Archive for the ‘ Right ’ Category

Occupy Unmasked


It was Andrew Breitbart’s final project before his untimely death.

And the full movie is about to be released.

Meanwhile…

And currently…

Mitt Romney, Jon Stewart, the 47%, and a few sh*ts and giggles along the way


Who doesn’t love a good debate? This one is taken from facebook. It was about Mitt Romney and those entitlement remarks he made that surfaced from the leaked hidden camera video.

It’s a bit long, so I’ll put it below the fold. Hope you enjoy it! :-)

Continue reading

Labor’s dirt machine


They’ve been at it since the beginning of time, and were likely feeding David Marr scuttlebutt for months as he researched his attack on Opposition leader Tony Abbott, and yet the best that they both can up with is that maybe Tony Abbott hit a wall when he was a teenager, as “witnessed” by two people, Abbott haters no less, who weren’t even there.

:roll: :lol:

UPDATE

More here.

Sensitive thugs


Sensitive lot, aren’t they, over in northern Africa and the Middle East?

Turn on, say, CNN, and we’re witnessed to violent, inflamed protests in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, the Kashmir region, Yemen, Morocco, and Israel and the Palestinian territories.

And why? Well the catalyst for the protests which – no coincidence, surely – began on September 11, are over a crappy, low budget film depicting Mohammed as a thug and pedophile. Most of us would have happily lived out our lives having not the slightest inkling this film ever existed, except that an Egyptian sheik got wind of it, translated the YouTube trailer in to Arabic and, let’s face it, used it to light a fire under the ever-simmering hatred of the West, and the US in particular as the bastion of the West.

The film was ordinary to say the least, but that’s the price you pay for freedom, and in particular, freedom of speech – a cornerstone of free democratic nations (which incidentally, the Left in Australia has managed to dig up). I’d much rather have freedom and be offended once in a while than to live in a country where even freedom of thought is blasphemy, indeed punishable by death.

What we also know – or think we know – is that the bloke who made the film is one Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, FKA Sam Becile; technically a Coptic Christian (they make up around 10% of Egypt’s population), but as information comes to light, it turns out he’s a pretty shady guy with multiple names and social security numbers, has been convicted for narcotics offenses as well as bank fraud.

So basically, he’s a troll – not someone to be liked.

However, what I also don’t like is all the finger-pointing that has gone on “back home”. TBH, I’m not really that proud of my “Bye, Libya” post below (although a number of US lawmakers, both Democrat and Republicans, have called for a washing of hands also). But what really disgusts me is that whilst corpses have been paraded around the streets, and the senseless violence is ongoing, the Left have used this as an opportunity to attack US presidential candidate, Mitt Romney.

Now, for sure, the Right have also used this to attack sitting Democrat President Barrack Obama.

Yet, there is one key difference, it must be pointed out, that does not make what’s good for the goose good for the gander.

Romney has no actual political power, and in no way has been involved in any type of US government decision making when it comes to things such as an effective, appropriate response, coordination with the State Department, and security conditions on the ground which may have at least saved a few important lives.

The opposite is true for Obama. Geneva convention or not (the host country provides most security at embassies and consulates), the situation being what it was leading up to those abhorrent attacks, the Obama administration should have had proper security forces in place.

It did not.

And talk about gaffes in rhetoric – and the Left has been quick to jump on a perceived yet actually non-existent gaffe in Romney’s rhetoric – Obama comes out and says Egypt is neither enemy nor ally; a gaffe which the State Department had to correct and reiterate that Egypt, er, technically is an ally, in the legal definition of the word.

Not that Obama is being punished in the media for that massive faux pas

Double standards? Remember when Obama recently and most irresponsibly inflamed home grown violence by declaring that if he had a son, his name would be Trayvon Martin?

Still, that’s hardly the first example of collective, selective, faux leftist outrage.

But I digress, and fall into the same trap I’m blaming leftists for also doing.

The real bad guy here isn’t Obama. Nor is it Romney. Nor is it that film maker, not in a country that upholds freedom of speech, however offensive.

No, the real bad guys are those thugs who murdered the US Libyan ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens and three others including two former Navy Seals.

