The vicious persecution of Andrew Bolt

Paul-McCormackPaul McCormack discusses the legal action against Andrew Bolt:

 “Some people run from a possible fight
Some people figure they can never win
And although this is a fight I can lose
The accused is an innocent man” - Billy Joel

Andrew Bolt is not a man who runs from a fight, he is not a man who exhibits a sense of hopeless despair either for himself or others, and he is not a man who suffers fools gladly. For all of these reasons, Bolt has become the bete´ noire´ of the left-liberals and the politically correct sophists in our midst. Andrew Bolt is a man who communicates with clarity and conviction, unafraid of bruising egos and certainly unabashed in decrying many of the modernist myths perpetrated by the Left.

Winston Churchill gave us many wise and memorable quotes and one that would be very pertinent to recite to Andrew Bolt would be the following: “You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Andrew Bolt has always stood up for common sense and this has earned him the scorn of those who pander to the zeitgeist, most notably Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. The logical extension of the old adage that “a man is known by the company he keeps” must surely be that he is also known by the enemies he makes. Bolt has always attracted first-class enemies because of his forthright and pugnacious style and his refusal to kowtow to the modern political orthodoxies of the ‘stolen generation’ and ‘man-made climate change’.

There has recently been a Federal Court case in Melbourne at which Bolt has been made to answer a claim that he wrote a series of articles that were racist. Given that it’s a civil case, the complainant is relying on racial discrimination as grounds for the claim against Bolt. The articles related to assertions Bolt made in his Herald Sun column a couple of years ago that certain people may identify as aboriginal for purposes of gaining economic or social advantages. It is very difficult to see how Bolt’s comments were racially discriminatory and if the plaintiff is successful, a very bad precedent will be set, one that goes to the core of free speech. It will no longer be legitimate to even ask honest questions as to whether a person or group of people may be using racial identity as a means to secure advantageous treatment. It must be realised that this is a separate issue altogether to making derogatory and demeaning (i.e. racist) claims about a particular race, which Australian society rightly views as unacceptable.

One cannot help but think that Bolt is the victim of an aggressive vendetta being waged against him because of his record of political incorrectness. He refused to ever accept that there was a ‘stolen generation’ within the indigenous Australian population, arguing that those affected were neither “stolen” nor did they constitute an entire “generation.” For him and many fellow conservatives such as John Howard, the formal apology was merely gesture politics by Kevin Rudd, designed to appeal to those who unquestioningly accept the ‘black armband’ view of history, as well as those who thought an apology would mean we could “tick that box” and all problems concerning indigenous Australians would be resolved. Bolt could rightly cite the failure of the Gunner & Cubillo test cases to show that no Australian court of law has ever upheld that there was indeed a whole generation of aboriginal children who were stolen – notwithstanding my feeling that a large number of judges would be most inclined to do so if sufficient evidence could be presented. Of course, the Left have never let Bolt’s inconvenient facts disturb their preferred narrative and their emotion-charged rhetoric.

Similarly, Andrew Bolt has been among the most sustained critics of the anthropogenic global warming ideologues. He has researched this topic far more diligently than most and has come to the reasonable conclusion that humans – and Australians more specifically – have a negligible impact on global climatic changes.  More recently, in the wake of Fukushima, Bolt has exposed the fallacies of the radical environmentalists who oppose nuclear energy and who have tried to capitalise on the Japanese disaster to forestall any debate about nuclear power in Australia.

Andrew Bolt is one of the finest journalists of our times. I believe it would be a travesty of justice to punish an innocent man, whose only offence has been to give words to the thoughts of the large number of Australians who believe in truth, free speech and a fair go for all.

Paul McCormack is a political observer who lives and works in Wagga Wagga.

 

France ditches carbon tax as social protests mount

President Nicolas Sarkozy on Tuesday scrapped the country's proposed carbon
tax and reshuffled his cabinet in populist tilt after suffering a crushing
electoral defeat over the weekend, when his Gaulliste UMP party lost every
region other than in its bastion of Alsace and the Indian Ocean island of
Reunion.

