Bleating leftists – bad losers



Abbott’s daughters can’t win in white

B.P. Terpstra

The feminist Van Badham claims that, “Australians got to see a lot of the Abbott daughters, usually dressed in white, over the course of the campaign.”  Which raises two questions: where’s the evidence. And, does it matter anyway? 

I do feel that some commentators are trying just a tad too hard. 

For example, Research Fellow in the Centre for Memory, Imagination and Invention at Deakin University, Dr Michelle Smith, describes Abbott’s recent victory speech as “striking” because his three daughters were “coordinated in white dresses.” Seriously. 

As the clearly imaginative Smith saw things, “Though the short hemlines and tight fit would be out of place at a Catholic First Communion, the connotations of religious faith and female moral purity were unmistakeable.”

In other words, then, the Abbott daughters look both religious and irreligious. They can’t win! 

Writing for The Guardian, Jeff Sparrow observed that “the Abbott offspring” (his term) “were front and centre at” the “Liberal victory party, parading in virginal white.” 

Still, what choices did they have now? Harlot red? Whorish green? Butch brown? Girlygirl pink? Of course, Laborites wear just plain white, but young Liberal women parade around in “virginal white” stress pop psychologists. 

Reminding us yet again that leftwing women are good at putting other women down, News Limited’s Tory Shepherd tweeted,  “Abbott daughters all in white AGAIN! Is it a virginal thing???” 

For the Abbott women must not wear white, unless they have permission from the hardLeft. After all, it could be construed as both sexual and antisexual, kind of like being both antireligious and religious at the same time.

Not to be outdone, however, web editor, Ben Cohen tweeted: “Abbott’s daughters in matching white virginal dresses is like watching some Mormon convention. But worse.” Yet, like most critics, he didn’t suggest what they should wear and why. 

Underpinning so many of these criticisms, are, of course, deeply held prejudices against both religious parents and their children, regardless of their personal positions. Indeed, it’s a feature of our establishment. 

They could have congratulated Abbott on his historical victory. Instead, they chose to attack his daughters revealing their own gender issues in the process. 

They could have congratulated Abbott’s daughters for joining Tony’s campaign. Instead, they mocked them, as if they were expected to remain behind closed doors. You see, nothing succeeds like hypocrisy in establishment circles. But where’s the outrage? 







Are we being fooled?


Bertel Torsten in Canberra

ABBOTT-GESTURES-HYPNOTICALLYWHEN Christine Milne of the Greens supports Abbott's Environment Minister, Greg Hunt; when Hunt is already fighting with Resources Minister, Ian Macfarlane, suspicion gathers around the head of the new Prime Minister. It's looking increasingly likely that he will get rid of the Carbon Tax and replace it with Son of Carbon Tax, and the man to do it is Greg Hunt.

Hunt has called for water studies (called the "water trigger") on 47 large coal seam gas (CSG) and coal mining projects before federal approvals are granted. Seems reasonable on the face of it. But Macfarlane just the day before said he (Macfarlane) was intervening in NSW to fast track CSG projects claiming that it had a gas crisis. Racketty times in Cabinet ahead!

It gets worse. The much-maligned Labor looked at four CSG projects – Hunt is looking at twelve times that number.

And, Labor only did it to shut up Tony Windsor of creepy memory. Labor dragged their feet even though they knew it would not please their partners in crime, the Greens.

Hunt is not only outdoing Labor he is proud about it. He tells the world about it. He boasts about it. He puffs out his chest and denounces Labor for not administering the law.

"THEY stalled them all and simply refused to make decisions – it was a symbol of a dying government."
It's not enough that the ratbag Greens drool over Hunt's action; one of their fronts, the Lock the Gate Alliance – the Anti-coal seam gas organization – praised him for it.

That's not all the Greens are behind him on.

Christine Milne gave nearly the same speech on the purely political "Report" of the corrupt IPCC. Possibly Bob Brown wrote the speeches for each.

HUNT endorsed the IPCC report and was interviewed by Elizabeth Jackson.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: Do you and does your government accept this scientific assessment?

GREG HUNT: Yes we do.