The real bad guys are those thugs staging their violent protests all over the middle east and northern Africa.

The real bad guys are people like that sheik who found that obscure video and used it to incite an entire nation, indeed regions, to hatred and violence.

The real bad guys are the ruling Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt who have called for a banning of Freedom of Speech in the West, and who have also called for *cough* peaceful protests this Friday, Islamic prayer day.

While emotions are still running high, can we in the West, on the Left and the Right, please remember who the real bad guys are (hint: it’s not each other).

So where are these climate scientists, gurus, our government is so sure of?


A planet in peril, or a society?

On ABC’s QandA political affairs program last Monday, aside from GetUp!’s Simon Sheikh’s collapse, we were privilege to the dulcet tones of Climate Change minister, Greg Combet.

A major part of his reassuring argument is that the government simply cannot ignore the warnings of all the world’s top scientists.

Noted empirical evidence – namely that we haven’t seen any warming in at least ten years – was dismissed as a rubbish argument.

No, Combet smoothly argued the scientists had to be trusted.

So? Who?

The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

Even they’ve admitted they are just another UN body, and certainly not the “gold standard”.

They admitted they don’t necessarily promote views of the world’s “top scientists”, but rather, make sure every geographic region is represented as equally as possible.

Sorry, but that’s not the world’s top scientists.

No Frakking Consensus:

Leading scientists. Top climate scientists. The best scientific minds. That was the fiction. Now, at long last, the IPCC is admitting that its authors don’t, in fact, all belong to the highest echelons of the scientific community. Instead we’re advised that the IPCC has “always sought” to “achieve geographic representation.”

The end of Chapter 5 in my book reads:

Journalists say we should trust the IPCC’s conclusions because its reports have been written by the world’s finest scientific minds. But in order for that to be the case the IPCC would need to apply very different criteria when selecting its authors.

It would need an explicit policy that says something along the lines of: Even though we are a UN body, we are not influenced by UN diversity concerns. We select the world’s best experts and only the world’s best experts – regardless of where they come from or what gender they happen to be.

In fact, readers may recall that the crux of the IPCC argument, the one governments such as our own are rolling with (OK, well basically just ours), was written by a teenage boy.

The blurb:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) performs one of the most important jobs in the world. It surveys climate science research and writes a report about what it all means. This report is informally known as the Climate Bible.

Cited by governments around the world, the Climate Bible is the reason carbon taxes are being introduced, heating bills are rising, and costly new regulations are being enacted. It is why everyone thinks carbon dioxide emissions are dangerous. Put simply: the entire planet is in a tizzy because of a United Nations report.

What most of us don’t know is that, rather than being written by a meticulous, upstanding professional in business attire, the Climate Bible is produced by a slapdash, slovenly teenager who has trouble distinguishing right from wrong.

This expose, by an investigative journalist, is the product of two years of research. Its conclusion: almost nothing we’ve been told about the IPCC is true.

So?

Who?

What top climate scientists? Could Combet quote one? A credible one?

The “father” of global warming Gaia theory, perhaps?

No. Remember, James Lovelock came out recently and admitted much of the doom and gloom he’d forecast simply isn’t and hasn’t turned out to be the case.

Unfortunately, not so many other climate scientists are as free to revise their views as Lovelock is. You see, he doesn’t require government funding to keep him afloat.

That is a significant catch 22 that simply cannot be dismissed.

So?

Who?

Australia’s very own Climate Commissioner, Tim Flannery, who the government pays $180,000 per year for three days work per week?

Well, this is a bloke who predicted permanent drought for Australia’s three major eastern coastal cities.

Now the dams are as good as full, and the desal plants have been mothballed – at a cost of considerable billions.

So? Who?

That other government-paid climate expert, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, who predicted our thriving reefs would be wiped out by now?

Who, Combet? Who, Gillard?

Who are they, are they on your payroll, and have any of their predictions come true?

Of course, their argument is bunkum, like as if a trace gas, of which humans produce only a fraction of, somehow drives global climate.

Hence, you’ll see more arguments like GetUp!’s Simon Sheikh’s; that being, “to rise above the politics”, like he said on QandA last Monday.