The vote saw a resurrection of both the Socialist Party and the far-Right
National Front, showing how the delayed effects of rising unemployment can
change the political landscape long after recession has passed. The jobless
rate has risen to 10.1pc, up from 8.7pc a year ago. A quarter of those aged
under 25 are out of work.

The government said its energy tax was being postponed indefinitely in order
not to "damage the competitiveness of French companies", fearing
that it would be too risky for France to go it alone without the rest of the
EU. Brussels has announced plans for an EU-wide tax, but the initiative
already looks doomed.

Chantal Jouanno, the environment secretary, said she was "devastated that
eco-scepticism had prevailed". France's leading green groups wrote a
joint letter to Mr Sarkozy saying they were "scandalised" by his
decision, accusing him of tearing up a pledge to put climate change at the
centre of his presidency.

Medef, France's business lobby, said the demise of the carbon levy was a "relief".
The tax would have been €17 a tonne compared to around €100 in Sweden, but
business feared that this would creep up over time.

via www.telegraph.co.uk

(TVA)

The Millenium Agenda

Cory-BernardiSenator Cory Bernardi discusses paleontologist Tim Flannery's admission that cutting carbon emmissions will do… exactly nothing:

Something must be wrong.

An element of truth is creeping into the dialogue of the alarmist global warming camp.

Alarmingly for the Government, these inconvenient truths have come from reigning alarmist of the year and palaeontologist Professor Tim Flannery.

Some months ago, Professor Flannery told Tony Jones on Lateline that neither he, nor any of his other warmist cabal, could explain why global temperatures weren't rising.

Despite this frank and interesting admission, which contradicted most of the Government’s rhetoric over the past few years, the ABC’s warmist acolyte Jones didn't pursue it, nor did many in the mainstream media.

So inconvenient was this fundamental truth that one may be excused for thinking that the actual video evidence was hurriedly buried in the concrete foundations of a new wind farm.

Since then, Flannery has nailed a job as "Australia's Climate Commissioner". For the princely sum of $720,000, Professor Flannery is chairing a panel of six people to advance awareness of the climate change issue in Australia.

At the time of the appointment I thought it was a clever ruse by the Government to keep Flannery quiet so he wouldn't criticise the Gillard carbon dioxide tax plan.

How wrong I was.

Perhaps the income security of a government contract has given Flannery a refreshing new frankness which bursts forth at inconvenient times – like during radio interviews.

When asked by Andrew Bolt how much the world's temperature would be lowered if Australia cut our carbon dioxide emissions by 5% by 2020, Flannery at first tried to brush it off.

            "It will be a very, very small increment" said Flannery.

When pushed by Bolt for a specific figure, Flannery confessed:

"…If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as 1000 years…" 

That is simply astounding. According to the Government’s Climate Commissioner, even if every carbon dioxide emmitting industry on the planet were shut down tomorrow, there would be no real change in the temperature for a millennia.

Just when clear thinking people were starting to think Professor Flannery had undergone a road to Damascus conversion to common sense, alas we were let down again.

Realising that his decade of hard work fostering climate alarmism had been discredited in less than 30 seconds, Flannery wrote to The Australian newspaper to clear things up.

He claimed his 1000 year comment was in relation to returning the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels and actually had nothing to do with temperature.

He went on to write that:

"If all major emitters adopt a similar level of effort to our 5% reduction target in 2020 (or better) and continue to decarbonise thereafter, we’ll cap the temperature rise to no more than 2 degrees later this century and temperature will begin to drop at the end of this century."

Firstly, there is no chance of all major emitters following Australia's crazy path of destroying their economy and raising the cost of living for no apparent purpose.

Secondly, Flannery now claims that cooling will kick in after just 100 years with only a modest carbon dioxide abatement rather than 1000 years with a full shutdown!

Clearly, there is a credibility issue with Professor Flannery and his climate change rhetoric. To those of us who have followed his alarmist projections and disjointed claims over the past years, this is nothing new.

