Cori Bernardi is an Australian politician. He has been a Liberal Party member of the Australian Senate since 2006, representing the state of South Australia. In Australia our winter is their summer and “liberal” is conservative.

Bernardi has written a book

Product Details
THE CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION by Cory Bernardi (Nov 1, 2013)

An unapologetic advocate for mainstream values, Cory Bernardi presents a bold vision for a stronger nation that is founded on conservative principles. He takes the fight to the political left and calls for an overturning of the existing moral relativism that threatens Australia’s way of life. Bernardi argues that the best way to tackle this threat is to protect and defend the traditional institutions that have stood the test of time, something that he has done during his time as a senator in the Australian Parliament. Bernardi’s work courageously promotes the conservative cause and sets out a path to a better Australia through a commitment to faith, family, flag, freedom and free enterprise. This volume reminds us that conservative principles – not the populist whims of the left – generate enduring stability, success and strength. That is why we need a conservative revolution.

And guess what? The lefties have gone viral in denouncing the book in the reviews section. Guess why? He’s pro-life…rsk



Even while it exaggerates the amount of warming, the IPCC is becoming more cautious about its effects.

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will shortly publish the second part of its latest report, on the likely impact of climate change. Government representatives are meeting with scientists in Japan to sex up—sorry, rewrite—a summary of the scientists’ accounts of storms, droughts and diseases to come. But the actual report, known as AR5-WGII, is less frightening than its predecessor seven years ago.

The 2007 report was riddled with errors about Himalayan glaciers, the Amazon rain forest, African agriculture, water shortages and other matters, all of which erred in the direction of alarm. This led to a critical appraisal of the report-writing process from a council of national science academies, some of whose recommendations were simply ignored.

Others, however, hit home. According to leaks, this time the full report is much more cautious and vague about worsening cyclones, changes in rainfall, climate-change refugees, and the overall cost of global warming.


Whoever heard of a Palestinian Solidarity Committee laying the welcome mat for Israel-supporters, opening its door to Zionists? “Open Hillel” is very, very, very, strange!


It would be guests from hell that demand the welcome mat, even as they convey a brittle dislike for the host and won’t put out the welcome mat when their turn comes. And they are banging on Hillel’s door.

Hillel, if you don’t know, is the Foundation for Jewish Campus Life, and the Jewish guests at the door are academic types that wince at everything Israel does or stands for. So for Hillel to adopt the motto, “Wherever we stand, we stand with Israel” is tantamount to winding up the wincers.

“It alienates students critical of Israeli policies”, they protest. “It also brings ideology into an otherwise religious movement,” add the young Jewish adults for good measure.

They belong to Open Hillel, the latest group to latch onto the cause that confers prominence. Give Israeli policy a spanking and you open a hundred doors. Groupies drawn to the cause célèbre are thus bound to find Hillel rules irksome, especially when they block anti-Israel speakers at campus events. Hillel actually keeps a blacklist; it bars people and groups that:

1) Deny the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish and democratic state with secure and recognized boundaries.



The Democrats, being still very much the party of Lyndon Baines Johnson, have never enjoyed a great reputation for integrity, but the past few days have been especially hard on them: California Democratic state senator and gun-rights foe Leland Yee was indicted as an illegal arms trafficker operating in partnership with a murder-for-hire operation headed by a Hong Kong gangster known as “Shrimp Boy”; the Democratic mayor of Charlotte, Patrick Cannon, was indicted on public-corruption charges related to local development and transit projects and to his allegedly accepting bribes in connection with a planned feminine-hygiene empire; in New York, a Democratic assemblyman’s office was raided on suspicion of misuses of travel funds; the Democratic leader of the U.S. Senate, Harry Reid, was caught channeling thousands of dollars in campaign money to his granddaughter, while omitting her surname, which is his surname, from the record.

But, so far as we know, nobody had sex with anybody.

When Republican officials or would-be officials are caught with their pants down — and their numbers have not been insignificant — it is taken as an instance of hypocrisy that undermines the GOP’s platform regarding traditional moral practices and family arrangements. There is something to that, but not as much as our pharisaical friends in the press would have us believe: For one thing, there is a difference between having a moral failing and holding political positions insincerely, an important distinction that rarely if ever enters into these discussions; and, for another thing, it’s not as if Bill Clinton ran in 1992 on a platform of sodomizing the interns and perjuring himself to cover it up.

Andrew Rosenthal of the New York Times is fairly typical in his approach to the issue, writing about the case of Representative Scott DesJarlais, a putatively pro-life Republican congressman who urged abortions on both his wife and one of his half-dozen mistresses:

Which is more maddening — the absurd positions that right-wing Republicans take on abortion and other social issues, or the fact that they are so often shown to be complete hypocrites? . . . This happens an awful lot with right-wing Republicans who pound the pulpit of family values. When a right-winger suddenly starts talking about extra-marital sex, for example, I figure it’s about 48 hours before that politician ends up on the front page of a tabloid, outed for having an affair.

