Two standout observations, for mine, regarding today’s Kevin Rudd interview on Channel Ten’s ‘The Bolt Report’.
First, Rudd’s defence of his failed border protection policy introduced in 2007 was to, in essence, blame the Australian people. How so? By pointing out that we are a “democracy”, and arguing that he was following the “democratic mandate” given by the people at the 2007 election.
Apparently, his designing and spruiking of that policy as a reason to vote for him, before and after the 2007 election, is irrelevant. If enough people were stupid enough to vote for the ALP based on that policy, then its failure is the peoples’ fault.
Second, in defending his planned move to an ETS ahead of schedule, Rudd argued that the reason an ETS failed to be legislated much earlier (in 2009), was due to “an ungodly cabal” of conservatives and the Greens.
Apparently, if you do not support CO2 emissions trading, you are “ungodly”.
Makes one wonder which “god” Rudd serves.
And reminds one of Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein’s claim, that bankers are “doing god’s work“.
Videos of the interview will be available here.
See also:
EU ETS Myths Busted As Carbon Price Collapses; “Should Not Be Replicated”
TIME: Carbon Markets May Be Finished
Infographic: Visualising The Size Of Australia’s Carbon Derivatives Time Bomb
The Financialisation Of Nature
UPDATE:
From the transcript –
ANDREW BOLT: They’re snowing you, Prime Minister. To finish off, in 2007, Labor under you promised to turn back the boats. It promised to stop reckless spending. In 2010 Julia Gillard promised no carbon tax, and a budget surplus. This year all of those promises and a lot more were broken. What are you going to do to make people trust your promises now?
KEVIN RUDD: The first thing I would say is that climate change, building on where we’ve just been in this discussion, is real. It requires action, putting a price on carbon. What I put forward was a floating price way back when – rejected by an ungodly cabal of the Liberals and the Greens. And subsequently, Julia Gillard at the beginning of the last parliamentary term – or this parliamentary term.
Barnaby Is Right 
I did not see the Bolt interview and find it questionable whether or not Rudd would use the term “ungodly” in regard to those who oppose and ETS.
The climate change evidence continues to mount despite the doubting Thomas’s amongst us. Got another one in in the past fortnight:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/7/19/science-environment/globe%E2%80%99s-warm-streak-extends-340-months?utm_source=exact&utm_medium=email&utm_content=355914&utm_campaign=cs_daily&modapt=
I would like to see direct action via subsidies as this is less open to rorting from the moral deficient business community. Doing nothing is not an option.
The problem of ever increasing ‘boat people’ arriving on our shores is one involving the media and the poisoning of simple minds, forcing government(s) to act contrary to the interests of the nation. Just like like the withdrawal of the mining tax media attacks galvanising the minds of the masses in whatever direction is desired often results in bad outcomes. No wonder we cannot ever get a better money system going. Those in power know how to play the sheep and do their job well.
“I did not see the Bolt interview and find it questionable whether or not Rudd would use the term “ungodly” in regard to those who oppose and ETS.”
So, you’re straight up calling me a liar. Noted.
Suggest you hold your accusations until after you’ve seen the video evidence. It will be available later today, at the link given above.
Mick, I have deleted your most recent comment to this thread.
Regarding your complaint (in that deleted comment) that some comments here have been published with your full name — that is not my fault. It is yours. When you enter a comment, what will display is what you have typed in as your name. If you type “mick”, that is what will display. If you type “michael j****”, then that is what will display. I have no control over that. It is your responsibility.
With respect, as I have told you so many times already, you need to take far more time, look far more carefully, and think more, before acting.
Perhaps also delete your last comment as it was inappropriate.
Whilst I have been guilty of maximising the time I spend on any one blog your accusation is not always on the money. I am willing to debate your solution to usury. It would be a great debate for all and hopefully would get a consensus. Of course you have to then put your own views up for criticism and in the end your alternative system may prove to be unworkable. The jury is out on that one but only one way to find out. Wanna play? Cheers.