That is plain enough. A straight answer to a straight question. He accepts the IPCC assessment that Carbon Dioxide is the cause of the world's problems. Furthermore, he binds all his colleagues and the PM to the same opinion. Encouraged by this, Jackson went on to look for specifics of what he is going to do about Global Warming. Little did she know, or anyone know, that he is not in the business of straight answers any more.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: … Do you accept that Australia will experience more fire weather, extreme rainfall, an increase in intensity of cyclones, and sea levels that could rise by up to a metre by the end of the century?

GREG HUNT: Quack-quack Well, there are a range of scenarios in the report, and the broad range shows that temperatures are likely to change over the coming century from between 0.9 to 5.4 degrees. Now that depends on the extent to which the world reduces emissions, but that's the range set out. Quack.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: So how concerned are you about Australia's coastal communities?

GREG HUNT: Quack-quack. Look, I think this is an important report. Quack-quack it reaffirms the domestic work of our own agencies and indeed our own agencies were well represented in the drafting of the report.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: But Minister, are our coastal communities in danger?

GREG HUNT: Quack-quack, quack, quack-quack.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: OK, so what will you do to protect coastal communities? There are a lot of people who are saying that we need to rethink planning – do you agree with that?

GREG HUNT: Ribbet, Ribbet, Ribbet. Quack. Quack.

Undaunted, she asks a third time.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: … Practically, what will you and your Government do to protect coastal communities.

GREG HUNT: Four lines of quacks… and reduce emissions… quack-quack.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: (With rising tones and a hopeless wail) But you haven't said how you'll manage it.

GREG HUNT: RibbetRibbetRibbet…

She changes tack in despair.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: Minister, do you agree that both Sydney and Brisbane airports are at risk long term?

GREG HUNT: Three paragraphs of quacking.

And Jackson gives up, having done her best, and trots off for a Valium sandwich and a bottle of meth. 

So what does one make of Greg "Duckspeak" Hunt? All hat and no cattle? Got his own agenda?
He apparently pursues the very thing that got Gillard and Rudd landing on their faces. Then does a Campesi around every question about specifics afterwards.

So, did Abbott pull a fast one? Pretend to conservatives that he was going to bury global warming but follow an even worse course than Labor did?

Hunt has promised to subsidise 100,000 solar panels as well. Or is it all show?

The question is: will Tony Abbott bury global warming and Greg Hunt with it, or are we being fooled?

Abbott’s new broom is a wire brush

New MH2

In August last year I attended a talk by Tony Abbott in Sydney. Aside from the snappy sound bite for the evening news, Abbott settles from an evasive and indecisive stutterer to a rather smooth orator certainly on top of his game. That surprised me and prompted the column: Abbott—more than a 10-second news clip.

Abbott’s deliberation was a likely safeguard to avoid the relentless and spiteful attacks upon his character in parliament by an orchestrated chorus of shrill fishwives and other rusted-on Laborites. Even the Coalition’s resounding victory has done nothing to stop the new opposition’s dog-tired assault upon the man who caused them to haemorrhage so profusely at the polling booth.

Just a day or two after the election, Labor resumed blame upon Abbott for more illegal boat arrivals and has continued to do so confirming an inability to recognise the failed tactic that damaged them so badly. The matter that those boats were already en route during Rudd’s reign exemplifies Labor’s disconnect from reality.

Handbag-hitsquadHowever, Abbott’s announcement revealing few women in his government caused predictable hysterics among the Opposition’s inquisitors of misogyny who scattered like headless chooks crying foul. The new Foreign Minister Julie Bishop is one of six women in the 42-strong ministry but the only woman in Cabinet.

Unexpected by many has been copycat bleating from some on the government team. “I think it’s shocking and I think it’s embarrassing, and it’s not just embarrassing nationally but I think it’s embarrassing internationally,” said Senator Sue Boyce. The Senator was a fool to play the “embarrassing internationally” card because nobody in other countries of any consequence could give a damn how many women our parliament has, they have enough problems of their own to worry about. Besides, too many confuse Australia with Austria.

Furthermore, the Coalition will remember Boyce’s defiance of policy when she sided with the Greens, crossed the floor, and voted for their gay marriage bill. Labor Senator Penny Wong says Tony Abbott’s new frontbench sends the message that female Coalition MPs are inferior to their male colleagues. But the fearless Amanda Vanstone, an ex minister of the Howard era, says more women on the frontbench does not equal a good government. Look no further than Labor’s former selection of frontbencher females for that.