Obamacare’s Dependency Agenda A Pennsylvania Widow Resists Being Pushed Into Welfare. Deroy Murdock


Helen lives in Pennsylvania. Her experience with Obamacare has left her so humiliated that she wants to keep her surname to herself.

Helen’s pride and self-respect reflect her intense sense of independence. This 60-year-old widow, a self-employed house cleaner, has survived on an annual personal income of approximately $15,000. She pays her own Social Security taxes and tells me that she never has accepted a penny of public assistance. She always has wanted to rely only on herself.

Helen could not afford health insurance, but she deliberately avoided government medical programs. Instead, she was happy with the care that she had received for the last 20 years at Health Link in Southampton, Pa. At this free clinic, doctors donate their time to see self-employed people whose low incomes are documented via their tax returns. Among other things, Health Link arranged for Helen to see dentists and other specialists and receive no-cost pharmaceuticals.

Nonetheless, this lifelong Democrat considered it her duty to sign up for Obamacare. After all, it is the law. And Helen did not want to pay the penalty for violating the individual mandate.

So, last October, Helen visited HealthCare.gov and smacked into the same delays and diversions that have flummoxed so many Americans. She rang the HealthCare.gov help line and spoke with someone whom she described as sweet and friendly. The woman on the phone, who never gave her name, listened to Helen and then recommended that she seek public assistance.

“Public assistance?” Helen erupted. “That sounds like welfare. I raised my family my whole life and never took one penny of welfare — ever. Why would I want to take government aid now? This is why the system is the way it is today. I am an honest person, and this is why I am refusing welfare.” The woman kept firing questions at her. Helen felt as if the navigator wanted to derail her train of thought, break her down, and make her surrender and accept government aid.

Helen says the Obamacare navigator told her that she did not meet the criteria to qualify for Obamacare. Still, since Helen already had started the application, the navigator told her to complete it. This devoured another hour and 45 minutes. The application was filled with some three dozen deeply personal questions about her bank account, health condition, and even HIV status.


Sorry. I have to vent a bit. The latest snafu in the Obama/Kerry enabled dismantling of Israel labeled as a “peace process” is the failure of the Palarabs to recognize Israel as a Jewish state….Say what? And it is ludicrous that any sentient person even wastes an ounce of ink or a moment with keyboard and mouse on that claptrap.

Why not declare that heretofore we will not recognize Yemen, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Iran as Moslem states.

Furthermore, to continue the charade we no longer recognize Botswana, Angola, Mali, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Congo, Ivory Coast, Ghana as Black African states.

If Israel is not a Jewish state, then what is it? A dhimmi state?



The Arab League, a group composed of 22 Muslim and Arab states, was founded in 1945 with the aim of fostering Arab unity and establishing a coherent, uniform Arab policy. In reality, however, the Arab League is a farcical cacophony of deeply xenophobic, autocratic Arab-Muslim nations whose hatred for each other is matched only by their hatred of Israel and distrust of Western values.

This year’s Arab league summit, which convened in Kuwait – a country that not too long ago was gobbled up by fellow League member Iraq – highlights the absurdity of the Arab League and its façade of unity. The following represents the dizzying labyrinth of mistrust and political back-stabbing in the Arab world and its risible and often contradictory manifestations.

The Shiite-led Iraqi government, which governs a dysfunctional entity that has essentially split into three rival parts, has accused Saudi Arabia and Qatar of waging war on Iraq. Saudi Arabia has in turn withdrawn its ambassador from Qatar (yes, the same Qatar that has ostensibly allied itself with Saudi Arabia to wage war on Iraq) over its support for the Muslim Brotherhood. The United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have also withdrawn their ambassadors. This despite the fact that all four – Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE and Qatar — are all part of the Gulf Cooperation Council; so much for “cooperation.”

Syria – where at least six disunited Sunni rebel groups are battling the Shiite-backed Alawites – has for all intents and purposes ceased to exist as a nation. Syria’s Kurds, taking a cue from their Kurdish kinsmen in Iraq, want nothing to do with either side and have carved out an autonomous salient in the northeast. Bashar Assad’s crackdown prompted Syria’s suspension from the League. Last year, the League invited rebel representatives to appear on behalf of Syria, but inexplicably this year no such invitation was forthcoming and the Syrian seat remains vacant.

Egypt, a country wracked by internecine conflict waged between a stew of militarists, Islamists, secularists and Salafists, has virtually declared war on Hamas over the latter’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas has also had a falling out with its former ally, the Islamic Republic of Iran over Hamas’s perceived support for anti-Assad rebel factions.

Council on Foreign Relations Caught Lying about Cuba-North Korea Arms Smuggling By Humberto Fontova


Back in July a North Korean ship trying to sneak military contraband through the Panama Canal after leaving Havana was stopped by Panamanian authorities on a tip it was carrying illegal drugs.

Instead the ship, named the Chon-Chon Gang, was found to be crammed with missiles, MIGS and mucho military contraband from terror-sponsoring Cuba en route to North Korea. Nuke-rattling North Korea, by the way, has been under a UN arms embargo since 2006.