“Of course you have to then put your own views up for criticism…”
I already have. In July 2011, when that essay was posted. If you have an informed, relevant, constructive criticism to make, then make it, in the comments section of that essay. To date, all I have seen from you is evidence that (a) you’ve not even read it, and (b) that you do not yet fully and correctly understand the basic fundamental concepts discussed in that essay.
“Wanna play?”
No. I don’t. I’m not interested in “play”. I am interested in expressing my views on topics that interest me, and in the process, (hopefully) providing useful information and opinion to interested readers that perhaps they may not find elsewhere. As I have told you several times already Mick, I am not remotely interested in wasting my time on pointless “debate”. Especially pointless debate with those whose words evidence their being too lazy and care-free for finding the real truth of a matter to bother reading thoroughly and thinking carefully about the information already offered here, many times over.
Henceforth I will begin a policy of not approving your comments, wherever I think that they add nothing to the specific topic that has been posted about, or, are inexcusably ignorant (eg, you’ve been given links explaining the subject matter before), or, are simply antagonistic and spoiling for an argument (ie, “trolling” … Google it).
Good evening Mick.
Mick the ETS will not reduce CO2 in the air by any measureable quantity. It is just window dressing for the banking elites to launch a new derivative to keep people like you totally enslaved.
Whether you believe in AGW or not is irrelevant since nothing will change with an ETS and it is impossible to police it. If CO2 is a problem, tax the big Corporations as they take it from the ground. That tax can then be used to develop alternate energies such as solar. No,they want all the end users to pay for fossil fuels, while they reap even more profits.
Solar is not a high priority because it is relatively free. Time to wake up Mick.
“It is just window dressing for the banking elites to launch a new derivative to keep people like you totally enslaved.”
Exactly.
Even famous AGW-theory activist James Hansen opposes so-called “emissions trading”, having labelling the EU ETS as “ineffectual” and flawed. Australia’s Green-Left Weekly opposes it, and has often pointed out the problems with it.
Emissions trading is nothing more than a banker scam, designed to increase their profits, and more importantly, their economic and political control of the planet.
Actually Goldman Sachs is one of the biggest carbon trading brokers, and Malcolm was a director of this bank once. Even IMF and the World bank have warned about carbon credits as a bad investment. So is solar too and wind clean energy. James Hansen, Gore’s chief scientific adviser suggested that nuclear was the way to go for Australia. I agree the BBC invested part of the employees superannuation scheme in carbon trading, and that is a serious faulty investment plan. Carbon pollution is serious, but has nothing to do with CO2 a relatively small and non polluting greenhouse gas. Remember the biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor, then comes nitrogen, oxygen, CO2 a bare 3% and 1 % trace gases, like methane, nitrous oxides. The biggest nasty is sulphur dioxide, the nasty stuff spewed out by some industries and volcanoes. And killing off our microbiology in the soil with super phosphate. Its the microbiology that keeps plants fertile and growing. Feed the soil not the plant is the bottom line.
http://www.wireless77.com/?p=13478
.
Mr Rudd says he gets his advice on future weather events from the CSIRO. The CSIRO has the best scientists the government can buy.
.
“W as there ever a government quango as useless as the English Met Office? Perhaps the CSIRO comes to mind.
.
As Dr Raiche, retired CSIRO Chief Research Scientist, said, “The original Scientists of the CSIRO were the best of their day and the CSIRO was a non-Government organisation (a quango) working with quality science and how useful it was to Australia. In the 80′s, I noticed we were under increasing pressure to become more “Business like” and the doors were opened to “Management Consultation.”…We were given very strict, VERY strict guidelines on not publishing anything or publicly discussing any research that could be seen as critical to Government policy.If we did not do it, we would be subject to dismissal.”
.
The British Met predicted that snowy winters were a thing never to be seen again – no more White Christmases.
.
It predicted that 2009 would be a barbecue summer – everybody on the beach. It poured. The third ashes test that year was a washout.
.
2010 winter would be warm – it was freezing. Snow piled everywhere.