I just wonder why our Government is unwilling to see that too. Perhaps Al Gore was right and that sometimes the truth really is inconvenient.

Something must be wrong.

An element of truth is creeping into the dialogue of the alarmist global warming camp.

Alarmingly for the Government, these inconvenient truths have come from reigning alarmist of the year and palaeontologist Professor Tim Flannery.

Some months ago, Professor Flannery told Tony Jones on Lateline that neither he, nor any of his other warmist cabal, could explain why global temperatures weren't rising.

Despite this frank and interesting admission, which contradicted most of the Government’s rhetoric over the past few years, the ABC’s warmist acolyte Jones didn't pursue it, nor did many in the mainstream media.

So inconvenient was this fundamental truth that one may be excused for thinking that the actual video evidence was hurriedly buried in the concrete foundations of a new wind farm.

Since then, Flannery has nailed a job as "Australia's Climate Commissioner". For the princely sum of $720,000, Professor Flannery is chairing a panel of six people to advance awareness of the climate change issue in Australia.

At the time of the appointment I thought it was a clever ruse by the Government to keep Flannery quiet so he wouldn't criticise the Gillard carbon dioxide tax plan.

How wrong I was.

Perhaps the income security of a government contract has given Flannery a refreshing new frankness which bursts forth at inconvenient times – like during radio interviews.

When asked by Andrew Bolt how much the world's temperature would be lowered if Australia cut our carbon dioxide emissions by 5% by 2020, Flannery at first tried to brush it off.

            "It will be a very, very small increment" said Flannery.

When pushed by Bolt for a specific figure, Flannery confessed:

"…If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as 1000 years…" 

That is simply astounding. According to the Government’s Climate Commissioner, even if every carbon dioxide emmitting industry on the planet were shut down tomorrow, there would be no real change in the temperature for a millennia.

Just when clear thinking people were starting to think Professor Flannery had undergone a road to Damascus conversion to common sense, alas we were let down again.

Realising that his decade of hard work fostering climate alarmism had been discredited in less than 30 seconds, Flannery wrote to The Australian newspaper to clear things up.

He claimed his 1000 year comment was in relation to returning the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels and actually had nothing to do with temperature.

He went on to write that:

"If all major emitters adopt a similar level of effort to our 5% reduction target in 2020 (or better) and continue to decarbonise thereafter, we’ll cap the temperature rise to no more than 2 degrees later this century and temperature will begin to drop at the end of this century."

Firstly, there is no chance of all major emitters following Australia's crazy path of destroying their economy and raising the cost of living for no apparent purpose.

Secondly, Flannery now claims that cooling will kick in after just 100 years with only a modest carbon dioxide abatement rather than 1000 years with a full shutdown!

Clearly, there is a credibility issue with Professor Flannery and his climate change rhetoric. To those of us who have followed his alarmist projections and disjointed claims over the past years, this is nothing new.

I just wonder why our Government is unwilling to see that too. Perhaps Al Gore was right and that sometimes the truth really is inconvenient.

Senator Cory Bernardi is the Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition and a Senator for South Australia. This article is courtesy of his personal blog which can be found at http://www.corybernardi.com.

Water Issues Worry Americans Most, Global Warming Least: Gallup Poll

With Earth Day about a month away, Americans tell Gallup they worry the most about several water-related risks and issues among nine major environmental issues. They worry least about global warming and loss of open spaces.

Gallup poll

Eco-tards, you are losing the public’s attention. Here’s a tip: Stop pushing imaginary environmental issues like Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption and focus on real environmental issues like eliminating pollution in rivers and lakes.

Via Gallup

Andy Semple

Setting the record straight: in the crowd at the anti-carbon tax rally

Michael-CrosbyMichael Crosby attended last Wednesday's "rally of extremists". This is what he saw:

Monday's Q&A on ABC 1 demonstrated that the truth behind the anti-carbon tax rally last week is being lost in a sea of distractions.

