Displaying the most recent of 89719 posts written by

Ruth King

Roger Franklin: Climate Clowns on Parade

This Saturday in Sydney traffic will be disrupted even more than usual by a gaggle of climateers, fussbudgets and nanny staters strutting their virtuous stuff in support of lots more taxpayer money for fighting climate change, amongst other sacred careerist causes. Here’s a guide to the stars of the show.
Generally speaking, there are two items of indisputable wisdom: your electricity bills are far, far higher than they should be and, far more important, take anything and everything John Hewson says with a giant truckload of salt. The news that the onetime opposition leader, the man who lost the “unloseable” election, is to be one of the star paraders at something called The March for Science serves as confirmation of both.

The march – marches, actually, as they are supposed to be held in all capital cities — will take place this Saturday is response to what organisers describe as “the need for stable investment in science, a commitment to higher levels of scientific literacy through education, open communication of scientific findings, and public policy to be guided by evidence.”

Translated, that amounts to something like this: ‘In the US, the Trump administration has announced its intention to flush the pipes of publicly funded alarmist nonsense, most particularly to do with climate change. Let us not see our well-connected mates suffer a similar fate here.’

Does that sound just a tad cynical? If so, consider the men and women of, er, science Mr Hewson will be joining at noon on Saturday in Sydney’s Martin Place for a stroll to Hyde Park: Some relevant biographic information is below each one.

Julie McCrossin (MC) – broadcaster, freelance journalist and facilitator.

The cancer memoirist, comedienne, look-at-me lesbian and former ABC compere set herself to thinking very deeply indeed and concluded that frakking for low-carbon gas will limit her opportunities to “walk in wild places.”

Do not laugh too loudly at that, as Ms McCrossin might conclude it is her saphism, rather than standard-issue luvvie silliness, which inspires such mirth and then perhaps file a complaint under Section 18C. She certainly doesn’t seem overly keen on free speech, having signed a group letter denouncing Bill Leak as a racist who needed to be investigated.

Well some free speech, anyway. When it comes to conservatives, she is proud as punch to pose with a portrait of Fred Nile’s severed head on a platter of vegetables.

Luke Briscoe – co-founder of Indigi Lab, an organisation established to provide education, training and opportunities for Indigenous communities in science, technology and innovation.

From a recent article on the Indiglab.com site, whose chief, Mr Briscoe, will be marching

“We want a future where Indigenous knowledge’s (sic) are the driving force behind science, technology and digital innovation as our science (sic) are 80,000 years old and built one (sic) sustainable practices and that knowledge is priceless but we need to reform the STEM education to be more reflective of our sciences and knowledge systems and also the community wants and needs.”

Dr Angela Maharaj – lecturer at the University of NSW Climate Change Research Centre.

Dr Marharaj has co-authored some dauntingly serious papers to do with Pacific currents, but she also boasts of taking a special interest in making sure that schoolkids are inculcated with only the most correct thoughts about climate change. To this end she is a committee member of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanic Society’s outreach and education committee, which endorses some very curious programs and lesson plans for Australia’s tiddlers.

5 Things You Need to Know About Fox News Cutting Bill O’ Tyler O’Neil

On Wednesday afternoon, Fox News officially cut “The O’Reilly Factor” host Bill O’Reilly. This decision followed a New York Times story early this month detailing sexual assault lawsuits O’Reilly settled in the past.

“After a thorough and careful review of the allegations, the Company and Bill O’Reilly have agreed that Bill O’Reilly will not be returning to the Fox News Channel,” 21st Century Fox released in a statement.

New York Magazine and The Wall Street Journal reported O’Reilly’s forthcoming demise, but the final decision still came as something of a shock. Here are five key points to the story.
1. Advertisers abandoned the show.

Shortly after the New York Times exposé, over twenty advertisers announced they were withdrawing ads from “The O’Reilly Factor.” These included Mitsubishi Motors, which spent about $2.1 million for ads on O’Reilly’s show in 2016, making it the show’s fifth-largest advertiser.