.
Fine weather for 2012? floods.
.
Now, in a hope-against-hope fingers-crossed press release on Christmas Eve they hoped nobody would notice the Met announced what Blind Freddy has been telling everyone at the Bomaderry Bowling Club for ages – there is no evidence that ‘global warming’ is happening.
.
Why does the met, why does the Australian BOM (Bureau of Meteorology) stuff up so spectacularly?
I can’t answer your observations Kevin. All I can say is that the day to day “weather”, is about as predictable as throwing a ‘head’ with one throw of a coin. Whilst the probability is 1/2 of this happening it is also quite possible that the opposite will occur. But throw a coin ten thousand times and you get pretty close to the theoretical outcome.
In regard to future weather patterns I can’t make any predictions and please excuse me if that is what is coming across. What I have been saying for some time is that there is a growing body of evidence and this is not from shonk scientists with vested interests. This is why I keep pointing to significant markers which keep coming.
I’d be happy to concede that I am wrong when the reports begin indicating a levelling off of both CO2 increases and temperature rises but both are showing little signs of this. So whilst some believe that climate science is a scam I have to take the evidence on its merits.
If the matter has not produced almost irrefutable evidence in 10 years time (mark it on your calendar) I’d be happy to buy you lunch. If it has you buy me lunch. Fair deal? Its an wager I genuinely hope to lose Kev. Cheers.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/06/29/laugh-riot-190year-climate-tipping-point-issued-despite-fact-that-un-began-10year-climate-tipping-point-in-1989/
.
Climate Depot Editorial
.
Once again, the world is being warned of a climate “tipping point.” The latest bout of stern warnings comes from a survey of 14 climate “experts.”
.
Get ready, we only have 190 years! Scientists ‘expect climate tipping point’ by 2200 – UK Independent – June 28, 2010 – Excerpt: “13 of the 14 experts said that the probability of reaching a tipping point (by 2200) was greater than 50 per cent, and 10 said that the chances were 75 per cent or more.”
.
Such silliness. It’s difficult to keep up whether it is hours, days, months or 1000 years. Here are few recent examples of others predicting climate “tipping points” of various durations.
.
HOURS: Flashback March 2009: ‘We have hours’ to prevent climate disaster — Declares Elizabeth May of Canadian Green Party
.
Days: Flashback Oct. 2009: UK’s Gordon Brown warns of global warming ‘catastrophe’; Only ’50 days to save world’
.
Months: Prince Charles claimed a 96-month tipping point in July 2009
.
Years: Flashback Oct .2009: WWF: ‘Five years to save world’
.
Millennium: Flashback June 2010: 1000 years delay: Green Guru James Lovelock: Climate change may not happen as fast as we thought, and we may have 1,000 years to sort it out’
.
It is becoming obvious that the only authentic climate “tipping point” we can rely is this one:
.
Flashback 2007: New Zealand Scientist on Global Warming: ‘It’s All Going to be a Joke in 5 Years’ (He wasn’t Optimistic enough — it only took 3 years!)
.
Inconvenient History of Climate ‘Tipping Point’ Warnings
.
As early as 1989, the UN was already trying to sell their “tipping point” rhetoric on the public. See: U.N. Warning of 10-Year ‘Climate Tipping Point’ Began in 1989 – Excerpt: According to July 5, 1989, article in the Miami Herald, the then-director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Noel Brown, warned of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming. According to the 1989 article, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.” (LINK) & (LINK)
.
NASA scientist James Hansen has been warning of a “tipping point” for years now. See: Earth’s Climate Approaches Dangerous Tipping Point – June 1, 2007 – Excerpt: A stern warning that global warming is nearing an irreversible tipping point was issued today” by James Hansen.
.
Former Vice President Al Gore invented his own “tipping point” clock a few years ago. Excerpt: Former Vice-President Al Gore came to Washington on July 17, 2008, to deliver yet another speech warning of the “climate crisis.” “The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis,” Gore stated.
.