One of the key roles of a journalist is to provide an objective overview of events as they happen.

I don’t think I have encountered a recent event less accurately depicted in the Australian media than last Wednesday afternoon’s rally at Parliament House against the Gillard Carbon Tax.

Accordingly, most news viewers probably have an incorrect idea of the nature of the rally. What really happened almost a week ago needs to be clarified.

Going by certain media reports, the whole crowd was a bunch of rednecks holding offensive signs that were calling the Prime Minister a “bitch” for two hours straight.

As an attendee, at no point was I struck with how “extremist” the crowd was. The crowd swelled to approximately 4 – 5,000 at its peak. I noted the overwhelming majority of the crowd seemed to be middle class couples. Many seemed to be of retirement age. Certain banners showed many to be from RSL clubs. There were a number of families in attendance. You could quite easily describe the crowd as a typical sample of suburban Australia.

For every person who held a sign or a banner, there were 10 others who did not. Approximately a quarter of the crowd wore t-shirts dedicated to the cause. If any t-shirts were offensive they were lost among many more simple, inoffensive shirts that said “I can’t afford a carbon tax” or “No CO2 tax.”

The most important point to be made, and one which news viewers and readers would not have taken away from certain news bulletin is this: on the sheer weight of numbers, the crowd was overwhelmingly well-behaved. Even if we overestimate and ratio of perceived trouble-makers or offensive sign-holders, they might have totalled 50 people out of a crowd of over 4,000.

For Labor politicians to dismiss the crowd as “extremist” is offensive.

Of course, there must be a clarification. One Nation supporters were there. I understand people from the Citizens Electoral Council were there. Though it is extremely difficult to find it within oneself to respect these groups, they do have a right to exist, and they do have a right to protest if they so wish. In any case, they were a paltry percentage of the enormous crowd.

These unsavoury groups do not have any connection to the Liberal Party beyond sharing a dislike for the carbon tax.

Pauline Hanson may have been in the crowd, a point Greg Combet seemed to delight in later reminding the Parliament, in a desperate attempt to try and connect her to the Liberal Party. However, this would be the same Pauline Hanson who declared in 2003 she personally “detested” Tony Abbott and had no time for him.

Then, of course, we come to the infamous banners; the most significant issue of the day, if you believe many media reports.

According to such reports and other critical pundits, there appear to have been three options open to Tony Abbott when he saw the banners at the anti-carbon tax rally:

Not attend/speak at the rally

Abbott became Leader of the Liberal Party on the basis of opposing a tax on carbon. The only way the Coalition is going to win the next election is by standing up against a tax on carbon. A significant protest was under way metres from Parliament House at which around 4 – 5,000 people were in attendance protesting against the introduction of a tax on carbon.

The crowd genuinely wanted to hear from Abbott. They began chanting his name long before he arrived on the stage. The majority of the rally attendees had travelled hundreds of kilometres to reach the rally. The suggestion he not attend the rally to address the crowd when the Coalition is the only significant grouping opposed to a carbon tax is a stupid one, and not a viable one in the circumstances.

Have minders go through the crowd before hand, find people with offensive signs and tell them to move on

Notwithstanding a judgement call would have to be made about which signs are offensive (“bitch” is offensive, but is the sign that called Julia Gillard a “witch” offensive? How about the one calling her “stupid”?), if the event is an open protest not organised by the Liberal Party, what right does Abbott have to tell someone to move on? Does he look at each sign in the crowd and individually ask offensive ones to be removed prior to beginning his speech? What if the man holding the sign behind the stage wouldn’t stop holding it up for the camera? Should security be asked to crash tackle him to the ground to get him to stop holding the sign in question? Of course not – doing so would only ensure journalists instead ran a story claiming Tony Abbott hates free speech and that the movement against a carbon tax is in disarray.