Has Tony Abbott been underestimated?

A vignette of Abbott’s past contains clues that form the building blocks of his character. They are there for those who want to look.

Abbott adheres to habit. Fit, he is and seriously competitive. That he is now prime minister will inject confidence into an already ambitious man. He is surrounded with experienced ministers and has already moved to address a number of election promises. Dumping Tim Flannery, Labor’s climate change guru was a good move.

Just hours after his swearing in as PM, sackings of Labor’s padded appointees began and you can bet it is just the beginning of what will become a vendetta against his political enemies.

For a person abused throughout every parliamentary sitting by the gaggle of Labor shrews spitting venom across the despatch-box, Abbott always remained calm, perhaps plotting an electoral judgement-day. That dream has come and now it’s payback time.

For those who can remember, the once seminary aspirant, Rhodes Scholar, and decorous family man showed ambitious capabilities through his role in the damaging of One Nation that ultimately saw the imprisonment of Pauline Hansen and David Ettridge. He wanted to please his boss, a court was told—proof that politics supersedes piousness in his good book.

With unprecedented national debt to be repaid and interest accruing at $24,600 each minute in every day, the government will have to make many unpopular choices. And, the loudest objectors will be from the arsonists whose accountability was ignored for six expensive years.

In the weeks leading to the Coalition victory, Fairfax media seemed resigned to a change of government with a few conciliatory bouquets toward the Coalition. That brief offering now seems an aberration as the left media has mounted renewed attack of blaming Abbott for further boat arrivals never mentioning that those boats set sail during Rudd’s watch.  Watch Fairfax shares further drop as readers tire of the same old.

Nevertheless, the Abbott haters can squawk all they want because the majority of Australians view him as the doctor who knows best how to cure “profligacy” the eternal Labor disease.

Abbott has three years in which to pull that rabbit from the hat. He can and will ignore his raucous detractors before campaigning on what may well be his record of success that wins a second term. If that happens, it would be goodbye Labor for a very long time, I should think as the door will be ajar for a third party to gain a foothold.

Abbott’s new broom is indeed a rough wire brush that easily dislodges rusted-on ideology.


Oh, Canada! Our new PM doesn’t really eat babies

James Allan in Canada exposes what Labor's propaganda machine sends beyond our shores. GC.

So Canadian newspaper readers have an image of Abbott, now Prime Minister Abbott, as some sort of hard-line Catholic, with misogynistic tendencies, who would like to crush unions wherever he sees them and who is the driest of dries when it comes to the economy.

Each of these peddled stories is a myth, pure and simple, and yet my wife and I, who are in North America for my 2013 year-long sabbatical, have seen all of them regularly regurgitated in Canada’s main newspapers.

Read full story: Via

Carefully considered or bad decision?


Jim McCrudden 

Dr Dennis Jensen, BAppSci, MSc, PhD, has worked with distinction in industry and with the CSIRO. His PhD is in Materials Science and Physics. At the CSIRO he worked as a researcher but also as an analyst at the Defence Science and Technology Organization. 

He still makes serious contributions with regards to the Joint Strike Fighter debate, climate change, nuclear energy, scientific research, National Broadband Network, and education matters. He is on the Advisory Board of the Australian Research Council (Centre of Excellence) for Anti Matter/Matter Research.

Cutting it short, he is the most highly qualified Federal MP in science—on all sides.

So when the opportunity arose of appointing Jensen Minister for Science he was obviously the favourite in the minds of anyone who was interested.

Abbott clearly thought about it.

But rather than put this highly qualified man in that position, Abbott, in an act of craven cowardice abolished the position of Minister of Science altogether!!

The ALP had done the groundwork of effectively destroying the position of Science Minister and reshaping it into a sinecure for speechmakers by appointing schoolteachers and economists and union bosses to be Science Ministers. Simultaneously, they twisted the CSIRO so much that the initials now stand for the Corrupted Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. But in that, it could be argued, they were merely short of competent people. The Coalition had been no better.

Corrupting the CSIRO was another thing altogether, of course. That was political and was done cynically to get support for their Global Warming agenda.

