Category Archives: politics

Two Sides To Every Coin


Prime Minister (pro tem) Malcolm Turnbull has been very noisy over the past couple of weeks.

Ever since word spread that a certain tuber was about to challenge for the leadership of the IPA Liberal Party.

He has been noisy on defense (We need to train our people to kill other people), on Asylum Seekers (Their Hell isn’t Hellish enough yet) and of course, that Multicultural wonder of the world, the Snowy Mountain Scheme 2.0 for which he has dusted off some 1980’s plans and polished them up so that they look almost new.

Today he reached new levels of noisiness as, alongside his Minister for Employment, the Honorable Screech, he promoted a new piece of legislation which will outlaw bribery of Union leaders.

During the question time after his announcement and the Screech’s addendums, he was asked about the bribery of political parties by outside individuals and corporations. Turnbull turned coward and, in a flurry of umms, errs and stutters he refused to answer, moving very obviously onto the next question. One from close ally and friendly face, Chris Uhlmann.   An interesting response to a very valid question. It revealed the blatant partisanship of this exercise. Obviously the terrorism card is not winning enough votes any more.

So I sat and cogitated over my second cup of coffee and wondered if this maladvised Prime Minister had thought this move through thoroughly.

It is all very well to outlaw these bribes which come from companies, sometimes very BIG companies and the money is given TO a Union or a Unionist. That is already covered by the Law of the Land.

Not once did he talk about the consequences to those big companies. Everything he said was aimed at convicting Unions of bribery.  He wasn’t even asked a question about consequences for the companies involved in the GIVING of the bribe.

I can see a time coming, when this new Law is passed, where a Union or Unionist will be prosecuted and while it will be proven that a bribe was accepted, that bribe will have come out of thin air.

This is the Turnbull Law that disregards the physically unavoidable fact that every coin has, MUST HAVE, two sides!

ALP-Lite? No! I’m a Green!


I just spotted an ABC headline on its News Site and felt an instant anger and sense of betrayal.

‘Queensland Premier, mayors work to convince Adani to go ahead with $21.7b mine’

Anger that anyone could want that mine to go ahead and a sense of betrayal because it is an ALP Premier wanting it to happen.

After several minutes I had an epiphany and realised it was my lazy thinking that had created these emotions within.

Annastacia Palaszczuk is being true to her roots. Looking to create jobs for the workers of Queensland.

I was being true to my roots. Wanting to protect the environment from destruction.

Then I realised that the whole ‘Leftie’ argument which comes from the Right Wing Nut Jobs is based on a fallacy.

The Greens and the ALP may, one day, form some sort of coalition but in no way are the Greens ‘Labor-Lite’. Our aims are not the same.

While we share a similar Human Rights stance, we have severe differences when it comes to Jobs and the Environment.

(Parenthetically, how can the extreme Liberal Right stand being in coalition with the National Party? The Nats are Agrarian Socialists and so should be anathema to those Right Wing Idealogues of the IPA!)

So to all my friends in the ALP, I do hope we will remain friends but our aims are somewhat different. You have your priorities and I have mine.

One priority which we share and which I have not yet mentioned is that we both see the very real need to remove the IPA/L-NP hegemony which is currently ruling and ruining our country.

Let’s make sure we ‘Do a Barnett’ to the Turnbull Government at the first opportunity.

Then we can sort out our differences and make Australia the Land of the Fair Go again.

More Public Money for the Privatisers


Weatherill tears Frydenberg a new one!

So it seems the failure of the private energy market in Australia is to be fixed by a return to public ownership and funding. Thank you Mr Turnbull for this exciting thought bubble and potential ground-breaking move of a Conservative Government back into public enterprise.

I only have two questions.

Firstly, how will this sudden announcement of an unplanned policy of something which may happen in seven years time help South Australia in the summer of 2017/18?

Secondly, with the privatisation of the energy market have proven to be a complete failure, how long will it be before all those extra billions of dollars of Snowy Mountains investment are handed over to the failed Energy providers we are currently saddled with and who caused this crisis in the first place.

Thirdly, Oh, I have THREE questions.

Thirdly, will we, the Australian electorate, finally get fed up with all this failed privatisation and begin demanding that essential public services MUST be run and owned by the Australian people!

We are led by a killer!


Our temporary Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has taken off his mask.
 
He isn’t the sweet, cuddly person we all believed him to be when he took over from the incompetent madman Abbott.
 
At the Avalon Airshow he has been loudly talking about how his minions – I mean his service men – are going to KILL PEOPLE efficiently and with less risk to themselves.
 
Not preparing to defend ourselves against invaders but on foreign soil.
 
Big Guy! Good loving Christian. Attack and KILL the terrorists overseas, create more refugees and warehouse them on offshore islands until they DIE!
 
Malcolm Turnbull wants to KILL people both coming and going!
 
We are being led by a KILLER!
 
iconwar

Trump and Australia


So the Donald thinks the Asylum Seeker’s deal with Australia is the worst deal he has ever seen and intends to ignore it.

That’s fine.

We can match that dislike with our disapproval of the Pine Gap Nuclear Target.

Take that back, Mr Trump.

Then there is Port Szechuan Beef where you have marine and air force bases and personnel.

Please remove them, Mr Trump as this, for the next 99 years, is Chinese territory.

Come to think of it, there are some other place we would like returned to our own Australian sovereignty.

Here is a map for you to let your staff think about since you are so concerned with the personal profits you are already making from your Nation’s traditional opponent, Russia.  (H/T to http://www.anti-bases.org)

australiausabases

Of course this is a bit of a dream as the entire Australian Government has as many balls as its Foreign Minister has! does not have the testicular courage to- does not have the guts to stand up to a nation which is rapidly becoming an ex-friend.

Oh, Mr Trump, while we are at it, you know those paper planes your nation is trying to flog off at several billion dollars each? We don’t want them either!

What the Golden Showers Obscured


Yonatan Zunger is a blogger and activist with a following measured in the hundreds of thousands.

Yesterday he wrote a post ‘Trial Balloon for a Coup?Analyzing the news of the past 24 hours‘.    Here is an excerpt and I encourage you to read the rest of the post.

“(6) Finally, I want to highlight a story that many people haven’t noticed. On Wednesday, Reuters reported (in great detail) how 19.5% of Rosneft, Russia’s state oil company, has been sold to parties unknown. This was done through a dizzying array of shell companies, so that the most that can be said with certainty now is that the money “paying” for it was originally loaned out to the shell layers by VTB (the government’s official bank), even though it’s highly unclear who, if anyone, would be paying that loan back; and the recipients have been traced as far as some Cayman Islands shell companies.

Why is this interesting? Because the much-maligned Steele Dossier (the one with the golden showers in it) included the statement that Putin had offered Trump 19% of Rosneft if he became president and removed sanctions. The reason this is so interesting is that the dossier said this in July, and the sale didn’t happen until early December. And 19.5% sounds an awful lot like “19% plus a brokerage commission.”

Conclusive? No. But it raises some very interesting questions for journalists to investigate.’

Now do read the rest -it is just as scary – especially since the Armed Forces have been removed from the Presidential Security Council (whatever it is officially called).

Is this the way Russia will win the Cold War?

 

(H/T to Lorraine Murphy)

Find the Ball Under the Cup


(Found on facebook and it sounds frightenly possible!)

Stay alert, maintain vigilance, find the ball under the cups…

This is important to read, and is very true. We need to be vigilant as to what the REAL goal is…I think this woman is right…Trump’s unexpected “immigration ban” is a smokescreen for something bigger going on behind the scenes. While this is a horrible move, we must keep our eyes closely on the shill’s quick-moving hands…the big move is yet to come. Let’s not be divided and surprised by it!

From Heather Richardson, professor of History at Boston College:
“I don’t like to talk about politics on Facebook– political history is my job, after all, and you are my friends– but there is an important non-partisan point to make today.
What Bannon is doing, most dramatically with last night’s ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries– is creating what is known as a “shock event.”
Such an event is unexpected and confusing and throws a society into chaos. People scramble to react to the event, usually along some fault line that those responsible for the event can widen by claiming that they alone know how to restore order.
When opponents speak out, the authors of the shock event call them enemies. As society reels and tempers run high, those responsible for the shock event perform a sleight of hand to achieve their real goal, a goal they know to be hugely unpopular, but from which everyone has been distracted as they fight over the initial event. There is no longer concerted opposition to the real goal; opposition divides along the partisan lines established by the shock event.
Last night’s Executive Order has all the hallmarks of a shock event. It was not reviewed by any governmental agencies or lawyers before it was released, and counterterrorism experts insist they did not ask for it. People charged with enforcing it got no instructions about how to do so. Courts immediately have declared parts of it unconstitutional, but border police in some airports are refusing to stop enforcing it.
Predictably, chaos has followed and tempers are hot.
My point today is this: unless you are the person setting it up, it is in no one’s interest to play the shock event game. It is designed explicitly to divide people who might otherwise come together so they cannot stand against something its authors think they won’t like.
I don’t know what Bannon is up to– although I have some guesses– but because I know Bannon’s ideas well, I am positive that there is not a single person whom I consider a friend on either side of the aisle– and my friends range pretty widely– who will benefit from whatever it is.
If the shock event strategy works, though, many of you will blame each other, rather than Bannon, for the fallout. And the country will have been tricked into accepting their real goal.
But because shock events destabilize a society, they can also be used positively. We do not have to respond along old fault lines. We could just as easily reorganize into a different pattern that threatens the people who sparked the event.
A successful shock event depends on speed and chaos because it requires knee-jerk reactions so that people divide along established lines. This, for example, is how Confederate leaders railroaded the initial southern states out of the Union.
If people realize they are being played, though, they can reach across old lines and reorganize to challenge the leaders who are pulling the strings. This was Lincoln’s strategy when he joined together Whigs, Democrats, Free-Soilers, anti-Nebraska voters, and nativists into the new Republican Party to stand against the Slave Power.
Five years before, such a coalition would have been unimaginable. Members of those groups agreed on very little other than that they wanted all Americans to have equal economic opportunity. Once they began to work together to promote a fair economic system, though, they found much common ground. They ended up rededicating the nation to a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Confederate leaders and Lincoln both knew about the political potential of a shock event. As we are in the midst of one, it seems worth noting that Lincoln seemed to have the better idea about how to use it.”