'Law Enforcement' Post 9/11

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4558324.html

"the Obama administration's targeted killings program, under which terrorist suspects are taken out by drone strikes without any judicial process...the Cameron government's Justice and Security Bill, which would introduce secret courts for civil cases involving national security - in particular, claims of wrongdoing by British intelligence agencies."

Civil liberty advocates directly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks warned of this eventuality. Anyone on the planet can be targeted and eliminated by a US drone, for any reason. 

Full Employment??????

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4553274.html

"The Treasurer - who appeared with Gillard at Rooty Hill - is fond of reminding us that Australia is at nearly full employment."

The neoclassical concept of full employment is hogwash. This holds that there is a residual unemployment rate arbitrarily guessed at 4-5% which is optimum for any macroeconomic equilibrium, and this level of unemployment is called 'full'. The 457 visa scheme should never come into play until this residue is employed. The adoption of this concept of full employment plays into the hands of the employers as they use it to justify importing labour rather than training up this residue.

Neoliberalism in a nutshell

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4553254.html

"The Costello-Newman set of values is one in which a government's only purpose is to be efficient in a unit-per-output sense - where providing services to the public is a luxury to be outsourced to a private company."

This is extremist neoliberalism. If various experiments have been tried and demonstrably failed, why are we trying them again? To confirm the results of the first experiment?

Curiouser and curiouser in Queensland

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4553254.html

"The crux of the report is laid out on page 11 which outlines the role of government. It states that the Queensland Government should "provide core services such as policing, public safety, emergency and justice services, which have a strong public good element".

Everything else - including education, health, prisons, housing, community services and public transport - should be encouraged to be done by the private sector."

You can usually count on Greg Jericho to shed some light on things. If political polling is to be believed this is what the majority of Australians want for the entire country, assuming that those polled realise that election of an LNP government in Canberra will inflict an identical set of policies on the nation at large. Lewis and Woods presented the results of targeted polling showing a clear majority of Australians want the opposite flavour of policies so it would appear that this assumption is not realistic.

Election of an LNP government in Canberra would be an unmitigated disaster for this country on so many horizons that I would hope that the electorate delivers the appropriate result. The conflicting polls suggest both the existence of a silent majority which is never asked the question and an ALP unable to use the media as the tool it has become to get its message out. Does the electorate really want this result, which a vote for the LNP will inevitably deliver? 

Weaponised Keynesianism

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/opinion/krugman-kick-that-can.html?ref=paulkrugman&_r=0

It’s true that Republicans often seem to believe in “weaponized Keynesianism,” a doctrine under which military spending, and only military spending, creates jobs.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-01/maher-act-political-rematch/4546564
"Seselja waited until the last moment to announce he was running for Senate preselection, catching Humphries and his supporters off guard. It quickly emerged that hundreds of ACT Liberal members would be ineligible to vote in the preselection ballot because they'd either failed to attend a party meeting in the past six months or had attended meetings that didn't count because they failed to reach a quorum. Some members claim they were told they could vote only to have that right 'withdrawn' on the day.In the ballot on the weekend Seselja defeated Humphries 114-84; the Senate ticket was decided by just 198 people in a party membership of more than 600 in the ACT."
This is a microcosm of democracy as practiced today: manipulative tricks by elites to gain and hold power (get what they want). The entire system is rigged to maintain the status quo and keep the elites where they are. This situation is not necessarily a bad thing but it needs to be identified for what it is. Take all news from the present mass media with a grain nor two of salt.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-01/cassidy-going-out-west-where-the-wind-b...
"The Western Bulldogs Football Club is sending out players, fans and staff to try and build community support for the club. To support the cause, the Prime Minister went on Triple M radio with Eddie Maguire and Mick Molloy.
This from Molloy: "Morning Prime Minister. You've got my vote so long as you keep hitting the streets on behalf of the Bulldogs. Congratulations!"
And this from Maguire: : "... how do you put the point across to people that in Australia at the moment we have got low inflation, low unemployment, low interest rates, we've got through the GFC, the share market is coming good. Every indicator would suggest we're actually in Shangri-La at the moment, yet people still think we're going around in a third world country."
The Prime Minister should bottle that sentiment and take it with her to Sydney, because there's nothing like it within a 50 kilometre radius of Rooty Hill."
Few in the media tell thre truth like Barrie Cassidy. So why is it so hard to get this message across? Apart from the unwillingness of the media to cover the truth, there is no apparent reason why members of the ALP Caucus can't get out there, in front of the cameras, at media conferences and photo shoots, and simply state the underlined excerpt; over and over and over again. It may then dawn on the twitterverse to ask the question of why these positive elements are measurably and objectively true.
All political parties employ media consultants and spin doctors. The mere existance of such denominations suggests the convergence of capitalism and our warped form of democracy has transformed the media into a tool of 'the powers that be' rather than a check upon their actions. The conservative forces have been the first to recognise this and to capitalise. The ALP needs to hurry up, grow up and start using the media as the tool it has become for herd manipulations. It needs to do this quickly before the negative reality created by Abbot's minions undoes all of their achievements of the past few years and drives us all back to the stone age of the fifties.  