Prince Charles claimed a 96-month tipping point in July 2009. Excerpt: The heir to the throne told an audience of industrialists and environmentalists at St James’s Palace last night that he had calculated that we have just 96 months left to save the world. And in a searing indictment on capitalist society, Charles said we can no longer afford consumerism and that the “age of convenience” was over.
.
‘World has only ten years to control global warming, warns Met Office – UK Telegraph – November 15, 2009
Excerpt: Pollution needs to be brought under control within ten years to stop runaway climate change, according to the latest Met Office predictions. […] “To limit global mean temperature [increases] to below 2C, implied emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere at the end of the century fall close to zero in most cases.”
.
The UN chief Ban Ki-moon further shortened the “tipping point” in August 2009, when he warned of ‘incalculable’ suffering without climate deal in December 2009!
.
Newsweek magazine waded into the tipping point claims as well. Newsweek wrote: “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.” But, Newsweek’s “tipping point” quote appeared in a April 28, 1975 article about global cooling! Same rhetoric, different eco-scare.
.
[Climate Depot Editor’s Note: The public understands that “we must act now” claims are being manufactured for political purposes. See: Gore: U.S. Climate Bill Will Help Bring About ‘Global Governance’ – July 10, 2009 – It is no wonder that more and more Americans are rejecting climate fears. See: Polling: ‘More Americans believe in haunted houses than man-made global warming’ – 37% vs. 36% – October 30, 2009 – For another explanation of why climate fear promoters are failing to convince the public, see: MIT Climate Scientist: ‘Ordinary people see through man-made climate fears — but educated people are very vulnerable’ – July 6, 2009]
.
UK Scientist Philip Stott ridiculed “tipping point” claims in 2007. Excerpt: In essence, the Earth has been given a 10-year survival warning regularly for the last fifty or so years. We have been serially doomed. […] Our post-modern period of climate change angst can probably be traced back to the late-1960s, if not earlier. By 1973, and the ‘global cooling’ scare, it was in full swing, with predictions of the imminent collapse of the world within ten to twenty years, exacerbated by the impacts of a nuclear winter. Environmentalists were warning that, by the year 2000, the population of the US would have fallen to only 22 million [the 2007 population estimate is 302,824,000]. […] In 1987, the scare abruptly changed to ‘global warming’, and the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was established (1988), issuing its first assessment report in 1990, which served as the basis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC).
So is our bet on Kev? I have given you good odds as 10 years is a short time frame and you may well win. Its a bet I would take if I were on your side of this debate.
Regarding Marc Morano: He is not known to me but I did a quick search and it appears that Morano has quite a checkered history. Have a look at the link:
http://davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-change-basics/climate-change-deniers/
I note the following description of Morano on the page:
“Although he has no scientific expertise, he is adamant that manmade global warming is a “con job” based on “subprime science.”
“These days Morano is paid by an industry-funded group to run the climate denial website ClimateDepot.com. ”
I think that pretty well says it all.
Whilst I do not claim to be an expert I do take note of who is making a call, who funds them and the credibility of the spruiker. And then we should all look at the evidence before us. I cannot verify experimental data and have to accept that what I am being told by credible scientists is not spin. And quite frankly using old data to extrapolate is a bit like eating last week’s pizza. Not to be recommended mate.
“I think that pretty well says it all.”
No Mick. All it says, is that the accuser (David Suzuki) has no argument. Instead of arguing the evidence, he attacks the character of the person (“no scientific expertise”, industry-funded “climate denial”, etc). That is called an “ad hominem” fallacy, and is always a solid indicator that the person using it has no case based on evidence.
Seems to me that if one is unable to put forward a credible scientific opinion from somebody not bankrolled by vested interests then there can be no plausible argument. Of all the scientists in the world surely some must be independent and give support.
From my limited understanding about about Suzuki it appears that he is respected and independent as well as having support from the science community. Does this count for nothing?