You see, to them, it was never about the science, even though that’s of course what they claimed and possibly what they also believed to a point.

And when the science started riding home, the hard empirical data that refuted the models, they argued it was time to “move on from that”.

OK. So we’re back to the political argument many claimed it always was?

Oh no, now it’s “let’s rise above the politics”.

Utterly vacuous words and sentiments. Deceitful, too – and perhaps to themselves the most.

People like Sheikh I do believe mean well. But he’s trying to change the way the world works because essentially, he doesn’t understand how the world works (and he must have been asleep in history class).

I would argue, however, that he does see genuine problems such as real pollution but has unfortunately, like many of our politicians and scientists, been caught up in CO2=pollution nonsense hypothesis.

He’s stuck.

He, like the other 50,000 delegates at the Rio+20 convention, have made and staked their careers on this.

Families to feed.

For example, what would he and his wife, Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC) chairperson, Anna Rose, do if this all came unravelled?

What would Combet do?

What would Flannery do?

What would Gillard do?

Looking at the big picture, that is hardly important. It’s what they’ve done, what they’re doing, and what they will do before time is up that actually matters in the broader sense.

Larry Pickering:

Now we know what Emerson’s “Whyalla” rendition was all about. It was a “get that up ya” celebration which wasn’t directed at us at all. He had already lost us.

Gillard’s old bed mate, Emerson, was serenading Abbott alone in a taunting display of ridicule.


*You know, if they’d actually just made it a big money-go-round – not a take from the rich, give to the poor – but an actual money-go-round, and admitted it as simply as that, something that might have stimulated the economy, I’d probably be half for it…*

Also, if this carbon tax did ANYTHING to lower global temperatures, then they might have a sliver of an argument. That said, the whole world could adopt it and not even Tim Flannery claims it would make an iota of difference.

Their argument of, “So what? We do nothing?” is fallacious. By wasting so much time, money, and endeavour on the carbon caper, there is in fact a lot we are not doing that we should be doing again.

My take on the SCOTUS Obamacare ruling


(originally posted on facebook)

OK. So the SCOTUS has deemed Obamacare constitutional and thus able to go ahead. Now those people who know me, know that I’m far from being a liberal (but JFTR, I’m not conservative, I’m libertarian/classical liberal). Interestingly, it was Justice Roberts, the chief justice and a conservative, who cast the deciding vote. He framed Obamacare as a tax, and thus as a tax, the congress has every right to do what it wants. Don’t like it? Vote them out, or you shouldn’t have voted them in. Tough bikkies. Not the court’s problem.

Now don’t get me wrong, I can’t stand progressive ideology, so don’t see the following as some kind of *coming together* watershed moment. I still have utmost disdain for the OWS crowd, PETAphiles, and idiots who think that man-made CO2 emissions somehow cause global warming.

However, Obama is a democratically elected president, and the SCOTUS has deemed Obamacare constitutional. For better or for worse, people should deal with that and get working. It’s not as if now there’s suddenly universal “free” healthcare in America anyway. Basically, my understanding is that Obamacare now forces your lazy ass to buy some frickin’ health insurance if you don’t have it already, and no more of this pre-existing condition crap (although that was rorted by healthcare providers and clients alike).

And the sky won’t fall in with Medicare and Medicaid. I know this because we have a top-notch healthcare system in Australia comprising of BOTH public and private healthcare. We’ve had it for ages, and basically it works fine.

Now, as you all know, I’m certainly of the Right, and I just hope others on the Right deal with it and won’t carry on like whiny little shouty moonbat bitches like so many on the Left do about, say, another SCOTUS decision like *that one* in 2000.

Anyway, my interest in all this is rather limited beacuse, seriously, as an Australian living in Korea, I don’t really give that much of a fuck about American healthcare.

On a more practical level, however, I would like to talk briefly about healthcare in Korea. I hope people realise that their national health insurance does NOT cover everything. A couple of times during my vacat-… er, stay in Korea, a foreigner has been involved in a serious accident. He/They only had national health insurance, and the doctors WOULD NOT operate until tens of thousands of dollars could be paid. So, we did our best and passed round the tin. Too little. Too late. Those people died.