The only way out of our post-GFC economic mess is to tax the rich. The stupidity of all this is mind-blowing.

In response to a question by Liberal MP Kelly O'Dwyer, Stevens answered that that if the Government had kept cutting or raising taxes to achieve the budget surplus, given the current state of the economy the bank would likely have needed to consider lowering rates. Crucially he noted that:

There would be nothing we could do, though, with interest rates, to offset that very short-term contraction [of spending cuts and tax rises], because interest rates do not work that quickly. So we would end up with a weaker economy.

So a budget surplus and lower interest rates would have us with a "weaker economy". Not your usual rhetoric.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4540670.html
How will the evil ones spin this one? No doubt LNP spin doctors will find some way to turn this result on it's head.

Ed Manning has written an inciteful and amusing piece on The Drum (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4386710.html) concerning the education of our children, the mistreatment of our teachers; indeed the whole education debate, inluding the unjust and unjustifiable absurdities being bandied about in the process.
Universal education to the secondary level is undeniably beneficial to society on almost every level. Even the Heckles and Jeckles of the twitteratti would have trouble finding an argument against it. It enables the basis of a skilled workforce competitive on the world stage and a politically aware electorate able to intelligently choose between candidates, truths,.half-truths, lies, propaganda...etc. The way  we educate our children creates the society of the future.
So what of the stories cited of parents raging onto school premises when their child is punished for infringing rules or misbehaving, or whatever, lambasting the teacher about how their child is special and therefore above the rules or should enjoy priveledges because he/she is so special? What sort of future society will this create?
Manning notes the emphasis on measurement of performance, the implication being that if it can't be measured it doesn't exist, and cites teachers' expertise in this area, all marking in essence being measurement. This is an inevitable consequence of our entrepreneurial market economy/society, which has many benefits but also may benefits which need to be taken with a pinch of salt. This emphasis on measurement is one of these. Many things can be measured with varying degrees of ease and accuracy. Others can not. On Corporate balance sheets these are classified as intangible assets, characterised by goodwill, but there are others which are excluded because they are too difficult to measure: the common goods. To say that they do not exist because they are difficult to measure is absurd.
In education there are many of these intangible things and their effect usually overrides the effect of measurable or measured components. To attempt to reduce them all to a bunch of KPI's whereby to judge the performance of teachers is farcical at best and deceptive at worst.
It remains to be seen where all this will lead.

It's now OK to breathe a sigh of relief. Two significant hurdles are now passed. Civilisation can now develop unimpeded into the future.With the reelection of Barack Obama the rising forces of reaction have been smacked back down into their corner of disrepute. Xi Jinping will lead China back to its rightful place amongst the world's cultures.
Remember back in 2007, the feeling of anticipation and hope engendered by the defeat of the fowl illegitimate Howard government to the young, unaligned Kevin Rudd. Then in 2008 Obama rode the wave of disgust with the illegitimate Bush regime into the White house. Fresh faces of youth and vigour. Surely we could make some changes, some progress towards a better future. How swiftly the forces of conservatism reacted. The knifing of Rudd by the right faction reestablishing it's control with a coincidental shift to the right in the opposition with the replacement of the centre moderate Turnbull with the extreme right Abbott. Then the half-term congressional elections in the US saw the capture of the house of representatives by the republicans in the form of extreme right tea party candidates. Since then progress has been slow in both countries due to the obstruction of these reactionary forces. The speed of these processes has been astounding, indeed I would call them breath-taking. In the space of little more than a couple of years reaction to a progressive move brought progress to a snails pace.
Two hundred years ago similar events shaped the world. The defeat of Napoleon produced the reactionary Congress of Vienna which reestablished the old national boundaries and the old monarchical regimes, forcing the radical forces underground, leading to the wave of revolutions through the continent in the middle of the century, the eventual unification and rise of Germany, the forty-year-World-War-with-a-twenty-year-breathing-space to put her back in her place, and finally the geopolitical arrangement we have in the west today. The point being that in the nineteenth century this process of progress-reaction took fifty years to complete a cycle. This last one took two years. The power of the IT revolution to compress time and make everything go faster is clearly demonstrated here.
The next hurdle will be the upcoming election here in Australia. A step to the right will be a step backwards into a divided society with interest groups being played against each other to influence elections as John Howard was adept at. It will be iteresting to see if Abbott can come up with another trisylabic parot slogan like RAWK-carbon-tax to attempt to scare a presumed ignorant electorate.