Being “respected” counts for nothing. Never ceases to amaze me how those who supposedly venerate an “evidence-based” view of truth, nevertheless spend more time arguing about matters of character (for their preferred hero, and against their anti-heroes), than they do about cold hard evidence.
Take some time, Mick, to use Google and find the documentation showing the actual written opinions of the scientists who contributed to each of the IPCC reports. From these alone, it is clear that there is no “consensus”. And certainly no “certainty”.
The final IPCC Summary that is released, that the (international banker-owned) media refer to and parrot ad nauseum, is a political document. A very small group at the top sort and collate the wide-ranging scientific opinions (which do NOT show certainty, or consensus), and then give a Summary that fits the agenda that is desired by the banker class. Their media then broadcast these “findings”.
Take a look at the difficulties the IPCC is having now, with its latest propaganda piece, as the “science” continues to unravel post-ClimateGate and post-Copenhagen:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/26/the-ipcc-has-a-real-pack-of-trouble-on-its-hands/
P.S. Do not come back and waste both yours and my time trying to rebutt this simply because it is from a “denialist” website. Either it is true, or, it isn’t. The source of the news is largely irrelevant. Trying to “shoot the messenger” does not alter the news he carries.
Mick,
The UN’s 10 year tipping point began in 1989. The game’s over. When does your last chance before we all fry start?
Rudd was lying about the dismantling of the Pacific Solution, he did not have a mandate as that was not what he campaigned on, he, as Andrew later noted, was going to turn back the boats.
Also, Rudd tried the argument from authority by stating the IPCC has 4000 scientists, which we all know is not true.
“Rudd..did not have a mandate as that was not what he campaigned on, he, as Andrew later noted, was going to turn back the boats.”
Thanks for pointing that out Cheryl. I saw a before/after YouTube video earlier this evening (after publishing this post) which proved this to be true; will have to try and find it.
Mind you, that still doesn’t change the fact that he essentially blamed the public for his policy failure. Oh what a tangled web we weave…
Unfortunately, in Rudd’s world someone else is always responsible. He is the ‘smartest’ person in the room, so he can’t be wrong.
http://www.occupycorporatism.com/study-psychopaths-can-turn-off-empathy-at-will/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OccupyCorporatism+%28OCCUPY+CORPORATISM%29
.
In fact, a psychopath would believe that the problem lays with the other person, so their comments and actions could not be a source of pain or suffering for those around them.
.
Identifiers that the person around you is a psychopath are:
.
• The person lacks empathy
• Makes self-serving moral choices
• Lies repeatedly and unnecessarily
• Is a master manipulator
• Deflects blame
• Shows no remorse for their actions
• Is two-faced
• Ignores their responsibly to loved ones and everyone around them
• Surrounds themselves with people who are useful to them
• Superficially charming and feigning sincerity for others for popularity
http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/11/06/australian-pm-rudd-warns-skeptics-are-too-dangerous-to-ignore-and-are-holding-the-world-to-ransom-climate-depot-responds/
.
RUDD CLAIM: The consensus is supported by “4000 scientists appointed by governments from virtually every country in the world.”
.
Climate Depot Response: Why not make up higher numbers? Why not just claim 50,000 UN scientists support the “consensus?” What silliness.
.
Reality Check: 2009 U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists has pushed the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists – a dramatic increase from the original 650 scientists featured in the initial December 11, 2008 release. The 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority report since the initial release 13 ½ weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week. The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. Update: Numbers Racket: Rudd blunders in claiming ’4000′ UN scientists: Reality Check: Only 60 UN experts ‘explicitly supported the claim made by the IPCC that global warming represents a threat to the planet’ – Nov. 6, 2009
.
See: Team of Scientists’ Open Letter To U.S. Senators: ‘Claim of consensus is fake’
.
Plus UN scientists speak out – against the climate fear claims! New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming — As Skeptics!
.
Here is a very small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN and its scientific methods.
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
.
“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.
.
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.