Apologise to Julia Gillard and Bob Brown for the signs

Abbott didn’t make the signs. It wasn’t a Liberal Party rally. Neither Abbott, nor the Liberal Party endorse the signs. How can he apologise for them? The only thing connecting Abbott to the sign is the fact that Tony Abbott is opposed to Julia Gillard’s carbon tax, and, assumedly, so too was the protestor holding the sign. Having renounced the fellow’s choice in wording, there is nothing further Tony Abbott can do.

One should never hold their breath waiting for media reports saying 5,000 protestors on the lawns of Parliament House were well-behaved while taking a sensible, anti-left wing position without incident. 

But I am taken aback at how desperate some journalists and Labor MP’s have been to try to connect Tony Abbott to a handful of banners; banners easily lost in a crowd of people who were very well behaved. Much of the crowd was quite reserved – probably because they have never before jumped on a bus to travel to their nation’s capital to take part in a protest – happy to stand in the shade and listen to the speakers addressing the crowd, applauding when fair and valid points were made.

The worst outcome of the vacuous media coverage is that the significance of the event has now been overlooked.

The anti-carbon tax rally was a genuine, grassroots event in which people of limited income, worried about the introduction of a new tax, travelled from far and wide to voice their concerns to the Commonwealth Parliament.

The power of social media and its ability to help mobilise crowds in Australia was further proven, as one of the organisers of the event highlighted.

Instead journalists have been distracted by more titillating elements of the protest, but not ones which accurately reflected the day’s proceedings or the underlying significance of what was happening.

Michael Crosby is a political staffer, a member of the South Australian Young Liberals and a part-time stand up comedian. His blog can be found at: http://theotheraa.wordpress.com/

Joe Hildebrand reveals he hacked the Government’s emails

As you can probably guess it was me who hacked into the email accounts of ten senior federal ministers.

Top-level communications. Pic concocted by Mr J HildebrandTop-level communications. Pic concocted by Mr J Hildebrand

I hacked into Julia Gillard’s because I wanted to know what it was like to run a country, I hacked into Kevin Rudd’s because I wanted to know what it was like to run the world, and I hacked into Stephen Smith’s because…well, I just really wanted to get some sleep.

But what I found was deeply shocking and in yet another extraordinary exclusive I can now reveal their explosive contents for the first time…

From: Rudd, Kevin
To: Gillard, Julia
Subject: You B****

Dear Julia,

Please find attached the latest Newspoll showing that I am substantially more popular than you—although to be fair, so is tinea these days.

Anyway, am I supposed to knife you now or wait until later tonight? I only ask because you have experience at this sort of thing.

Regards,
Kevin

___

via www.thepunch.com.au

Click the link to read the whole thing. You won't regret it 🙂

(TVA)

Aussie Women: You Think You’ve Got It Bad?

Michaelia_cash

Senator Cash discusses how much women have achieved – and how much more there needs to be done – in this piece, initially published on International Women's day. 

Today marks the hundredth anniversary of International Women’s Day.  It is an occasion to celebrate the achievements of women, to reflect on how far women have progressed on the journey towards equality in the last century, but also to recognise that significant challenges remain, here and abroad. 

The theme of this year’s International Women’s Day is “Female Leadership and Political Participation” and, on this score, Australia has much to celebrate.  One hundred years ago, we were one of only three countries in the world that could boast women’s suffrage.

The significance of this achievement is evident when one reflects that Kuwait’s Parliament extended suffrage to women in 2005 and only then by a 35-23 vote, and in Saudi Arabia women are still deprived of voting rights. 

In recent times, Australia has grown accustomed to female political leaders. We’ve had a female Governor General, and several female Premiers and State Governors. 

We now have a female Prime Minister – a milestone which brought to my mind the following remark by Oona King, a former British Labour MP, who famously said of Margaret Thatcher “I didn’t care if Thatcher was the devil; it meant so much to me that I was growing up when two women – she and the Queen – were running the country.”

Australians should be proud of these achievements, but we must also recognise that there remain challenges to overcome.  The incidence of violence against women and girls is all too common, with almost one in three Australian women experiencing some form of violence in their lifetime.  I was heartened to see that the National Plan of Action for Violence Against Women was formally adopted at the most recent COAG meeting after nearly two years since its initial announcement and it is my sincere hope that it will have a significant impact. 

Nevertheless, I am struck by how fortunate we are in Australia in so many other ways.  The debates that have dominated the “women’s” agenda in recent times in Australia have centred on female representation on corporate boards and the appropriateness of quotas, on the gender pay gap, sexual harassment in the workplace or the specific design of a statutory paid parental leave scheme.  While none of these issues is trivial, the concerns of women in many quarters of the world are so much graver. 

In China, it is estimated that 39,000 baby girls die annually because parents do not accord them the same medical care and attention that boys receive. According to The New York Times a “bride burning” takes place approximately once every two hours in India.  In the West African country of Niger a woman has a one in seven chance of dying in childbirth.  In the United Arab Emirates, the Gulf News reports that husbands have a state sanctioned right to beat their wives in order to discipline them – “provided that the beating is not so severe as to damage her bones or deform her body.” 

In Saudi Arabia, women cannot vote, drive, or show their faces or talk with male non-relatives in public.  Some Saudi girls are allowed to go to school and attend university, but when they do they must sit in segregated rooms and watch their teachers on closed-circuit televisions.  In the remaining Taliban strongholds of Afghanistan, women are still forced into marriages and denied a basic education.  There have been reports of little girls poisoned to death for daring to go to school.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan reports that every day in that country two women are slain by male relatives seeking to avenge the family honour.  So-called honour killings and forced marriages remain a distressingly common feature in many countries – even for some citizens of Western countries.

In the Asia-Pacific region, UN Women (the re-constituted UNIFEM) reports that there are countries that record some of the most horrendous statistics of violence against women in the world. For example in Papua New Guinea:

  • 44 per cent of women have experienced sexual violence in relationships
  • 55 per cent of women have been forced into sex against their will
  • 58 per cent of women have experienced physical and emotional abuse in relationships.

It has been said that Western society, and Western feminism in particular, has been too reluctant to point out and too slow to condemn the plight of women outside the West for fear that any censure of anti-female practices would be seen as culturally insensitive. 

A few years ago, Germaine Greer went so far as to argue that attempts to outlaw female genital mutilation were an attack on cultural identity and that “if an Ohio punk has the right to have her genitalia operated on, why has not the Somali woman the same right?” Clearly, Greer is either ignorant of or impervious to the purposes and consequences of female genital mutilation and the lack of choice for the young girls on whom it is inflicted. 

No one has captured the folly of Greer’s position more eloquently than Roger Scruton.  In an article in the December 2010 – January 2011 edition of the American Spectator, he states:

Once we distinguish race and culture, the way is open to acknowledge that not all cultures are equally admirable, and that not all cultures can exist comfortably side by side. It is culture, not nature, that tells a family that their daughter who has fallen in love outside the permitted circle must be killed, that girls must undergo genital mutilation if they are to be respectable…….You can read about these things and think that they belong to the pre-history of our world. But when suddenly they are happening in your midst, you are apt to wake up to the truth about the culture that advocates them.  You are apt to say that is not our culture and it has no business here.

Countless studies have detailed the horrific consequences of genital mutilation, from severe infection to infertility.  The World Health Organisation has found that genital mutilation doubles a woman’s risk of dying in childbirth and can increase by three to four times the chance that their child will be stillborn.  And yet this archaic practice continues and is even defended by some Western feminists who shamefully fail to stand up for their sisters.

I raise these issues, as uncomfortable as they may be for some, because events like International Women’s Day must be about more than just acknowledging and celebrating the rights that we in the West enjoy. 

They must focus attention and energy on ameliorating the condition of women internationally.  We have achieved so much in promoting the status of women in this country; but it is incumbent on us to remember that the journey is not over and that in some countries it has only just begun.

Michaelia Cash is a Liberal Senator for Western Australia. This article originally appeared at The Punch and is reproduced with permission.