At first, Cuban terror-sponsoring dictator Raul Castro tried threatening the Panamanian authorities behind the scenes to keep the issue mum, or at least parrot their version of the scam. But Panamanian President Ricardo Martinelli scoffed at the blatant blackmail and made the truth known.

The Council on Foreign Relations, on the other hand, parroted the Castroite version of events almost instantly and almost word for word. Here’s Castro’s version of events:

“The 508-foot Chong Chon Gang carried 240 tons of obsolete defensive weapons were to have been repaired in North Korea and returned to Cuba as part of a commercial deal.” (July 17, 2013)

Now here’s the Council on Foreign Relations Latin American “expert” Julia Sweig’s version of events:

“It’s not about Havana trying to circumvent an arms embargo. It’s about: how about we refurbish our old weapons” (Julia Sweig (7/28/2013.)

Admittedly, the issue was in doubt at the time. No investigation had been conducted. So who knew the truth?

Why ‘Moderate Islam’ Is an Oxymoron Posted By Raymond Ibrahim


Reprinted from CBN News.

At a time when terrorism committed in the name of Islam is rampant, we are continuously being assured—especially by three major institutions that play a dominant role in forming the Western mindset, namely, mainstream media, academia, and government—that the sort of Islam embraced by “radicals,” “jihadis,” and so forth, has nothing to do with “real” Islam.

“True” Islam, so the narrative goes, is intrinsically free of anything “bad.” It’s the nut-jobs who hijack it for their own agenda that are to blame.

More specifically, we are told that there exists a “moderate” Islam and an “extremist” Islam—the former good and true, embraced by a Muslim majority, the latter a perverse sacrilege practiced by an exploitative minority.

But what do these dual adjectives—“moderate” and “extremist”—ultimately mean in the context of Islam? Are they both equal and viable alternatives insofar as to how Islam is understood? Are they both theologically legitimate? This last question is particularly important, since Islam is first and foremost a religious way of life centered around the words of a deity (Allah) and his prophet (Muhammad)—the significance of which is admittedly unappreciated by secular societies.

Both terms—“moderate” and “extremist”—have to do with degree, or less mathematically, zeal: how much, or to what extent, a thing is practiced or implemented. As Webster’s puts it, “moderate” means “observing reasonable limits”; “extremist” means “going to great or exaggerated lengths.”

It’s a question, then, of doing either too much or too little.

The problem, however, is that mainstream Islam offers a crystal-clear way of life, based on the teachings of the Koran and Hadith—the former, containing what purport to be the sacred words of Allah, the latter, the example (or sunna, hence “Sunnis”) of his prophet, also known as the most “perfect man” (al-insan al-kamil). Indeed, based on these two primary sources and according to normative Islamic teaching, all human actions fall into five categories: forbidden actions, discouraged actions, neutral actions recommended actions, and obligatory actions.



The race-hack usual subjects recently attacked Congressman Paul Ryan for stating that the problems plaguing the poor––incarceration, fatherless children, drug abuse, rampant violence, and welfare-dependence–– are a consequence of a dysfunctional culture that scorns marriage, parenthood, education, work, and virtues like self-control. Given that blacks are overrepresented among the underclass, these unexceptional observations––regularly made by others, including Barack Obama––called down a firestorm of racialist invective on Ryan. The abuse ranged from the usual clichés about “blaming the victim” and racist “dog-whistles,” to a New York Times columnist accusing Ryan of being as callous as the Brits were about the 19th century Irish famine. Such ad hominem calumny suggests that somebody’s ox is being gored and doesn’t like it.

The overfed “ox,” of course, is the race industry and its enablers in the federal Leviathan. It’s understandable why these grievance-mongers want to deflect attention away from Ryan’s message. Since the rise of identity politics and anti-poverty programs in the 60s, the plight of the black underclass has worsened, even as the self-selected race tribunes––professors, “activists,” lobbyists, government employees, celebrities, politicians––have flourished. Given that the moral capital financing the race industry comes from the misery and suffering of underclass blacks, race-grievance entrepreneurs must ward off solutions to those problems that challenge the narrative justifying their own power.

That narrative is simple: white racism explains the epidemic of black-on-black murder, children without fathers, lack of education, and dependence on the government dole. Since Klan-style racist violence and Jim Crow legal racism have disappeared, “racism” has to be redefined in ever more subtle manifestations like “institutional racism.” The best example of this scam is the “disparate impact” standard for identifying racism, a favorite of the current Department of Justice. By this metric, a mere statistical imbalance in minority participation in car loans or home mortgages is a sign of racism even if no intent can be proven or even identified. This kind of thinking led to the federal regulations pressuring lenders to lower qualifying standards for home loans, which was a major factor in the housing bubble and the ensuing Great Recession of 2008. The hysteria over “profiling” is another example of this racialist voodoo. Even if a group is overrepresented among perpetrators of a crime, identifying suspects from that group when such a crime occurs is automatically racist.