This really pisses me off. The Chinese are basically coming down here and telling us how it's gonna be in our own country, and Rudd is happily letting them. Why are commies bossing us around all of a sudden? It's not like we lost the cold war. Why we dont we let them set fire to the Aussie flag with the olympic torch while their at i? I'm sure Rudd's 2020 cheersquad will appreciate the symbolism.
If Rudd had said, 'hey they are gonna run with the Torch, it's their torch' that would be bad enough, but at least it would be honest. I'm sure that is what Rudd told his Chinese backers right from the get go. But when it comes to addressing the people who put him in office Rudd has changed his story many times. First flame attendants were not traveling with the torch, then they were travelling on a bus, then they were leaving the bus if the flame went out, and now they are just walking alongside the torch just as they always intended. 3 are walking, not the original 6. What's the bet the other 3 come out tomorrow for some reason? Probably to light the cigarettes of the other 3, or some bollocks.
Rudd is barefaced bullshitting the Australian nation, as well as undermining out national sovereignty. Say what you like but this would never have happenned under Howard. Sure, he was close to the yanks and Bush and Cheney came with their security detail, but that was the Prez and the Vice Prez. They will always have their own trusted staff that go with them. The same courtest was extended to the Chinese leaders at APEC as it should be.
But for commie thugs to be aided and abetted into intimidating the Australian public by the man that was elected to represent them. That is weakness, duplicity and treasonous disloyalty of the most vile sort. Rudd makes me sick.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Saturday, April 19, 2008
The Kevinator
Matt Knight from the Herald Sun is on the money again with his depiction of Rudd's one-stop-shop for little children. I think that's a link to the gallery, not to the individual cartoon so i'll paste it in here.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Rudd the Child-snatcher
Alot of times i don't feel like a real blogger. Everything i comment on comes out of the legacy media. I should link to other blogs in Oz more i know but it's a start. Some days I feel I can add something to the legacy media pieces, mainly moral rancour, other days all I can really do is give the link and say "'nuff said". Today is such a day and i'd like to refer you to the article entitled Rudd's baby farms not great for kids in the OZ. I was going to blog a little something yesterday about this but thought it was a pedestrian topic the legacy media could handle without my supervision.
I will add a little something though. The authors did not talk about how these parent and child (PC) centres provide opportunities for teachers and nurses, the two most indocrinated groups of people in the country, to shove their immasculating anti-competition anti-individualist pro-consensus guilt-based dogma down our children's throats.
The State (read: Rudd) will be taking Aussie children away from their families. It's like the Hilter Youth but starting from age 3. Actually a closer analogy is Maoist China, were kids are brought up on the little Red book and encouraged to inform on their parents if they speak against their leaders. The kids trust the government more than their parents and feel a stronger loyalty towards them BECAUSE THAT IS WHO THEY SPEND MOST OF THEIR TIME WITH!!!!
I find this all terrifying. Chairman Rudd is fully conscious that this is what he is doing. In typical Commie fashion he is usurping power and consolidating the blind loyalty of his minions for generations to come by manipulating public sympathy for some 'oppressed' group, in this case working mum's. By elevating one group's suffering up as more important than all others Rudd is able to gain the gushing love he needs to kill off the freedom of all groups.
Government should not discriminate between parants who stay home with their kids and parents that choose child care. Evidence suggests that kids are happier if they are at home more, but Mum's (and Dad's) at work earn more and they might want the freedom. More power to 'em. I think it's up to individual families to decide the balance. And it's up to the private sector and the voluntary (third) sector to provide the service, not the Nanny State. Rudd want's to tax those who stay at home to pay for childcare for those that go to work. This is not freedom of choice. As one of the speakers at the dinner where Rudd announed this nonscense said, this sound like old-fashioned Socialism to me.
Too bloody right, mate. Let's have some old fashioned Aussie scepticism to combat it.
I will add a little something though. The authors did not talk about how these parent and child (PC) centres provide opportunities for teachers and nurses, the two most indocrinated groups of people in the country, to shove their immasculating anti-competition anti-individualist pro-consensus guilt-based dogma down our children's throats.