Moral of the story? I could not recommend high enough also obtaining private health insurance whilst you stay in Korea. Even the best is not overly expensive. Also, if you drive a motor vehicle, get some top notch – not just that basic crap – for you car. For instance, I have insurance that covers my car, me, any passengers, their car, their passengers, any other people, as well as property. I even pay 50 bucks more so that if some asshole sues me even if it’s not my fault (gee, they wouldn’t do that to a foreigner would they?), I’m covered.

Stay safe, people.

UPDATE

JM sent over a few links and posted a comment which my half-drunk (so far) Friday night arse has boiled down to this (and I’ll post the links after the comment).

(originally posted in comments on another bloke’s facebook thread to a lefty audience)

A mate sent over a few links. The ACA is now essentially a tax (as I said above). This means anyone not wanting to sign up to Obamacare will simply pay a tax, $95 the first year up to $695 (indexed) from 2015 or so. What Roberts’ decision also does is set a precedent for future limiting of the congress’ powers. In addition, Obamacare won’t need 60 votes to be overturned, now 51. That is significant (filibuster). Essentially, the young and spritely Justice Roberts did not rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare, but instead made it a tax that comes under the commerce clause which thus severely limits how much it can be played around with. An important distinction there is that congress can regulate but not compel commerce i.e. there goes being forced to pay for insurance. Another part of the ruling means states not wanting a bar more of medicaid that they haven’t already signed up for cannot be forced to do so. The other sticking point is that tax laws – of which Obamacare is now a part of – *must* originate from congress. Obamacare originated from the executive branch, and was passed only by the senate using arcane procedures. Should be interesting.

http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2012/06/28/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-in-the-court-decision/?singlepage=true

http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2012/06/the-decision-to-uphold-the-mandate-as-a-gestalt-shift-in-constitutional-law.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/scocca/2012/06/roberts_health_care_opinion_commerce_clause_the_real_reason_the_chief_justice_upheld_obamacare_.html

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/philosophicalfragments/2012/06/28/five-possible-silver-linings-in-the-obamacare-decisio/

http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/28/issa-to-obama-what-happened-to-obamacare

Two further points, however.

The “raise taxes” argument is pretty strong out there in the Americanosphere, so criticising Obamacare as a tax rise probably won’t work – although the people pushing the most for the biggest tax increases probably aren’t the people who pay much tax. ;-) The average American may have a different opinion.

The overwhelming opinion I get from the Americans I know is that for too many, the American healthcare system is fucked. I’ve never had to pay hundreds of dollars for relatively minor treatment. Yes, the best healthcare does exist in America, but who the fuck can access it? Personally, I like the Australian and Korean model… buuuut, I’ve never been to, yet alone lived in America, so I’m open to argument.

Make that three…

Like the boat people crisis in Australia, perhaps it would be wise not to run this issue to ground on ideological/political lines.

And people wanna b*tch about Australia being racist???


We’re a bloody tolerant mob if you ask me. Check this out.

Jasmine Lee, the Philippine-born naturalized Korean citizen who became a ruling Saenuri Party [they’re the Righties over here – bing] lawmaker, is becoming the target of racially-based online attacks.

Some bloggers and tweeters have said Lee’s election will pave the way for interracial families to gain at the expense of Koreans and producing more illegal aliens.

Wow. And who’s coming up with this crap? (BTW, unlike raaaaacism charges against certain bloggers in Australia, there are actually quotes in that link to prove it.)

As many of those denouncing the ruling party lawmaker-elect are supporters of opposition parties [the Lefties – bing], critic Chin Jung-kwon also said, “The opposition party won’t have a chance of winning the presidential election if it doesn’t do something to stop its supporters from abusing Jasmine Lee.”

Now, don’t get me wrong. Overall I’m treated very well in Korea, but in comparison, Aussies bend over backwards for our new mates.

Take the case of an idol-type competition show over here. Despite being a far better performer, and receiving more praise from the judges, this poor lass just couldn’t get the viewer votes compared to the more lackluster full-blooded Korean.

Next time some idiot tells you Aussies are racist, tell ‘em to get stuffed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 304 other followers

%d bloggers like this: