When hatred blinds its sufferers


haucer—not the great one born in 1343—writes more about the Indonesia/Australia spying revelation that is no revelation to the worldly. The resultant mistrust, however, and deep resentment toward the ABC and its director Mark Scott, is put into a perspective by exposing further collateral damage caused by those who seek to punish the Abbott government for a decisive victory at the polls.

Patriotic and decent Australians can only hope that the damage done to international reputations was an oversight by the zealots and was not a future template of a mind devouring hatred seemingly beyond reclamation.


“Pathetic”, describes the rabble of Neanderthals burning cheap computer printouts of the Australian flag outside our Embassy in Jakarta recently.
Equally pathetic was Indonesia’s blackmail attempt to subdue Australia into bootlicking servility—again.

The UK Guardian, the Australian Guardian, Fairfax media, the ABC and SBS, all comrades in lockstep from the dedicated Left, deemed it clever to publish stolen and untested information from an American traitor whose motive, ideology and psychological condition is unknown. Well known, however, is that every mature person on earth understands the need for collecting intelligence in today’s world of terrorism—except the above-mentioned media and ABC director Mark Scott, it seems.

Read on


The Thing About Kevin & The Shitsville Express

The last few months have been a hellish roller coaster ride, writes Assistant Managing Editor Timothy W. Humphries

Funnily enough, I remember during the 1980s a particularly colourful roller coaster ride at Dreamworld. Its gone now. However It used to slide in and out of view as our family barreled down the Pacific Highway to visit relatives on the Gold Coast.

I would argue we have entered a Dreamworld type era of twists and turns in Australian politics. Both sides of politics are setting themselves up as the answer in a political climate best described as 'disillusioned'. 

While I cannot vote Labor, I struggle to find justification to vote Liberal. Even against my own loyalty and trust, Tony Abbott agrees with Climate Alarmism and wants a direct action plan that will plunder the taxpayer "a bit less" then the other mob. This "a bit less then the other mob" paradigm has dominated every policy response.

Meanwhile Kevin Rudd in his newly incarnated form wants to punch forward with a dubious NBN, Health Reforms and a band-aid Asylum Seeker policy that doesn't account for long term requirements.  

In a politically unstable environment, there is no clarion call to achievable freedom and small government. It remains incredible to me that a man derided and replaced by a marxist radical can be reinstalled and yet still find favour with the Australian electorate.

If the narrative is correct and Kevin Rudd's leaking against Julia Gillard is the primary reason for his return to the leadership, there is something seriously wrong with how political narrative is communicated in this country.

The obsession seems to extend to the occasional nattering of the media class about whether or not Malcolm Turnbull would be an appropriate replacement for the Leader of the Opposition, in the obvious unfortunate circumstance that he loses the next election.This media dynamic is crazy!

Malcolm Turnbull, if the media's dreams are realised essentially sits in the same position that Kevin Rudd sits regarding climate change and many other issues. The sort of differentiation that is equal to naught.

One only has to mention the words "market mechanism" and somehow sliding from a disagreeable Carbon Tax to a disagreeable Emissions Trading Scam Scheme is bipartisan.

So here we are again. Lurching from one perceptual crisis to another, all the while assaulted by the visage of litugical charlatanism.

In such a parlous state the mind wanders to the future and who might be around the corner on Australia's political landscape.  

Whilst there are a mixture of views on Joe Hilderbrand and his brand of "journalism", his recent ABC program the "Shitsville Express" is a remarkably informative take on the supposed leaders of tommorow.

I do have allot of respect for what Mr Hilderbrand is trying to achieve with this program. Clearly the premise points to the future of the country through Gen Y and Millenial eyes. I liked this element.

However what our "future leaders" fail to realise is the nuance and guile required to achieve real reform. The sort of March of the Patriots reform that has been lacking in the polity since the end of the Hawke-Keating, Howard-Costello era. 

We have entered a Dreamworld scenario, where revolving door leadership and zany 24 hour news cycle explosions have replaced the considered creation and management of political narrative, that is comprehensible to those of us outside the beltway.

I remember being asked to jump on the old Dreamworld roller coaster by someone who had pumped themselves up on hot dogs, lemonade and fairy floss. After successfully declining, I watched their demeanour change after the ride ended.

Unfortunately Australian Politics and the Shitsville Express appear to be mirroring each other in that they reflect a process whereby politics itself is turning into a metaphorical disembarkation and search for a brown paper bag.

Timothy W Humphries is Assistant Managing Editor of Menzies House

Rudd must be set straight



Downer slams Rudd: “We have a perfect right to protect our borders”

Alexander Downer has slammed Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s pro-appeasement boat policy.  

In an interview with 2GB’s Ben Fordham, the foreign minister under the Howard government, reminded listeners that turning around the boats “was quite simple.”  

Before Rudd’s term, the Navy intercepted the boats and towed them to the end of Indonesian waters. “We didn’t ask the Indonesians for permission,” he said.  

“We basically took the view that these were Indonesian boats, crewed by Indonesians, flying Indonesian flags, which were bringing people illegally to our country.”

An astonished Downer couldn’t hide his dismay. “I noticed the other day, Mr Rudd went to Indonesia and signed an agreement with the Indonesians that we wouldn’t act unilaterally to protect our own borders. I’d never do that.  

“We have a perfect right to protect our borders as a country. We don’t have to get anyone else’s permission to do that. 

“We’re sending a message now to the people smugglers – which you should never do – ‘Oh, we absolutely would never turn back the boats, it’s difficult, it’s dangerous, the Indonesians don’t like it…’  

“In other words, come on over to Australia. The door is open and the Navy is just waiting to assist you to land on our shores.”  

As well, Downer says it’s “heartbreaking to watch” Rudd’s dismantling of Howard’s successful policy.  

“The first task of our Navy is to protect our borders,” a truth Rudd doesn’t grasp. “That’s why we have a Navy.”  

“The boats will keep coming” under a re-elected Rudd-Labor government too, warned a concerned Downer.  

“Instead of 46,000 people having come this way, we’ll have something like 100,000 of them. And, of course, if you live in Sydney, a lot of those people end up in Sydney.”      

Ben-Peter Terpstra contributes to many publications including MH and Quadrant. 

Sandwich attacks and other security worries

by Perkin-Warbeck

The news that our Prime Minister has been subjected to a
second sandwich attack by a student while visiting a school should send
shudders up the collective spines of Australia’s spooks community.

Coming on top of the news that somebody, allegedly in the
People’s Republic of China, has managed to pinch the floor plans for the new
multi-million dollar state-of-the-art ASIO headquarters in Canberra and that a
convicted Egyptian terrorist was allowed into Australia when he arrived by boat
seeking asylum, it is clear that we are plainly living in perilous times.

ASIO Director-General David Irvine admitted that this
terrorist had somehow evaded detection when he arrived in May 2012 because of “a clerical error or some other mistake”
despite the fact that he was the subject of an Interpol “Red Alert”. ASIO has what
could be politely described as a measured approach to incidents of this kind –
although they realised their mistake in August last year they didn’t bother
telling the Immigration Department until February this year. One wonders if the
advice was sent via Australia Post.

Perhaps they were all rather busy deciding the décor for
their new offices which, might I suggest, should reflect an Oriental theme. The
People’s Republic, apparently in possession of the floor plans, might be
persuaded to assist in this regard

However, while it is the sandwich-tossing events which
should cause most concern, they also reveal two admirable facts about contemporary
Australia – our multicultural and ethnic diversity (at least in the culinary
sense) and the extraordinarily ability of our media for cutting-edge
investigative journalism.

In Brisbane, the sanger was a vegemite snack; in Canberra it
was a salami creation. And the media didn’t miss either despite the fact that
the PM’s security contingent immediately threw a tight protective cordon around
the missile of dubious nutritional value in Canberra. No doubt both are still
the subject of a top-secret forensic analysis.

Typically, the PM shrugged off these attacks upon her person
with a marvellous sang-froid. After thinking about the second attack for a
while, her comment that the brat who tossed the sanger probably thought she was
hungry was a brilliant example of grace under fire although I do wonder if the
delay in the comment was due to the necessary reference to a focus group.

Back in 1981 when President Ronald Regan was subjected to an
attack, he told the doctors at the hospital where he was taken, “Please tell me you’re all Republicans”.

And when wife Nancy visited him in that hospital he
confessed, “Honey, I forgot to duck.”

And Reagan had been shot – but, then again, he was known as
The Great Communicator and nobody has flung – or ever will I suspect – that
epithet in Ms Gillard’s face.

We all know, I’m sure, that it was John Montagu, the 4th
Earl of Sandwich, who invented the handy snack which bears his name.

It seems that the Earl who enjoyed a drink, a bit of skirt
and marathon gambling sessions in equally prodigious quantities had a servant
prepare a sustaining bite to eat – a piece of meat between two slices of bread
– so he wouldn’t have to leave the card table. Encasing the meat inside the
bread stopped his fingers from becoming greasy and spoiling the cards which is
not just trail-blazing but polite.

Incidentally, the 11th Earl of Sandwich has
founded – yes, you guessed it – a restaurant franchise called “The Earl of
Sandwich” which serves – and again I bet you guessed it – sandwiches. There,
one can purchase what is alleged to be his ancestor’s “original” sandwich invented
in 1762 and which contains roast beef, cheddar and horseradish. If the latest
Lord Montagu wants to extend his franchise to Australia, he would be well advised
to include vegemite and salami sangers on the menu – Young Liberals would flock
there for nostalgic celebrations and chuck them around with youthful

The 4th Earl, who had a somewhat patchy political
career, had been – among other things – First Lord of the Admiralty three
times, Postmaster-General and diplomat – and he was called in by his maker in

An unkind contemporary suggested that his tombstone read, “Seldom has any man held so many high
offices and accomplished so little.”

It has a certain resonance today and I’m sure our PM’s
critics could appropriately tweak this for her and, indeed, for so many of her
Ministers after September 14.

But she could live on in history after the
election with a clever career change – I suggest the pet food industry where
she could invent “The Gillard”
something quite appalling as a dog’s breakfast.

Data retention not just about national security

“The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s demand
to access Attorney-General Nicola Roxon’s proposed data retention regime
reveals how dangerous this regime could be,” said Simon Breheny, Director of
the Rule of Law Project at the free market think tank the Institute of Public

The ACCC admitted on Friday that it wanted to use the
government’s proposed regime for its regulatory investigations into issues like
petrol pricing.

“Data retention policies are concerning enough by

“But the ACCC has revealed that the government is using the
threat of terrorism as a Trojan horse to give expanded powers to government
bodies that have nothing to do with national security.

“The government says it wants to ensure that the trade-off
between security and privacy is not disproportionate. Allowing regulators
access to the data would be way over that line. The ACCC has no right to use
evidence that has been collected for the purpose of national security
investigations,” said Mr Breheny.

“The practical effect of a data retention regime would be to
create an Orwellian bank of private information on all Australian citizens.”

“If we give security agencies more power, non-security
regulators like the ACCC and the Australian Taxation Office will inevitably
gain access to all Australian’s private data. This is just another reason the
data retention regime cannot be passed,” said Mr Breheny.

Mr Breheny presented evidence to the Parliamentary Inquiry
into National Security Reforms on Wednesday last week.

Stay Classy, TSA

I have previously written rather extensivly about the incredibly problematic nature of new airport security procedures in the United States, whereby passangers are forced between choosing a potentially dangerous scanner which allows security agents to view them naked, or have an "enhanced" pat down, which requires the feeling up of genital areas and many consider akin to groping.

I remain concerned that such invasive (and totally useless in preventing terror attacks) security-theatre will eventually find its way to Australia, and, so we may remain constantly vigilant, I thought I would share this report I read yesterday:

When I arrived at a security checkpoint in Miami International Airport this morning and discovered that my line fed into a back-scatter device, even though metal detectors were in use for the other lines. When it was my turn, I politely said that I would like to opt out. "Seriously?" the first TSA worker asked me with a raised eyebrow. Yes, seriously.

He directed me through the nearby metal detector (the one that would have been good enough if I'd just chosen another line) and motioned for me to wait for a pat-down agent: "Female opt-out!" A female agent led me to a table where she set my bags and then skeptically asked if I knew what the pat down involved. Yes, indeedy (thanks, Jeff Goldberg!) "Do you want to do this somewhere private?" No, thank you. The agent calmly explained what she was going to do before she performed each part of the procedure, and very briskly but thoroughly went through the pat-down. The whole thing was over in a matter of minutes and was a completely professional experience.

Or it was, until a male TSA agent walked behind us and hollered: "Hey, I thought she was mine! I was gonna do her!"

And that, buddy, is exactly why I'm opting out instead of standing in the see-through picture machine. Thanks for validating my choice.

Let us hope things do not escalate to this level in Australia.


The Terrorists Have Already Won

Tim-AndrewsMenzies House co-founder & Editor Tim Andrews writes in Thoughts on Freedom on liberty and security: 

It is rare to find an issue that can unite libertarians, leftists, and conservatives in mutual outrage, but in the last week the U.S. Administration has succeeded in doing such a thing. Despite the brief “aww” moment of bipartisanship however, what I wish to make a few notes upon what is a morally odious practice that has received virtually no attention in the international media, yet one that has serious ramifications upon our freedoms. And one that if we are not careful, shall creep our way into Australia.

I am talking about the new security theatre regime installed by the Obama Administration at U.S. airports. As of last week, air travelers in the United States going through security screening at most modern airports have only two options: either go through a scanner that shall enable security personnel to – literally – see them naked, or be subjected to an “enhanced pat down” – one that is little different to the groping of a sexual pervert – one that, according to the Transport Security Agency guidelines, requires for the feeling up of travelers genitalia. And I am not exaggerating when I say that that is what occurs. The guidelines literally say this!

Now, as readers here will know, I have slightly more sympathy for pro-national security arguments than your average libertarian (what can I say, it’s the conservative bent in me J ) Yet this new policy strikes even me as perverse. For it will do nothing to increase security (I mean, come on, any terrorist will be able to find a way about the ban if they tried, and besides, these don’t even detect most weapons), and at the same time, it is a morally abhorrent violation of the rights of U.S. citizens. The whole charade of security theatre, and all the inefficient, costly measures that it has created that perhaps in the past I was willing to turn a blind eye to, has just gone waaaay too far. And don’t think, unless we act upon it, it can’t happen in Australia.

So. Let us get into the details. Under these new rules, travelers have a choice. They can either go through a scanner – one which numerous medical authorities have said have dangerous levels of radiation (Wired notes that “scientists have also expressed concern that radiation from the devices could have long-term health effects on travelers”.)  – and one which  takes clear photos of them naked (yup, you can see just how  big their ‘junk’ is), or be subjected to a “pat down” – a euphemistic expression for a procedure in which TSA rules – and again, this isn’t hyperbole – demand agents feel the crotch of passengers (and, I ought mention, also thoroughly rub and examine  the breasts if they are female). Some commentators have gone so far to call it sexual molestation – and with some justification. Oh, and think you can opt out? Once you arrive at an airport, if you refuse the naked photography/groping – even if you choose not to board the plane – you can be fined $10,000

In anycase, if you choose the nudie-scanner approach, the images have been demonstrated to be able to be saved and leaked (just yesterday 35,000 images from a U.S. Marshall’s Office – images which were pledged to be erased after every screening –  were publicly released). Fortunately for those concerned, they were from an earlier generation of scanners, which are rather blurry. But yes, just wait till the full nudie-scanners hit the interwebs and be prepared to be a star!