The State (read: Rudd) will be taking Aussie children away from their families. It's like the Hilter Youth but starting from age 3. Actually a closer analogy is Maoist China, were kids are brought up on the little Red book and encouraged to inform on their parents if they speak against their leaders. The kids trust the government more than their parents and feel a stronger loyalty towards them BECAUSE THAT IS WHO THEY SPEND MOST OF THEIR TIME WITH!!!!
I find this all terrifying. Chairman Rudd is fully conscious that this is what he is doing. In typical Commie fashion he is usurping power and consolidating the blind loyalty of his minions for generations to come by manipulating public sympathy for some 'oppressed' group, in this case working mum's. By elevating one group's suffering up as more important than all others Rudd is able to gain the gushing love he needs to kill off the freedom of all groups.
Government should not discriminate between parants who stay home with their kids and parents that choose child care. Evidence suggests that kids are happier if they are at home more, but Mum's (and Dad's) at work earn more and they might want the freedom. More power to 'em. I think it's up to individual families to decide the balance. And it's up to the private sector and the voluntary (third) sector to provide the service, not the Nanny State. Rudd want's to tax those who stay at home to pay for childcare for those that go to work. This is not freedom of choice. As one of the speakers at the dinner where Rudd announed this nonscense said, this sound like old-fashioned Socialism to me.
Too bloody right, mate. Let's have some old fashioned Aussie scepticism to combat it.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Fraser And Mugabe - morality escapes both
Two articles in the OZ in the last week have blown my mind, firtly this piece that attacks Malcolm Fraser for installing Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Then Frasers rebuttal .
The first one revealed alot of the details and sentiment surrounding the installation of Mugabe when Zimbabwe became independent, but of the two it was Frazer's that we the most informative.
It revealed to me that Lefties like Fraser make mushy mothering emotional judgements and no amount of blood spilled will make them admit that they were wrong, and that the world is a harsher place than they imagined, necessitating a hard head.
Basically Frazer is responsible for installing Mugabe and he refuses to admit that the decision was a bad one. He seems to think that Zimbabwe would be worse off if he had installed the more moderate leader initially supported by Thatcher. Like it's even possible for Zimbabwe to be worse of that it is now.
Frazer believes Mubage's populist racsist Marxism would have proved destabilised if he was not in power. Britain (or Aus or SA) would have had to send troops in to stabilise the country. Like and good Lefty Frazer knows in his heart of hearts that sending troops to keep the peace in other countries is infinitely worse that allowing the people in that country to take up arms and massacre each other.
This is the first and by no means least of the brain-dead moral relativisms of Frazer's piece.
Frazer then condemns the former white leader of Rhodesia before it became independent Ian Smith, a famously warm and community-minded man, for refusing to allow Mugabe to visit his sick wife and child in England whilst in prison in Zimbabwe. The child died and Fraser seems to imply that it was at that point that Mugabe became a cold-blooded mass murderer.
"Whaaaah!!!!" cries Frazer. Like a housewife watching the Young and the Restless, "How could you? How could you seperate a man from his dying child, even if they were a convicted crim trying to destabilize you country. Oh the Humanity! You created the monster Mugabe. You nasty white man. You are the real evil doer."
I think what's required is a little perspective. Smith did not commit the crimes that put Mugabe in jail at the time. He did not send the kid to England to be separated from his parents and he did not make the kid sick, or kill it himself. The same cannot be said of Mugabe who is quite simply a mass murderer and turturer and one of the most barbaric human beings in (in)human history.
But wait, there's more almost-unbelievable moral blindness from Frazer. Frazer actually congratuates Mugabe. He applauds Mugabe's efforts at negotiation with Smith sometime after the death of his child. Quoting:
I still can't believe Frazer wrote that. "Such a man"? "SUCH A MAN"???!!! like Smith was the monster!! It boggles the mind.
This has gone beyond moral relativism. This is the abandonment of all morality. He is not even trying to weigh up the scales of justice in any objective sense. It is madness.