But why did Abbott abolish the Ministry altogether rather than appoint Jensen? Why not keep it? Reform it? Take science seriously?

Because Jensen carries baggage. Nearly ten years ago when even men like Howard were running scared from the Global Warming scare, Jensen proclaimed that the so-called evidence was ridiculous and that the models were worse – they didn’t even half work.

Oh, God, thought Abbott as he went on his knees at church, I will be slandered and shamed in the Fairfax press if I appoint a climate skeptic to the position. And the ABC will eat me up. There will be snide remarks in Crikey! Jokes about science hating misogynists. Only one thing to do – take the coward’s way out.

Abbott could choose between dishonour and vilification.

He chose dishonour and got vilification. Every scientist polled in the country was astonished and disbelieving. What, keep a Sports Minister and remove the Science Minister? Are you nuts, the cry went? Crazy?

Abbott said science would “largely” be in the industry portfolio, under incoming minister, Ian Macfarlane.


What the hell does that mean? 60%? 90%? What? And who will be doing the rest? The Minister Responsible for Sitting Behind the PM and Nodding When the PM Addresses Parliament? The Attorney General? The Under-secretary to the Tea-lady’s Deputy Assistant?

Australia’s Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb, complains that development of science is already too fragmented, “Already it’s spread across multiple budget lines; at the last count we had something over 70 spread over something to the order of 14 portfolios and we could miss things if we aren’t strategic in the way we go about it.”

So why not appoint the best man for the job?

Because it was politically inexpedient.

Appointing someone with no qualifications would carry huge criticism. It would run for years. It will smear all the other appointments.

Anyway, he thought, Jensen talks too much. The coalition’s policy on emissions has exactly the same target as Labor had, and Jensen may have words to say about that.
Abbott abolished the Ministry of Science because it was politically expedient?

That – because it was the gutless thing to do.

K.Rudd, public enema number-one


You can give it a slick paint-job, put a fake foxtail on the antenna, but beneath the dazzle remains the same old oil-burning, rusted-out, un-roadworthy clunker destined to inflict cost and heartbreak. A wreck is a wreck.

We must be the silliest country in the Western World. Kevin Rudd, the worst prime minister in Australia’s political history who was ousted by his deputy Julia Gillard and more than half the cabinet having caused “Labor to lose its way” has been reinstalled by ousting the absolute worst prime minister in the nation’s political history. Isn’t there supposed to be a lesson learned? Don’t we go to school to learn what is smart and what it dumb?

This mess will occupy government all the way to the election, whenever that may be. I, like many concerned Australians, want to know who in hell is running the country while this rabble called government is totally embroiled in self destruction?

Meanwhile, illegal immigrants step up their rush, the debt mounts uncontrollably and the unions are the recipients of unprecedented legislation giving them rights to intrude into any business house, factory or private entity at will.

Too many people believe Tony Abbott is a wishy-washy leader. Now, is his chance to show himself as a forceful contender who means business. Only lefties and bludgers will whine.

Mr. Abbott, for God's sake give us a sign!


A Cat at a Dog Show

Certain gay rights advocates are calling for what they call ‘marriage equality’, or same-sex marriage, writes Justin de Vere 

National governments in New Zealand and France, as well as certain other countries and states, have recently passed laws legalising this. In doing so, the governments of these places now consider a marriage of a man and a woman to be the equivalent of a similar ceremony ‘marrying’ two men or two women.

The desire for marriage equality, while superficially a call for justice and an idea whose time has come, is actually a hurtful, destructive, selfish desire which speciously defies logic, abuses ordinary people’s sense of justice, and will cause damage to an ancient social custom that predates government and civilisation and has nothing to do with homosexuality. The politicians who would effect this change would do so not in the best interests of the country they serve, but in the short-term interests of the party they serve.

Read More:

The watery grave that Labor dug

New MH2

Writers of political weeklies can’t possibly be topical given the rapid change in Labor’s pandemonium as the noose of electoral execution tightens by the day, if not hour.

Political chess moves of Rudd, Shorten and Tony Sheldon seem unlikely to cause any stay of the hangman’s scaffold. A two-party-preferred result according to surveys, have remained rather stable for more than a year. Any re-arrangement of deck chairs might save a handful of seats but won’t affect the outcome. To put it nicely—Labor is stuffed—in a manner unprecedented.