So how’s this gone since introduction. Let’s see. TSA agents have already been recorded putting their hands down people’s pants, cupping and squeezing a traveler’s breasts, and traumatizing children (watch this clip of a three year old girl being accosted and judge for yourself). There are already reports that  machines are being used to ogle women (one TSA operative was caught out saying “heads up, I’ve got a cutie). And you already have  proof of TSA officials  use the body scanners to make fun of people’s genitals and who pretend to find cocaine in passengers’ luggage as a prank,, and even TSA Agents proudly boasting “I am God”. There are even reports that TSA agents are – quite literally – putting their hands down people’s pants .  

Go to Thoughts on Freedom, the official blog of the Australian Libertarian Society, to read the rest! 

(Tim Andrews is a Washington DC based political consultant, and well as co-founder & Editor of Menzies House. His personal blog is Musings of an Australian Classical Liberal in Washington DC.)

Terrorists in the ceilings

David-Russell An attempt at diverting public attention from the roof insulation blunder by using national security was a cheap shot, argues David Russell.

Wouldn’t you know it, grave danger has been lurking in our ceilings and we didn’t even realise it! How could the Australian public have been so gullible as to not suspect what was going on over our heads? Oh, we knew something was wrong but were mistaken in believing the danger was coming from an army of subversive and incompetent insulation installers unleashed by the Minister for Electrocution and Fire Traps. Not so, the Prime Minister now tells us. There is a far greater danger abroad in the land: home-grown terrorists.

Without even having the temerity to blush, Kevin Rudd is attempting to pull-off one of the great political con tricks of the decade. Indeed, it may well come to be known as The Great Diversion of 2010.

Finding himself immersed in the biggest pot of boiling water he could ever not wish to imagine (thanks to his former mate, Peter Garrett), Kevin Rudd finally realised he simply had no excuse for the biggest government cock-up since Gough Whitlam and Co. jumped headlong into the Loans Affairs fiasco. So, he needed a pressure relief valve. Ferreting around in his top drawer full of unimplemented and/or potential policy initiatives, Rudd seized on a sheaf of dog-eared pages, blew off the cobwebs, called for a new cover sheet and proudly announced it as The Counter-Terrorism White Paper. The fanfare in Parliament was muted it must be said but at least the government members professed interest. After all, their careers are hanging by a thread and they’re even more keen than the rest of us for just a glimmer of good news.

This remarkable 74-page analysis of Everything That Could Go Wrong in Australia And Just Might concluded that a ‘radioactive dirty bomb attack’ is possible on our own soil. Not one of those much-preferred ‘clean’ bombs, mind you, but a dirty one. They’re so much worse. And, wouldn’t you know it, ‘lone-wolf extremists’ could emerge at any time. Well, that put me right off my breakfast. Naturally, my immediate response was: ‘Oh, I must vote Labor next time and keep the country safe’. But I came to my senses and realised that this is the same government that has potentially turned a quarter of a million homes across the nation into live electrodes and/or rampant fire traps.

Cynically, I also couldn’t help but wonder how many of those ‘home-grown terrorists’ might have emerged from those boatloads of refugees that the Rudd administration has so futilely attempted to keep away from our shores. You have to admit that when they can actually land in the harbour of our offshore detention prison without having been spotted by our security surveillance, something is rather amiss.

Anyway, getting into the swing of things, Rudd solemnly announced – with just a minor quaver in his voice for suitable effect – that ‘an attack could occur at any time’. And to think that all this time I have spent worrying about illegal immigrants, electrocution, fiery death, heat asphyxiation from global warming, the deadly dangers of visiting a public hospital or getting hit by a flying bobcat constructing yet another Gillard memorial school hall, I should have been pooing my pants for fear of terrorism!

Oh, please, Mr Rudd, don’t make things even worse than they already are. You know, we Aussies are quite remarkably forgiving. We don’t expect perfection from our politicians. Dear god, we lost that innocence decades ago. But we do hate being played for fools and we are remarkably astute as to when that is happening. Like right now with this nonsense. We deserve better.

David M. Russell is a professional communicator with a passion for good governance. His personal blog can be found at davidmrussell.wordpress.com.