This guy is a former Aussie PM. A former LIBERAL Aussie PM. He dares to say that Howard has a lack of moral sense. One cannot defend morality unless one is prepared to make judgements, hard judgments, that stick. That's diffucult in the face of a media that praises maleability but we must never fall foul of this lefty quicksand again. Once we've dipped out toe in there is no telling how low we will sink.
The first one revealed alot of the details and sentiment surrounding the installation of Mugabe when Zimbabwe became independent, but of the two it was Frazer's that we the most informative.
It revealed to me that Lefties like Fraser make mushy mothering emotional judgements and no amount of blood spilled will make them admit that they were wrong, and that the world is a harsher place than they imagined, necessitating a hard head.
Basically Frazer is responsible for installing Mugabe and he refuses to admit that the decision was a bad one. He seems to think that Zimbabwe would be worse off if he had installed the more moderate leader initially supported by Thatcher. Like it's even possible for Zimbabwe to be worse of that it is now.
Frazer believes Mubage's populist racsist Marxism would have proved destabilised if he was not in power. Britain (or Aus or SA) would have had to send troops in to stabilise the country. Like and good Lefty Frazer knows in his heart of hearts that sending troops to keep the peace in other countries is infinitely worse that allowing the people in that country to take up arms and massacre each other.
This is the first and by no means least of the brain-dead moral relativisms of Frazer's piece.
Frazer then condemns the former white leader of Rhodesia before it became independent Ian Smith, a famously warm and community-minded man, for refusing to allow Mugabe to visit his sick wife and child in England whilst in prison in Zimbabwe. The child died and Fraser seems to imply that it was at that point that Mugabe became a cold-blooded mass murderer.
"Whaaaah!!!!" cries Frazer. Like a housewife watching the Young and the Restless, "How could you? How could you seperate a man from his dying child, even if they were a convicted crim trying to destabilize you country. Oh the Humanity! You created the monster Mugabe. You nasty white man. You are the real evil doer."
I think what's required is a little perspective. Smith did not commit the crimes that put Mugabe in jail at the time. He did not send the kid to England to be separated from his parents and he did not make the kid sick, or kill it himself. The same cannot be said of Mugabe who is quite simply a mass murderer and turturer and one of the most barbaric human beings in (in)human history.
But wait, there's more almost-unbelievable moral blindness from Frazer. Frazer actually congratuates Mugabe. He applauds Mugabe's efforts at negotiation with Smith sometime after the death of his child. Quoting:
How many fathers could sit and talk reconciliation with such a man?Frazer implies the Mugabe has more forgiveness in him that most other Fathers. Who's Fathers do you mean Mal? My Father? Actually, Frazer, Mugabe is a complete c*&t! He did not give a shit about the death of his wife and child the same as he does not care a hoot for killing other people including women and childen. How many people does he have to kill before you will accept this??
I still can't believe Frazer wrote that. "Such a man"? "SUCH A MAN"???!!! like Smith was the monster!! It boggles the mind.
This has gone beyond moral relativism. This is the abandonment of all morality. He is not even trying to weigh up the scales of justice in any objective sense. It is madness.
This guy is a former Aussie PM. A former LIBERAL Aussie PM. He dares to say that Howard has a lack of moral sense. One cannot defend morality unless one is prepared to make judgements, hard judgments, that stick. That's diffucult in the face of a media that praises maleability but we must never fall foul of this lefty quicksand again. Once we've dipped out toe in there is no telling how low we will sink.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
No Rudd Rescue for Unions, NOT!
No Rudd Rescue for Unions runs the headline in the OZ. Which would be great, except that the Rudd Labor govt IS rescuing the unions as admitted in the self same article:
So many thousands of public service workers, many of whom will have voted liberal will now be FORCED to cough up money that will go to the Labor party. Get power, take money from the community for the use of your sectional backers. There's a word for this: CORRUPTION.