Fox News announced that it was working with advertisers, shifting their buys to run on other shows.

A few advertisers actually announced that they would not be withdrawing from the show, insisting that they were “evaluating” their media buys on the basis of ratings and reaching key audiences.
2. Viewers didn’t abandon the show.

“The O’Reilly Factor” averaged 3.71 million viewers over the five nights following the Times story, according to the Nielsen company. That actually represented a 12 percent increase over the 3.31 million viewers O’Reilly averaged the week before.

This particular show consistently got Fox News its best ratings, drawing almost 4 million viewers a night and generating more than $446 million in advertising revenue between 2014 and 2016, according to Kantar Media.

Indeed, 21st Century Fox recently extended O’Reilly’s contract for about $18 million a year. The host’s old contract would have concluded at the end of 2017.

Despite the scandal, O’Reilly continued to attract viewers.
20 Advertisers Boycott Bill O’Reilly’s Show Over Sexual Harassment Allegations
3. President Trump defended him.

Shortly after the Times exposé, President Donald Trump defended Bill O’Reilly — in an interview with The New York Times.

“I think he’s a person I know well — he is a good person,” Trump, who has appeared on O’Reilly’s show many times in the past, told the Times. The president insisted that the Fox host should not have paid the $13 million to settle cases involving five separate women who alleged O’Reilly sexually assaulted them.

“I think he shouldn’t have settled; personally I think he shouldn’t have settled,” Trump declared. “Because you should have taken it all the way. I don’t think Bill did anything wrong.”

In saying so, the president was echoing O’Reilly’s own defense. “Just like other prominent and controversial people, I’m vulnerable to lawsuits from individuals who want me to pay them to avoid negative publicity,” the Fox host declared in a statement. He noted that “in my more than 20 years at Fox News Channel, no one has ever filed a complaint about me with the Human Resources Department, even on the anonymous hotline.”
4. O’Reilly took a “vacation” on April 11.

Despite the president’s defense and the loyal viewers, O’Reilly left the air after April 11, when he announced plans for a vacation. While he had planned to take the week off, his vacation was originally going to start later.

O’Reilly’s supporters alleged that the advertiser boycott was being driven in large part by liberal media watchdog group Media Matters and Mary Pat Bonner, a fundraiser with ties to Hillary Clinton. Indeed, liberal groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW) and the Women’s March were calling for O’Reilly’s head shortly after the Times exposé.

Naturally, however, O’Reilly’s scandal followed a similar story about the former Fox News chairman and chief executive, Roger Ailes, who resigned last July. The fact that liberal groups pushed O’Reilly’s ouster does not disprove the allegations against him.

5. O’Reilly’s not giving up.

Despite the fact that Bill O’Reilly is finished with Fox News, his lawyer went on the offensive Tuesday night, threatening a release of “irrefutable” evidence that liberal organizations colluded to destroy the former Fox host.

“Bill O’Reilly has been subjected to a brutal campaign of character assassination that is unprecedented in post-McCarthyist America,” declared O’Reilly’s attorney, Marc E. Kasowitz, in a statement. “This law firm has uncovered evidence that the smear campaign is being orchestrated by far-left organizations bent on destroying O’Reilly for political and financial reasons.”

“That evidence will be put forth shortly and it is irrefutable,” Kasowitz forebodingly declared.

If Kasowitz indeed possesses such evidence, it might behoove him to release it quickly. O’Reilly may be gone from Fox News, but it seems he won’t be going down without a fight.

