has been implemented it has morphed into legalised suicide for adults and infanticide for children – all throughout the relevant European countries and even in the Northern Territory. For the short period euthanasia was legalised in the NT during 1996, most people that were killed under legislation had depression not a terminal illness.

Euthanasia is a not a compassionate response to mental suffering, but the easy way out for people like Bob Brown that don’t want to support with those without loving friends and family you have no desire to live. It is the type of manifestation you get from leftists who have destroyed traditional family social structures and their supporting function, because of the left’s preponderance with government growth and social experimentation.

“This won’t bring in euthanasia but it will restore the rights of the Territorians to be able to legislate for euthanasia the same as everybody in the states,” Senator Brown told Network Ten today.

“While this Bill is about territory rights, a huge majority of Australians support voluntary euthanasia and it is time for federal parliament to openly debate the issue.

This issue was debated during John Howard’s first term in office, in which a conscience vote was had and Bob Brown lost. Bob Brown’s attempts to frame the debate as being about territory rights is also dishonest. It is about legalising suicide and infanticide.  He should be open about what he really wants. For instance, Bob Brown once co-wrote a book with the other infamous Green, academic Peter Singer. They advocate infanticide, allowing it to be legal up to 6 months of a child’s life. From the National Review Online:

In case you’re not freezing yet: Singer explains that, “Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time.” Hence, they’re disposable.

Infant euthanasia (Have you ever imagined seeing those two words together?) is the practice Singer is discussing. And don’t confuse it with abortion. We’re talking out-of-the-womb, mom-has-delivered, right-here-with-you-and-me babies. Where’s it happening? In Europe and the Netherlands, specifically — although word of it is slowly spreading. In Holland, the Associated Press reports that “at least five newborn mercy killings occur for every one reported.”

This is the future Bob Brown wants this country to inherit.

UPDATE

AMA head Dr Andrew Pesce has indicated that there are better ways to deal with paitent pain and death than implementing euthanasia.

Grab the wallet

Posted by Chief Blogger – 19 September, 2010

Every tax-payer should read the following the concern:

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has urged the new Parliament to deliver the sort of nation-building projects championed by Labor hero Ben Chifley.

Add this together with Gillard’s admission that she plans to break election commitments, I’d say she is saying she has no intention of returning the budget to surplus.

Clinton and Rudd ‘looking for a good time’

Posted by Chief Blogger – 18 September, 2010

Let Rudd’s gaff list begin.

Oakeshott is without a clue

Posted by Chief Blogger – 17 September, 2010

Oakeshott needs money. He was shamed into not accepting a ministerial post and now he wants the speaker’s chair. Pairing for an independent could not in work because it would require Oakeshott to outline his opinion on every legislative matter before the HoR to ensure someone else abstained from how he would voter if he wasn’t the speaker. How is that constitutional  – at least in spirit – when the speaker is meant to be independent and without a vote, unless he is required to break a chamber dead lock?

Abbott has already backed pairing if the former speak Harry Jenkins is allowed to continue in the job. Oakeshott is unhinged, claiming that it is a test for a ‘new’ style of politics. Who exactly voted for or agreed to that? What exactly does it mean? Oakeshott should drop his current narrative and adopt some plain speaking by telling us what he really wants.

UPDATE

…..leading constitutional lawyer Geoff Lindell, raises doubts about the validity of key parts of an agreement struck by Labor and the Coalition with independent MPs over the powers of the Speaker.

Professor Lindell’s view is in line with that of legal academic Greg Craven, the vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University, who argued that the parliamentary reform agreement ran contrary to the intention of the Constitution.

“What the agreement does is allow the Speaker almost to vote negatively by taking one vote off one side of parliament,” Professor Craven said. “It gives the Speaker a negative vote.” This meant the “parliamentary reform” agreement was “pushing against the intention of the Constitution”.

Illegal Immigration myths destroyed

Posted by Chief Blogger – 16 September, 2010

First myth: Most illegals arrive by plane:

The figures also explode the myth more people arrive illegally by air than by boat.

Between 2009 and June 11 this year, according to the department 5646 onshore protection visa applications were lodged by people who came by air, with only 541 applicants regarded as illegal entries.

Second Myth: Boat arrivals have no impact on existing refugee programmes:

….of the 6310 arrivals since October 2008, 2050 had been granted protection visas and only 75 had been removed from Australia.

Third Myth: The East Timorese detention centre:

Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd yesterday also could not guarantee a new East Timor processing facility in three years.

Where is the refugee lobby now?

Whatever happened to the Treasury Police investigation?

Posted by Chief Blogger – 16 September, 2010

Treasury leaks against the Coalition during the election and the Federal Police sit on their hands. Joe Hockey said this morning on the Alan Jones programme that no one has heard anything back.

Don’t give it to him

Posted by Chief Blogger – 15 September, 2010

Rob Oakeshott wants to be the speaker. After he was called out wanting another ALP ministry, betraying his own electorate by putting ALP in power and his refusal to enter into negotiation with Abbott in good faith, the Coalition owes him no favours. By wanting to be the speaker, Oakeshott is seeking more publicity for his own re-election. As some sort of impartial arbitrator – which he ain’t. From now on the Coalition should do their best to make life hard for him. Just say no.