The above quote is a lovely little capsule of the difference between the parties. The Liberals liberated. They allowed public service employees to not join a union if they didn't want to. The Labor party defended their sectional interest, the unions, and made everyone else a slave to their agenda whether they wanted to or not.
If the 'laborers' wanted to have their rights defended by a union, wouldn't they join voluntarily? Aparently not, they have to forced into doing it for their own good. This is all so bloody communist I can't believe they are getting away with it.
By Gillard's own admission collectivism is 'at the heart' of Labor's IR policy. It is also at the heart of the way their brains think about the world - cop that ya commie cow. They see the individual as the enemy. People acting as individuals will endanger the beautiful unity of their revolution. If we all realise we are all merely cogs in the Labor's morality-machine and we will live happily ever after donating our wages in increased taxes to the greater minds deciding where (apart from our own lives) it should be spent.
Of course there is no revolution. There is no solidarity, other than patriotism and football club supporting. We are all individuals who's first duty is to ourselves. The ALP foster their myths in order to deceive the public, and deceive themselves that they are doing something for the greater good. Of course the real reason they promote collectivism and attack individual choice is the their naked quest for power. Worker's rights of choice stand in the way of union power. THE ALP IS THE UNIONS. Your rights at work must give way to their envious lust for domination.
The ALP stands for THE CORRUPTION OF COLLECTIVISM.
The curruption inherent in collectivism is the central evil of all left-wing thinking. The fact that Engish-speaking world has not hitherto fallen foul of it is pretty much the sole reason why we enjoy the highest living standards and most political freedom in the world. Labor are doing their best to reverse this trend. History is against them, but if we are not as strong as our forefathers the future will look very different.
Ms Gillard offered one concession yesterday to the unions in the commonwealth public service, confirming Labor had decided to restore automatic payroll deductions of membership fees for government employees. The previous government's decision after it won office in 1996 to end payroll deductions led
to a significant fall in numbers.
So many thousands of public service workers, many of whom will have voted liberal will now be FORCED to cough up money that will go to the Labor party. Get power, take money from the community for the use of your sectional backers. There's a word for this: CORRUPTION.
The above quote is a lovely little capsule of the difference between the parties. The Liberals liberated. They allowed public service employees to not join a union if they didn't want to. The Labor party defended their sectional interest, the unions, and made everyone else a slave to their agenda whether they wanted to or not.
If the 'laborers' wanted to have their rights defended by a union, wouldn't they join voluntarily? Aparently not, they have to forced into doing it for their own good. This is all so bloody communist I can't believe they are getting away with it.
By Gillard's own admission collectivism is 'at the heart' of Labor's IR policy. It is also at the heart of the way their brains think about the world - cop that ya commie cow. They see the individual as the enemy. People acting as individuals will endanger the beautiful unity of their revolution. If we all realise we are all merely cogs in the Labor's morality-machine and we will live happily ever after donating our wages in increased taxes to the greater minds deciding where (apart from our own lives) it should be spent.
Of course there is no revolution. There is no solidarity, other than patriotism and football club supporting. We are all individuals who's first duty is to ourselves. The ALP foster their myths in order to deceive the public, and deceive themselves that they are doing something for the greater good. Of course the real reason they promote collectivism and attack individual choice is the their naked quest for power. Worker's rights of choice stand in the way of union power. THE ALP IS THE UNIONS. Your rights at work must give way to their envious lust for domination.
The ALP stands for THE CORRUPTION OF COLLECTIVISM.
The curruption inherent in collectivism is the central evil of all left-wing thinking. The fact that Engish-speaking world has not hitherto fallen foul of it is pretty much the sole reason why we enjoy the highest living standards and most political freedom in the world. Labor are doing their best to reverse this trend. History is against them, but if we are not as strong as our forefathers the future will look very different.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Lack of disclosure hints at Rudd curruption
Can't really add anything to this piece in the Australian. I just think it's brilliant that he is basically accusing his wife of lying in order to cover his own arse. The only way Rudd is going to clear up all his conflict of interest with Terese is by a divorce.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Security Council Seat = Stupidity
Australia should not attempt to get a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. The reason is not the money that that lobbying to get it will cost. The reasons are strategic.