For the past 18 months voter concern about the nation’s porous borders has been marching toward top billing. And now, with the latest drowning of more than 50 off Western Australia’s coast, any hope and all spin Labor might use to camouflage reality perished with that craft and those poor souls on it.

Voter angst is mounting as more than 43,000 illegal immigrants have arrived by boat since the Rudd government terminated John Howard’s Pacific Solution in 2007 while Tony Abbott chirps louder about “turning back the boats” giving hope to all who find Labor’s own cost estimates of $203,704 per opportunist an unwanted burden and potential social disaster to be halted.

Meanwhile, the deluded Gillard says “the government’s border protection policies are working,” and that co-operation with Indonesia has successfully disrupted “many” people-smuggling ventures. What crap!
Eager for any opportunity to huff and puff before a camera is NSW state wrecker, now bungling foreign minister, Bob Carr. Bob’s cerebral wisdom reckoned Tony Abbott’s plan to turn back asylum seeker boats will trigger an “immediate foreign policy crisis” with Indonesia.

Carr, the old spin-doctor used a variety of descriptors with different media. “This is sheer recklessness.” And, “To talk about turning back the boats in his first days as prime minister would be to engineer a crisis in our relations with our most important neighbour.” Would also lead to a “humanitarian catastrophe on a vast scale,” and “Tony Abbott’s playing with fire,” Bob told Sky News.

However, Indonesia’s ambassador to Australia Nadjib Riphat Kesoema has ruled out any collaboration with Abbott to return people to Indonesia because it wasn’t their country of origin. Balderdash! Boats under Indonesian flag, crewed by Indonesians, port of origin Indonesia and provisioned in Indonesia says differently. The Ambassador is an idiot to assert such nonsense. Besides, it’s unlikely he would be privy to arrangements, if any, made between Abbott and the Indonesian government if there is a Coalition win in September.

Despite my low-budget opinion of Bob Carr, I must agree when he said that believing Tony Abbott will turn the boats around is to believe in fairies.

In April 2009 an Australian Navy ship HMAS Albany took in tow the smuggler boat SIEV 36 near Ashmore Reef. As HMAS Childers was boarding SIEV 36 one of the smuggler’s crew gave a cheesy grin, a salute and then touched off an explosion killing 5 and wounding 40. Blown into the water narrowly escaping death were our Navy personnel. President Bambang’s ruse for strengthened search and rescue co-operation proved a farce and the scuttling of craft is now textbook practice for smugglers.

A new wave of people smugglers has outwitted Australia’s government witless. First signal to smugglers was from the Royal Australian Navy in July 2012 when a senior officer said if there is even the slightest risk of danger to navy sailors or asylum seekers the navy skippers would disobey orders to invoke the “turn around or tow back” policy. “No navy officer would allow anyone, be they people smuggler, illegal fisherman or even terrorist, to perish at sea,” another officer said. The smugglers’ prayer mats got a fervent workout that day.

Moreover, Maritime Law says ships’ masters and crew have a legal and moral obligation to help distressed seafarers. International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea: “A master of a ship at sea, which is in a position to be able to provide assistance on receiving a signal from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance.”  Maritime Law is a people smugglers’ licence to print money.

Only a fool would believe a smuggler and his bilge load of illegal interlopers would allow the RAN to hook-up a tow cable and drag the lot back to Indonesia. If Abbott’s plan becomes government policy the following standing orders for all smugglers will be:

By radio or mobile phone send SOS, report position and sabotage engine. Make a cup of tea. Upon sight of RAN taxi service to Australia, open seacocks in engine room. In case of no seacocks, cut engine cooling water input or chop a hole in the hull with an axe. If anticipating difficulties with authorities, pour petrol into Bilge. All on board with life vests, and those without, will then jump into the water while one remaining crew flicks a match down the hatch.

The craft will explode, seriously burning the crewman. (Note to skippers) This is desirable as no further dialogue will occur as the situation becomes a “life saving” exercise as the navy adheres to Maritime Law convention no matter what Tony Abbott says.

Over to you Tony.