And Now, Finally, we understand

It has come to my attention, in the normal circuitous way, that, according to recent research, the manufacture of opium from the opium poppy, by human beings, dates back to neolithic times when we were all living in caves, worshiping our nature gods and scratching pictures in the walls.

The application of mind-altering drugs to human conciousness at this early stage of development throws a new light on all of human achievement to this date of now. Was the enlightenment a development of pure intellect, as we are taught, or, a drug induced mirage?Was Newton's mythical apple an idea awaiting gestation or a chimera perceived only because he ingested large quantities of opiates directly prior to his experience?

It is a matter of historical record that European society, from the discovery of China, was awash with opium and its derivatives. This is witnessed by the various attempts by legislative means to control, or if all else failed, suppress its use, finally culminating in the Opium Wars in China in the second half of the 19th century.

A Great Depression = A Great Recession = A Great Contraction

the world has begun an epic, long-term balance sheet adjustment.

Once apon a time there was a great wise being who wrote a book suggesting the bleeding obvious proposition that exponential growth is not suatainable, and leads, without exception, to the demise of that which chooses to grow in this manner.

The death throws of Western civilisation may advertise the birth pangs of global civilisation. 

Boat People and Christianity by a failed Catholic Seminarian

Tony Abbott says that boat people are "un-Christian" for coming to Australia the way they do. 

Specifically, he said:

"I don't think it's a very Christian thing to come in by the back door rather than the front door. ... I think the people we accept should be coming the right way and not the wrong way. ... If you pay a people-smuggler, if you jump the queue, if you take yourself and your family on a leaky boat, that's doing the wrong thing, not the right thing, and we shouldn't encourage it."

It is not surprising that Mr Abbott has a view about the moral dimension of refugee issues. It is entirely appropriate that he should consider the matter from the perspective of Christian teaching, given that he trained for the priesthood. I would go so far as to say that more politicians should pay attention to the moral implications of the policies they have to determine.

What is striking is that Mr Abbott could get the matter so spectacularly wrong, both as to the facts and as to the moral equation.

First: the facts. Mr Abbott should know that there is no queue when you run for your life. The recent execution of an Afghan woman by the Taliban (another example of a very well-established pattern) gives some idea of why people seek asylum. A significant proportion of boat-people in the past 15 years have been Afghan Hazaras fleeing the Taliban. If an Afghan were to embrace Mr Abbott's scruples and look for a queue, the obvious place would be the Australian Embassy in Kabul. The Department of Foreign Affairs website informs us:

"The Australian Embassy in Kabul operates from a number of locations that are not publicly disclosed due to security reasons. The Australian Embassy in Kabul has no visa function."

So where is the queue?

Leave aside that the location of the Australian Embassy is a secret, the larger point is that refugee flows are always untidy. The idea that desperate people will conduct themselves as if waiting for a bus to take them to the shops is not only ludicrous, it reveals a complete lack of empathy, or even understanding, of why refugees flee for safety in the first place.

As it happens, more than 90 per cent of boat-people who have arrived in Australia in the past 15 years have been accepted, eventually, as genuine refugees. Mr Abbott should understand this: it means that they are people to whom we owe a duty of protection according to our own laws, and according to the obligations we voluntarily undertook when we signed the Refugees Convention.

Second: the moral question. Mr Abbott should know, better than most politicians, that the Christian doctrine he claims to understand and espouse emphasises the message of welcoming and protecting the stranger. The parable of the Good Samaritan is just one example. Nowhere in Christian teaching (and nowhere in any moral code) is the message of kindness to strangers qualified by reference to their method of arrival.