WISE WORDS FROM SECRETARY OF STATE REX TILLERSON

https://pjmedia.com/video/sec-of-state-tillerson-says-obamas-deal-fails-to-achieve-the-objective-of-a-non-nuclear-iran/

While our President is beating about the Bush policies, Tillerson is on target….rskThe US Secretary of Stare on the threat of Iran’s “provocative actions” to the United States, Israel, and the world:
Sec. of State Tillerson Says Obama’s Deal ‘Fails to Achieve the Objective of a Non-Nuclear Iran’ By Nathan Lichtman

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is confirming our worst fears, saying that Iran is on the verge of becoming a major nuclear threat. He said, “The JCPOA [Obama’s Iran deal] fails to achieve the objective of a non-nuclear Iran. It only delays their goal of becoming a nuclear state. This deal represents the same failed approach of the past that brought us to the current imminent threat we face from North Korea. The Trump Administration has no intention of passing the buck to a future administration on Iran.” Now we wait to see what the administration will do to change our foreign policy…

Ernst: Trump’s Costly Trips ‘Bothering’ Some GOP Senators, Must Be Discussed By Bridget Johnson

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said she and other GOP senators are questioning why President Trump is spending so much time away from the White House.

Trump has spent more than half of his weekends at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, including hosting Chinese President Xi Jinping and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. His son, Eric, defended the trips and 16 golf outings in 13 weeks of presidency as “a very effective tool” for the commander in chief: “If he can befriend people and find common respect, common ground and friendship – if you can have a good time together – then you are always going to see somebody in a very different light.” Membership dues at Mar-a-Lago have also doubled since Trump ascended to the Oval Office.

Judicial Watch, which tracked and slammed President Obama for $96 million in travel over eight years, said they would similarly scrutinize Trump’s travel, including the Mar-a-Lago trips that are estimated to run taxpayers about $1 million to $3 million each and could outpace costs of Obama’s total travel in one year. The Government Accountability Office told lawmakers last month that they would conduct a requested review of Trump’s travel costs, including examining whether adequate spaces exist at Mar-a-Lago to deal with classified information.

The GAO is also studying whether the Secret Service and Defense Department have mechanisms to rein in travel costs. CBS News reported last week that the Secret Service had spent $35,185 on golf cart rentals in Palm Beach before Easter weekend.

Trump, who was critical of Obama’s travel, hasn’t used the highly secure Maryland presidential retreat he dubbed “very rustic,” Camp David.

At a town hall in her home state Tuesday, Ernst was asked about the frequent Mar-a-Lago trips.

“I wish he would spend more time in Washington, D.C., as that’s what we have the White House for and we’d love to see more of those State Department visits in Washington, D.C., and I think it’s smart that he does business in Washington, D.C., so I’ve had those same concerns myself,” Ernst replied.

“I have not spoken to him about the Florida issue yet, but that is something that I think has been bothering not just me but some other members of our caucus,” the senator added. “So, I think that is going to be a topic of discussion that we have when we get back to Washington, D.C.”

On Turkey, Trump Catches Spring Fever By Andrew C. McCarthy

Amid reports of significant ballot-box stuffing, roughing up dissenters, and other electoral fraud, Turkey’s sharia-supremacist strongman, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, hammered the final nail in the coffin of his country’s democracy. Last weekend, he narrowly prevailed in a referendum that formally concentrates in the presidency the autocratic powers he had previously usurped.

Afterwards, Donald Trump called to congratulate him.

You read that right. The president of the United States called to congratulate a terror-supporting Islamist ruler on completing his country’s turn away from Western liberalism.

Five years ago, I wrote a book called Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy. It was largely about Erdogan and Turkey. That story needed telling in order to explain why, far from a democratic revolution, the so-called Arab Spring would result in the ascendancy of political Islam in all its classic totalitarianism. The point was that we knew how the story would end in the Middle East and North Africa because the same story had already played out in Ankara.

And so it did.

Erdogan had seized the reins thanks to a constitutional quirk ironically designed to keep Islamists out of power. Gradually — in many ways, brilliantly — he strengthened his hand until, finally, he succeeded in his goal of eviscerating the secular, Westward-leaning society forged by Mustafa Kemal — Atatürk — out of the Ottoman Empire’s post-World War I collapse.