.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
In opposition, Rudd called climate change “the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time”, but this “Christians” moral approval of gay marriage [ poofters, lesbians ] is made without concern for Christian doctrine. He makes a point of flashing the Bible around, but the only part of it he has probably ever read is the front cover. I wonder if he says Amen after the recital of the “Lords Prayer” before each session of Parliament?
.
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Sodomy_KJV/
.
Leviticus 20:13 – If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
.
Leviticus 18:22 – Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
.
1 Corinthians 6:9 – Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
.
Jude 1:7 – Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
.
hypocrite!
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/07/27/nteu-j27.html
.
University union spends $1 million to back Greens
By Gabriela Zabala—SEP Senate candidate for Queensland
27 July 2013
.
“Having enforced the Labor government’s market-driven “education revolution” over the past six years, at the expense of the jobs and conditions of its members, the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) is trying to cover its tracks.
.
Aware of the hostility of university staff and students to the Labor government’s multi-billion dollar cuts to higher education over the past 12 months, the union has decided it cannot advocate a Labor vote in the 2013 election. Instead, it is backing the Greens, the very party that has propped up the minority Labor government since 2010. The NTEU announced in June that it will spend $1 million to assist Greens candidates in the federal election campaign…………..”
———
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/07/27/tali-j27.html
.
US-Australian military exercise rehearses for war against China
By James Cogan
27 July 2013
.
“The Labor government’s commitment to the Obama administration’s “pivot” to Asia and preparations for a military confrontation with China has been on display since July 15 in the form of a major exercise named “Talisman Saber.” As many as 22,000 American personnel and 16 ships, alongside up to 10,000 Australian personnel and 11 ships, are currently rehearsing in northern Australia and the Coral Sea for the outbreak of a war……………..
.
…………….The growth of tensions in the Asia-Pacific over the past two years is not a mystery. It is the direct outcome of the US military build-up in the region and its provocative encouragement of Japan and the Philippines to engage in tense stand-offs with China over disputed island territories. The US has exploited the flashpoints to step-up planning for the outbreak of conflict and an all-out attack on China………..”
If the electorate were intelligent it would not vote for either side of politics. That would send a message. By voting for the Greens, the poisonous chalice, one is still voting Labor but it does send a clear opinion which can be listened to or ignored. The latter is an invitation to electoral death so it will be seen.
As I have stated before I never vote for the Woolies and Coles duopoly of politics as both sides are corrupt and use public money in a corrupt manner. I wish that more people would do likewise but it is like trying to push concrete up a hill.
I would like to hear Socialist International member Kevin Rudd imply that the Australian people have given him a mandate to hand the Australian nation over to the U.N. to govern.
.
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/forcing-change/010/11-socialist-international.htm
.
“World government and world socialism. Those are the explicit goals of the Socialist International (SI), one of the planet’s most influential organizations, but one that is virtually unknown to the vast majority of Americans, since it is rarely mentioned in the major U.S. media………..
.
Prominent Socialist International member parties include:
.
• Britain’s Labour Party (Gordon Brown, Prime Minister),
• Australia’s Labour Party (Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister),
• South Africa’s African National Congress (Jacob Zuma, President),
• Spain’s Socialist Workers’ Party (Jose Zapatero, President),
• Nicaragua’s Sandinista Liberation Front (Daniel Ortega, President),
• Namibia’s South West Africa People’s Organization (Hifikepunye Lucas Pohamba, President),
• Chile’s Socialist Party (Michelle Bachelet, President), and
• Egypt’s National Democratic Party (Hosni Mubarak, President).
.
These and other SI member parties and their leaders have been fairly open in their calls for “global governance” to address what they claim are “global crises” that cannot be addressed (they say) in the current system of sovereign nation states. As The New American has reported, Prime Ministers Gordon Brown and Kevin Rudd have been especially outspoken, with hysterical pronouncements on the supposed need for UN governance to stave off supposed catastrophic global warming……………..”