From time immemorial, victims of persecution have fled for safety. It is usually untidy. The flight of Jews from Europe in the 1930s is an obvious example, and one which should focus our minds on the need for a response which is informed by moral learning rather than by political opportunism.

And how is it that it is "the wrong thing" to do whatever you can to try and save yourself and your family? What bizarre twist of reasoning makes it wrong to do whatever is necessary to save your family? Perhaps Mr Abbott needs to watch The Sound of Music again: the von Trapp family were refugees; the nuns were people smugglers; they did what they could to help the von Trapps through the back door.

Third: the dog whistle component. Many politicians here and overseas have found it easy and expedient to stir up anti-Muslim sentiment in recent years, just as it was easy, in earlier times, to stir up anti-Jewish sentiment.

It can hardly have escaped Mr Abbott's attention that a significant number of boat-people in recent years have been Muslims. It is inconceivable that he failed to notice that some people, hearing his comments about boat-people being "un-Christian", would have understood him as criticizing boat-people because they are Muslim, not Christian. It is a sad reflection of the depths to which political debate has fallen in this country that an avowed Christian could stoop to such shabby tactics.

Finally: A question for Mr Abbott. Imagine, just for a minute, that you are a Hazara from Afghanistan. You have fled the Taliban; you have arrived in Indonesia, where you will be jailed if you are found; you can't work, and you can't send your kids to school. You will have to wait between 10 and 20 years before some country offers to resettle you. But you have a chance of getting on a boat and heading for safety in Australia. What will you do?

I know I would get on a boat; I know that most Australians would get on a boat. I imagine that Tony Abbott would get on a boat.

I challenge Tony Abbott to answer this question directly and honestly: What would you do, Mr Abbott, if you were in their shoes?

If Mr Abbott answers this question, we can take another look at his criticism of boat-people as "un-Christian".

If he is not willing to answer it, then we have a fourth reason to disregard his criticism of boat-people.

Julian Burnside AO QC is an Australian Barrister and an advocate for human rights and fair treatment of refugees. He tweets @JulianBurnside. View his full profile here.

If all the opinion polls are right, this will be our next prime minister. Even the mindless faux pas of George W Bush as US president pale in comparison to this nincompoop. And yet, if we are to believe the opinion polls, the Australian electorate is composed of people who will actually vote for someone of this calibre. Surely not????

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4123872.html&presname=unleashed" class="button email first">

The Nocebo Effect

While most people have heard of the placebo effect (when an inert "drug" like a sugar pill or a sham surgical procedure like inserting random acupuncture needles is followed by people feeling better) its opposite, the "nocebo" effect, is less appreciated.

A nocebo effect occurs when people feel ill or are convinced they have symptoms after being told that something is harmful. For the past few months, I have been collecting claims about adverse health effects made by opponents of wind farms. Today the total stands at 113 different diseases and symptoms in humans and animals.

Other than perhaps the aftermath of a nuclear blast on population health, there is nothing known to medicine that comes close to the morbid apocalypse that is being megaphoned by anti-wind groups.

It is not just illnesses and symptoms that occur but "deaths, yes, many deaths mainly from unusual cancers", which have strangely never come to the attention of any coroner.

The Downgrade Blues - NYTimes.com

Barack Obama blazed like Luke Skywalker in 2008, but he never learned to channel the Force. And now the Tea Party has run off with his light saber.

via nytimes.com

Do you think???????????????????????????????????????????

Credibility, Chutzpah and Debt - NYTimes.com

chutzpah — traditionally defined by the example of the young man who kills his parents, then pleads for mercy because he’s an orphan.

via nytimes.com

Standard & Poors has no legitimate ability to rate anything, let alone the ability of the US to make debt repayments. No one else in the world believes this rubbish. I smell a ploy to reduce the stock prices so they can move in and make killing. What a crock.

The drawers are full, it's time for a back rub

There's probably truth in all these explanations but I'd like to raise another possibility. Maybe, just maybe, we've all started to understand the limited pleasure that can be gained from buying truckloads of cheap crap.

via smh.com.au

Yes. Save Money We're bad; Spend money we're bad: we must all be bad.