Spring Fever presaged what happened last weekend. Though he was still prime minister at the time (mid-2012, the height of Arab Spring exuberance), I contended that Erdogan’s goal was “the adoption of a new constitution with a powerful presidency that Erdogan would occupy.” Thus, my rueful conclusion that “‘Islamic Democracy’ begins to sound a lot like Russian ‘democracy.’”

It was always sadly amusing that Western devotees of “Islamic democracy” pointed to “the Turkish model” as proof positive that their oxymoronic fantasy could become Middle Eastern reality.

Even in their rose-tinted telling, the Arab Spring was supposed to be a mass transformation from dictatorships to democracy. Turkey, to the contrary, was already a democracy when Erdogan took over in 2003. He represented a shift from a secular, pro-Western orientation to sharia supremacism. There never was an Arab Spring, but Erdogan is the Turkish Winter, transforming democracy into dictatorship.

Steadily, he accumulated power though starting from a position of weakness. He was shrewd, but the tea leaves were never hard to read. “Democracy,” he proclaimed, “is just the train we board to reach our destination.” Erdogan never saw democracy as a goal, never aspired to adopt a culture of liberty and the protection of minority rights. For him democracy was nothing but the procedural means — mainly, popular elections in a Muslim majority country — to the desired end of imposing sharia, Islam’s societal framework and legal system. “I am a servant of sharia,” Erdogan was wont to say when he was Istanbul’s mayor — though he preferred to refer to himself as the city’s “imam.”

As prime minister, his masterstroke was to exploit the con-job known as European integration. Erdogan knew that, for all their flowery rhetoric, Germany, France, and the rest had no intention of welcoming a Muslim country of 80 million into the EU. Moreover, as an Islamist in the Muslim Brotherhood mold, Erdogan despises the West and had no intention of conforming in order to join. To this day, he exhorts Muslims to integrate into the West but resist assimilation. Indeed, he has described Western pressure on Muslims to assimilate as a “crime against humanity.” When it comes to Europe, Erdogan’s long range plan is to extort its accommodation of Islamic norms, not to become a partner.

Palestinians: Hunger Strike or Smokescreen? by Bassam Tawil

It is an integral part of the Palestinian strategy to undermine, isolate, delegitimize and destroy Israel.

It is not only Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas who is in trouble. Marwan Barghouti, too, knows better than to air dirty Fatah laundry. What, then, is to be done? The traditional diversionary tactic: Direct the heat towards Israel.

Stripped of its Western trappings, Barghouti’s “hunger strike” is actually a struggle between Abbas and yet another Fatah pretender to the throne. And once again, Israel — the state that supposedly so “mistreats” incarcerated Palestinian terrorists — takes the heat.

Palestinians have an old habit of settling internal scores by diverting their grievances and violence towards Israel. This practice is clear to those who have been monitoring developments in the Palestinian arena for the past decades. It is an integral part of the Palestinian strategy to undermine, isolate, delegitimize and destroy Israel.

Those less familiar with Palestinian culture and tactics, however, have difficulty understanding the Palestinian mindset. Officials in Washington, London, Paris and other Western capitals rarely meet the ordinary Palestinian, the “man on the street” who represents the authentic voice of the Palestinians.

Instead, these officials meet Palestinian politicians and academics from Ramallah — the “experts” who are actually accomplished con artists. Such Palestinians grasp the Western mindset very well, and use their understanding to twist Western officials any which way they want.

The Western reaction to the hunger strike declared on April 17 by Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails is a case in point. The strike was initiated by Marwan Barghouti, a senior Fatah official who is serving five life terms for his role in terror attacks against Israelis. Barghouti has been in prison for 15 years so far.

Remarkably, despite Barghouti’s long-term imprisonment, this is his first hunger strike, apparently despite the poor incarceration conditions that have supposedly driven him to this move. Or might there be some other factor behind Barghouti’s sudden acute discomfort?