Why are people so enamored with Rudd? Says a lot about those paid to support ALP via blogs etc., but reading through the lines, he’s a nut! His wife is a multi millionaire whose job seeking company is ripping off the unemployed and they are being investigated in UK for tax and also their unethical treatment of the unemployed. Gosh I wonder why he hasn’t called an election while the polls are swayed towards ALP. So he can get more media time to promote HIMSELF and half deluded ideology with hidden agendas. This Manus island affair. It won’t work and the people smugglers are telling people they won’t spend much time there as there will be legal challenges. Probably will. Manus is a derelict concentration camp and the locals are very much against it already! Someone I know, and Australian who lived on the island, said, I hope they don’t mix with the locals, legally or illegally or they won’t be seen again!
Bushbunny,
I wonder if the polls are rigged and so will be the vote count?
It is not those who vote that count, it is those who count the votes.
I think you are referring to polls. I have worked on polling day as a scrutineer for many State, Fed and local elections. Only once did a batch of votes were found that was in a local gov election in a ‘strange place’. But when it was included the candidate was a non event anyway. But what people do not understand with Fed elections is the way the 2 PP voting system works. If the candidates mentioned say the incumbent or another maybe three possibly, (That the polling officer opens a envelope mentioning the 2 PP candidates) your No 1 vote once cast is then finished if you vote for one of them. Your 2nd vote is not counted as a preference. I had an argument once with a Lib over Tony Windsor. “But I gave him my second preference.” But her first was for the National who lost. It’s only the minor parties prefs that count. I don’t believe that any miscount can happen with scrutineers overseeing the actual count. Rudd’s latest comment of taxing savings etc., if he gets in after this vain attempt to bring in more income and he gets in, will be a miracle. Cyprus here we come and I hope there is no run on the banks. I admit I am no expert on the IMF etc., but it will not be a popular admission by the acting PM. Mick even if you vote for someone like the Greens or an Independent, your voting card will if done properly will have to mention the Greens pref system on their election card. Last time the Greens candidate lost votes because they only told voters to put 1 on their voting card, and of course that card was voided as they didn’t fill in the rest of it. Get my gist, Mick? This will be a three horse race in the next election, the coalition and ALP and possibly the Greens too, as it is going around here that a vote for Greens is a vote for labor. Independents are shot. Possibly Wilkie might get in again, but I doubt it.
Agree….but the alternative says it all: Tony Abbott whose first 3 decrees are to fill the pockets of the richest among us. Damned if you do. Damned if your don’t. So maybe vote for a (suitable) Independent or minor party.
Don’t you read Blissfuls comments? Rudd is taxing the so called ‘Rich’ (depends on your description of Rich, I don’t believe self funded retirees are RICH, not the ones I know). You can’t get blood out of a stone Mick. We need the employer class to keep us employed, and the employed pay taxes too as do the employers. Rudd is a dictator and sham of a politician and we are becoming the laughing stock of the world, particularly as his wife is a multi millionaire and under investigation in UK for the woeful treatment of the unemployed and taxation purposes.
Respectfully, go to the US. A learning curve for any Australian who thinks that they have it bad.
I agree with you but both sides of politics are bastards. Neither is any better and if Tony Abbott wins the election expect pain. If you think that Rudd is bad I suggest that Abbott has already telegraphed his first 3 actions so get ready to pay. We all will.
As this will be my last post on this site good luck and hope that there is a silver lining. Cheers.
Cheers, Mick, I don’t agree with you. If you think the US is bad, what about UK. But we are just 10 years behind UK, with immigration a prime result of the present economic conditions in third world countries. I am disillusioned with Torbay and Windsor as I did support them both. Barnaby well he is a professional politician and I have met him and respect him. I worked for Ian Sinclair as a temporary political officer, and I remember him telling me. “We can’t do much in opposition but offer better solutions in parliament” and “I don’t worry about Keating, other than he taps my phone, it is one’s own party that is likely to stab you in the back..” Rudd vs Gillard. Working in an electoral office opens one’s eyes and there are political protocols and procedures enforced of course on staff and their elected candidate. Anyway I’m off to bed, I am tired and wish you all well, and hope to hear from you soon.