Masterchef Criticism | Paul Sheehan Is Wrong

the honour that can only be derived from the noble pursuit of utter futility.

via smh.com.au

HoHoHo. Good to see someone shredding Sheehan again.

 

Rupert and James Murdoch Before Parliamentary Committee

Schadenfreude. The pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others.

via smh.com.au

In case you wondered what it was really all about.

The Murdoch media game-changer - The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

The connections, deals, endorsements, donations and cross-fertilisation should now be retrospectively examined. For instance, why shouldn't former federal communications minister Graham Richardson be called to appear before a parliamentary inquiry to discuss the millions of dollars he was paid by the Packer family to lobby and comment after leaving parliament?

via abc.net.au

Why would not Graham Richardson be allowed to sell his expertise, connections and experience of politics, to the highest bidder, in a free market and make a living out of it. Is all monedy dirty money. Where is this person comming from? This paragraph looks like an attack on free market theory as applied to social interactions so I would expect a reply from some of the luney free marketeers out there. Is this a call to strictly regulate the economic behaviour of professionals or only professionals in the practice of politics? What now springs to mind is the pseudo-monopolistic behaviour of all professions with their barriers to entry (high cost of qualification etc.) and whether these need to be regulated.

Truth is, Gillard didn't lie

A POINT of order, to the woman who asked the Prime Minister on Wednesday at a Brisbane shopping centre: "Why did you lie to us?" This well-spoken member of the public was doing no more than reflecting, of course, the charge levelled at Gillard by every shock jock with access to a microphone across the land. But where exactly was the lie? Was it because Gillard said on the day before the election: "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead"? Listen, for that to be a lie, it would need Gillard to have known all along that she intended to bring in the carbon tax and to be just waiting to win the election before she did so. But does anyone, even the most rabid, really believe that to be the case? Of course she didn't. As she replied to the woman in question in the shopping centre: "Circumstances changed." Those circumstances are that she wasn't able to form a government in her own right, meaning deals had to be done, just as Tony Abbott would have had to have done deals if he had been able to form a government. One of those deals, in Gillard's case, was with the Greens to bring in the carbon tax, in return for their support. Simple as that. At worst, she can be accused of breaking a promise but saying she lied is simply inaccurate. This won't stop the battalions of bully-boy shock jocks for half a second - whip it up, you heroes, and you can explain it to your children later - but it needs to be said. The true mystery is why the Prime Minister and her minions have not made this point more clearly themselves. They have allowed the "Ju-liar" slur to go on for weeks now, substantially unchecked, and need to address it.

They said it

Advertisement: Story continues below

David Letterman: "The Pope is now on Twitter. The Church is really trying to connect with young people, in a way that doesn't involve hush money."
Answering machine gag doing the rounds: "Hi, I am afraid I am unable to answer my mobile phone at the moment but if you leave me a message, the News of the World will send it to me later."

via smh.com.au

The fact that Julia was forced by a dithering electorate to form a minority government with the Greens thereby conceding a carbon tax and emmissions trading scheme as a contingency to forming government does identify the breaking of her pre-election promise not to as something less than a lie. This is all so blatantly obvious that they apparantly see no reason to point this out. The ALP demonstrates a continuous inability to defend itself and its policies against misinformation and scare campaigns. They seem to think that, because the substance of the misinformation is so obviously untrue or the distortions are so self-evident that they do not need to be refuted because it is assumed that anyone with common knowledge and the ability to think rationally will see straight through them. This is a false assumption. In many areas the only source of information is the Murdoch Press and this information is so biased that it severley biases the common knowledge. In this particular instance this the very asking of this question demonstrates an ignorance of how our democracy works.
The answering machine gag is also mildly amusing

They're fluffy, cute - and increasingly destined to become dinner

"the camel is a horse designed by committee"

via smh.com.au

To live well, getting rich is only half an answer

The explanation goes partly to the question of how a country (or an individual) uses the money it has, though it may also involve factors that have little to do with money. But it also suggests income suffers heavily from what economists call ''diminishing marginal utility''. The first, say, $15,000 of annual income buys you a lot more wellbeing than the last $15,000 does.
But let's focus on the better life index. Partly because the organisation chose not to draw attention to the fact (and most journalists are weak at doing their own sums), surprisingly little attention has been paid to the news that Australia had the highest rating among the 34 countries, beating Canada by the narrowest of margins.
Sweden runs a close third. And, indeed, all the Nordic countries do well, yet again defying the Anglo-Saxon notion that countries do best when their governments do (and tax) least. Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland remain an excellent advertisement for what the libertarians contemptuously refer to as the nanny state.

via smh.com.au

Send this to the Tea Party Movement. Money isn't everything and big government/higher tax regimes create happier people.