The hunger strike is, in fact, completely unrelated to conditions in Israeli prisons. Rather, Barghouti’s hunger strike is directly linked to a power struggle that has long been raging inside his Fatah faction. More than a move against Israel, the hunger strike is aimed at Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas (who is also chairman of Fatah).

Is the “Right to Choose” Absolute? by Gerald R. McDermott

Gerald McDermott is Anglican Chair of Divinity at Beeson Divinity School. He is the editor of The New Christian Zionism and author of Israel Matters.II

If there is agreement that a life is human, the individual’s right to choose is not final. The state has a responsibility to protect innocent life.
In other words, the decision in Roe v. Wade declares that the individual right to choose abortion is not absolute, but that there are times when the state can interfere in order to promote “its interest in the potentiality of human life.”

Imagine you are driving on a foggy night and you see a dark figure ahead. It could be a fallen branch. It might even be a little deer, or, God forbid, a little child. Do you keep on driving full speed and crash through it, or put on the brakes? If you think it might be a human person, either dead or alive, what should you do?

Most of us would say that even if we are uncertain, we should stop and check. We should give the benefit of the doubt to something that might be human, and, if it is, treat it with care.

I am sure that most everyone would stop and do everything he or she could to protect anything that might be human. But a recent article for Gatestone suggests that society has no obligation to interfere with a woman who chooses to get an abortion. The article concedes that question of when life begins is complex, and suggests that after the first trimester the question becomes more difficult. But it fails to distinguish between early and late abortions. The author criticizes “anti-abortion right-to-life advocates” who say that the state should sometimes step in:

“They do not want any woman to have the right to choose abortion for herself. They want to have the state choose for her — to deny her the right to choose between giving birth to an unwanted child and having an abortion.”

According to the article, the question comes down to who should make decisions about life and death — the pregnant woman or the “impersonal state.” Of course, conservatives agree that in most cases there should be individual freedom, particularly when it comes to very personal choices about pregnancy and children. But while conservatives differ on public policy for abortions in the first trimester and in cases of incest and rape (which according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute total less than one percent), they agree with some liberals that the state should protect life in the last trimester. Perhaps a majority of liberals, however, would say the state should never intervene on abortion, even when the baby is healthy and viable in the last trimester.

Liberals and conservatives generally agree that the state must intervene to protect innocent human life when it is threatened, and so should prosecute and punish murderers who take the lives of innocent children or adults. So, the individual’s right to choose to protect or end a life is not absolute. If there is agreement that a life is human, the individual’s right to choose is not final. The state has a responsibility to protect innocent life.

Words That May Never Be Heeded By Paul Gottfried

A certain hyperbole and obscuring of the full truth are seen as necessary to advance the kind of society that progressives want us to embrace.

Fred Reed, a talented commentator and former Marine who now lives in Mexico, recently posted a gutsy piece about all the achievements that white people should be proud of. Fred admits that whites, like other races, have committed their share of outrages; nonetheless, he also calls attention to their past and present attainments in the arts and sciences, and their respect for the ideal of freedom. Fred also predicts that if anyone comes up with a cure for cancer, this too will likely emanate from the mind of a white scientist or else from the talented descendant of someone who came here from the Far East.

Fred is clearly responding to the predominantly white Millennials who are protesting “white privilege” and screaming that “Black Lives Matter,” but presumably not white ones. If only “white college students” and the smug leftist media and professoriate who influence them could be reminded of what they owe to a predominantly white civilization, then perhaps they would take a more favorable view of their ancestors and kinsmen!

Fat chance of that happening, for more than one reason. One, the pitifully little concerning the Western past that has entered the consciousness of the average “white college student” is filtered through the multicultural left. It usually enters the student’s mind in this and no other way Fred’s corrections will not likely change the balance of power in our educational system or in our cultural industry. I recall that by the time I retired from teaching college after forty years, the only “cultural facts” that students entering a Western Civilization class could provide are that “Islam is a religion of peace” and “diversity is strength.” And perhaps it isn’t necessary for these products of our educational system to know more about the Western past to navigate through life. Their low opinion about their inherited civilization may actually bring academic and social benefit. It may be already part of a new shared culture. For most of our young, there may be little incentive to search beyond the clichés that Fred sets out to refute.