The permanent seats on the UN security council belong to Britain, the USA, France, Russia and China. They were handed out at the end of WWII. Germany does not have one because it started the war and lost it. Niether does Japan. The 5 seats are distributed throughout the globe but there are no seats for countries in South America and Africa because for the most part they were not involved in WWII, North Africa accepted. No disrespect to those guys, or to Germany or Japan for that matter. I think I this stuff is pretty well-understood historical fact (although it's off the top of my head).
There are also non-permanent rotating seats at the council. These seats do NOT have the power of veto that the permanent seats have. France and Russia's power of veto over UN security council resolution were used to block UN support for the war in Iraq, not that there was much support to block. Australia gets its turn as one of the rotating seats on the council now and then, but it is not privy to every decision and it can't block anything.
We cannot claim a special right to sit there because of our leadership in the Asia Pacific region or because we were on winning side in both world wars.
If we get a seat on the UN security council it will set a precident that the UN wont be able to stop. Every other country with 20 million people or more and an Army that can't defend it's territory will get one too. India, Canada, Germany, Israel (although they can defend themselves), South Africa, Brazil, Nigeria, Argentina, Mexico the list is never ending. If all these countries got seats it would paralize the UN with bureacratic impotence. If any of them did not like anything about a resolution they could veto it. Some might say it is not possible to get more paralised than the UN is at the moment, but to the extent that pursuing power at the UN is a worth-while goal, the power and efficacy of the UN must be maintained.
Australia is not an independent military power. We should have as large a military as we can muster, but it will never be enough to defend our huge continent on it's own, not this century at least. We must pursue our strategic goals through strong alliances with other democracies in the region and the world: the US, Japan, India and Britain foremost among them (and maybe Indonesia). If we have the ear of these larger nations we will maintain influence over world affairs that far exceeds that which we could achieve on the UN security council.
BTW Has anyone heard the latest Megadeth album United Abominations. No prizes for guessing who's pissing Dave Mustaine off lately.
The permanent seats on the UN security council belong to Britain, the USA, France, Russia and China. They were handed out at the end of WWII. Germany does not have one because it started the war and lost it. Niether does Japan. The 5 seats are distributed throughout the globe but there are no seats for countries in South America and Africa because for the most part they were not involved in WWII, North Africa accepted. No disrespect to those guys, or to Germany or Japan for that matter. I think I this stuff is pretty well-understood historical fact (although it's off the top of my head).
There are also non-permanent rotating seats at the council. These seats do NOT have the power of veto that the permanent seats have. France and Russia's power of veto over UN security council resolution were used to block UN support for the war in Iraq, not that there was much support to block. Australia gets its turn as one of the rotating seats on the council now and then, but it is not privy to every decision and it can't block anything.
We cannot claim a special right to sit there because of our leadership in the Asia Pacific region or because we were on winning side in both world wars.
If we get a seat on the UN security council it will set a precident that the UN wont be able to stop. Every other country with 20 million people or more and an Army that can't defend it's territory will get one too. India, Canada, Germany, Israel (although they can defend themselves), South Africa, Brazil, Nigeria, Argentina, Mexico the list is never ending. If all these countries got seats it would paralize the UN with bureacratic impotence. If any of them did not like anything about a resolution they could veto it. Some might say it is not possible to get more paralised than the UN is at the moment, but to the extent that pursuing power at the UN is a worth-while goal, the power and efficacy of the UN must be maintained.
Australia is not an independent military power. We should have as large a military as we can muster, but it will never be enough to defend our huge continent on it's own, not this century at least. We must pursue our strategic goals through strong alliances with other democracies in the region and the world: the US, Japan, India and Britain foremost among them (and maybe Indonesia). If we have the ear of these larger nations we will maintain influence over world affairs that far exceeds that which we could achieve on the UN security council.
BTW Has anyone heard the latest Megadeth album United Abominations. No prizes for guessing who's pissing Dave Mustaine off lately.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)