Greens win renewable energy fund for petrol tax exemption

It is understood the Greens have negotiated a fund to invest in renewable energy which will be paid for from the proceeds of pricing carbon and worth up to $2 billion a year.

via businessday.com.au

$2 billion a year may start the ball rolling if it is allocated to the right place. Big business has shown no interest in devoting R&D funds to the creation of an environmentally sustainable economy. Indeed, historically they have actively worked against this outcome. So, government has to step in. All the laissez-faire, free-market, neo-con, myth-making capitalists are squirming in their boots and grasping at straws to try to maintain a status quo that allows them to keep their priveledges. Perhaps these are signs that they will eventually be dragged, kicking and screeming, into the sustainable future.
But they still won't admit they are wrong.

Australians Charged Over Securency International

At the very worst, Australian criticisms of the approaches to corruption by some countries bear the hallmark of sanctimonious jingoism. It is time we got our house in order.
The US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the more recent and even tougher UK Bribery Act have extra-jurisdictional provisions that have impacted globally. In Australia, the Criminal Code Act now has tougher penalties for bribery of foreigners - up to 10 years' jail and/or $11 million in fines. But there have been no significant convictions under those provisions and the imminent Securency court hearings will be a test of the provisions of the act and judicial interpretations.
Incidentally, while the ''new'' Australian penalties sound exemplary, there are still contradictions in the legislation concerning the definition of "bribes" and "facilitation payments". Surprised? Well, keep in mind that until 1999 bribes were valid corporate tax deductions under the Income Tax Assessment Act, and the act still allows "facilitation payments" to be claimed as corporate tax deductions.

via smh.com.au

Corruption is everywhere and always has been

Say Yes to a price on carbon pollution and a cleaner Australia

via sayyesaustralia.org.au

Finally the truth.

Labor peers into the abyss

via smh.com.au

We obviously need a fourth political force in this country, a new party that is democratic in action, not only in rhetoric. I, like many true blue progressives who stood by the ALP in the face of all this, was so appalled and disillusioned with the summary dumping of Rudd in a right wing coup that buggared comprehension, that I will now vote Green, even though Green policies are too far to the left.
This is an insightful article with good analysis, even though there is some doubt as to where Peter Hartcher sits on the political spectrum. I commented on the original coverage that a new party is required, one that sits to the left of the alp Left Faction but to the right of the Greens. A good starting point might be the moral wrongness of taxing income that is required for bare existence.
What happens next will be interesting to watch. I fear that the ALP is too much under the sway of vested interests (read the Right Faction, addicted to being in power) to voluntarily change for the better

alan jones|climate change|carbon tax|

No wonder he has agreed to be the founding patron of Australia's newest and arguably most extreme climate-science denier organisation - the paradoxically titled Galileo Movement. This group's leaders aren't merely sceptical about mainstream climate science - they outright deny that the world is warming (the thermometers are in the wrong place). They scoff at the idea that human activity can cause warming (carbon dioxide is just plant food); and they even reject that global warming could be harmful (relax, do nothing - it's natural). Instead, they fervently believe that it's all part of a secret ideological conspiracy by corrupt scientists using fake data to collude with greenies, socialists, libertarians and the United Nations to falsely alarm the gullible and enrich themselves by stealing our money and sovereignty. Fair dinkum Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/you-are-just-plain-wrong-ab... bon-tax-divide-2399193.htmlsful">smh.com.au

Are people really this stupd

 

Budget 2011 | $150,000 freeze is nothing new

via smh.com.au

Canberra should be renamed fairyland.
The wealthy are still not paying their fair share.

Osama bin Laden | Boris Johnson: there was no firefight

via smh.com.au

Justice? What justice? Call a spade a spade and be done with it. Dust off your brown nose because if you mess with the USA they may come for you too. The walls have ears and eyes and a stubbly beard.
In any event our dear friend Osama is no doubt dining with his mentor Shaitan in the fire while his body feeds the fish.
So let's all be afraid of Sherrif USA, but just remember that you have to really get up his nose for the seals to swim.