Two, and perhaps even more significantly, those whom Fred is trying to reach have no sense of belonging to a civilization that reaches back into the distant past. Their frame of reference is shaped by others who are living in a one-dimensional present. These young people, as far as I can tell, think that they know one thing for sure about the past: bad white dudes ran it. And we’re well rid of those times. Of course, those whose minds Fred hopes to change have no idea of their cultural debt to long dead males like Euclid, Dante, Bach, Newton, etc. But, even more relevant, they don’t see themselves as standing in any line of descent, culturally or physically, going back to the artistic, religious, and intellectual giants of the past. In fact, it’s doubtful that they even know much about their families, whatever their race, going back for more than one generation.

European Establishment Tries New Election Tactic: Full Embrace of the EU To counter rising nationalist parties, French and German candidates mount vigorous defense of the EU and its single currency, a switch that will be tested in French presidential elections this weekend By Stacy Meichtry and Anton Troianovski

When French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel last month, the conversation turned to a question bedeviling Europe’s political establishment. How could they halt the rising tide of nationalism across the Continent?

Mr. Macron, who is fighting right-wing euroskeptic Marine Le Pen for the lead in Sunday’s election for France’s top office, had an answer. He said the European Union needed more integration, not less.

For years, mainstream leaders, faced with a rising populist movement, relied on a strategy of containment. That involved ignoring its rhetoric, dismissing demands to dismantle the EU as a recipe for turmoil, and at times mimicking its language. The limits of that approach have been laid bare by Britain’s decision to leave the EU, Ms. Le Pen’s rise in France, and recently the surge of a euroskeptic French candidate on the far left, Jean-Luc Mélenchon.

With elections in France this weekend and in Germany later this year, pro-EU forces are adopting a new approach: a full-throated defense of the economic bloc and its place in their countries’ future.

The shift is embodied by Mr. Macron, who has defined himself in opposition to Ms. Le Pen, figuratively wrapping himself in the blue and gold-starred EU flag she would remove from government buildings.

“Our fight for fraternity will be our fight for Europe,” Mr. Macron told a February rally in Lyon organized across town from where Ms. Le Pen was declaring her candidacy. “Europe! Europe!” the crowd of thousands chanted.

Where Ms. Le Pen wants to reinforce France’s national borders, Mr. Macron says the solution to its terrorism fears is to bolster the frontiers of the EU. She wants a more independent defense policy for France; he wants tighter military coordination across the bloc.

And where Ms. Le Pen sees the euro as the root of France’s economic woes, Mr. Macron touts the EU’s single market as the key to French prosperity. CONTINUE AT SITE

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to Visit White House May 3 During visit, Trump plans to reaffirm commitment to Israeli-Palestinian peace deal By Rebecca Ballhaus see note please

That didn’t take long did it…..? Back to the idiocy of a two state dissolution of Israel…..rsk
WASHINGTON—Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas will meet with President Donald Trump in Washington on May 3, the White House said Wednesday.

Mr. Trump will use the visit to reaffirm the U.S. commitment to reaching a peace deal in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters in a briefing Wednesday.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu already visited the White House earlier this year. During a joint news conference, Mr. Trump abandoned Washington’s decades-old push for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, saying the two sides should determine for themselves whether separate states are necessary for peace and hinting at a broader approach to Mideast discord. He also asked Mr. Netanyahu to “hold back on settlements for a little bit.” Mr. Netanyahu declined to agree to that.

Following Mr. Trump’s remarks, Mr. Abbas didn’t acknowledge the shift, and said he would continue to work with the U.S. administration on establishing two states. He also called on Israel to heed Mr. Trump’s call to hold back on settlements.