Julia Gillard Once Again Demonstrates her Arrogance.

Sold her soul to the Greens and lied to the Australian electorate. She has to go.

Again, the endless denials by Gillard is becoming an embarrassment to all in the government, not only because she appears incapable of being honest about anything, but her claim that she has already justified or explained her questionable, if not illegal behaviour, is far from being explained. Nothing has been forthcoming, no statement made stating precisely how involved she was or how she has benefited from associating while being in a relationship with the crook who lifted over $ 400,000 from the AWU Union members and other businesses. Gillard set up the slush fund account, now she claim she was only a naive girl at 30 years of age even though she is a lawyer. A claim which is ofcourse very heard to believe as it is so obviously ridiculous. One can claim to be naive at 16 years of age but not at 30. I ain't falling for that one.

Julia Gillard’s refusal to give answers is not likely to give a single person confidence - and certainly not her colleagues:

PRIME Minister Julia Gillard is facing new leadership concerns among key cabinet and caucus supporters over the revival of an alleged 17-year-old union slush fund scandal involving her former boyfriend…

Those fears were compounded yesterday during a fiery interview on Sky’s Australian Agenda, when Ms Gillard refused to address allegations raised against her…

This is a good example on how left wing socialists and especially feminists have a total disregard for honesty, dignity or honour. They only recognise their own self generated blame-free system, one that consists of destroying everything besides what they believe to be of importance. Lying, cheating and stealing, exaggeration and bare faced dishonest conduct, is their forte. They view as a credit or a positive trait that everyone should also have. Their arrogance and dishonesty is blatantly obvious and promoted as an alternative reality. They live a life where any end or outcome justifies the means. If lying, cheating and stealing is part of it, than it's just fine as long as they achieve that they are happy and if anyone dares to question that they are faced with claims of bias, racism or anything else they can find.

In reality, the Gillard Government did not get anywhere near the majority vote, the opposition party actually won with more votes but not enough seats to win government. Gillard sold her soul to the Greens and lied to the Australia people and hence has now the lowest rating any prime minister has had in Australia. So the lies continue as well as the misconduct.

Allegations were raised at the weekend by a former partner at the firm, Nick Styant-Browne, suggesting Ms Gillard may have acted improperly in helping set up a slush fund for Mr Wilson…

 Mr Styant-Browne said yesterday that he stood by the article and the claims made....

“I am not aware of any denial by the PM or her spokesperson of any specific allegation about what she said in the Slater & Gordon internal interview,” he told The Daily Telegraph.

 Even one of the partners at the Lawyer firm where she worked at the time has stated that she has a case to answer but obviously she doesn't think so as she has not bothered explaining any part of the shenanigans that went on years ago. No one was arrested or charged. Gillard is right in the middle of it.

 EACH time Julia Gillard is asked about a union corruption scandal involving her then-boyfriend and client, she gives the same non-answer.

 The Australian got it last week: the Prime Minister “was not involved in any wrongdoing and has dealt with these allegations previously”.

 Same from her yesterday on Sky: “I am not dignifying all of this scurrilous campaigning by going through these things point by point ... We are talking about matters 17 years ago, which have been dealt with on the public record for most of that time.”

Actually, they haven’t been dealt with - and Gillard’s evasions are no longer good enough.

Bess Price: You Look like a White Fella to Me.

Bess Price, saying it the way it is.

One has got to like Bess for a number of reasons, primarily because she calls it the way it is. The biggest mistake the oppressives (Socialist Labour Government) did was introduce the 64th Aboriginal Blood law. That means that if you have ANY blood going back eight generations (I assume that's about the calculation), then you can climb aboard the almost unlimited gravy train that inject billions every year into the Aboriginal population without any positive affect at all.

Meanwhile, white people, especially the left leaning types have no problems stirring up class hatred or racism, just to advantage themselves. The gravy is there for anyone who makes the claim. Bess states what Andrew Bolt was dragged into court for saying. These are not "real" aboriginals, they are fascimiles, pretenders, who lay claim to be a member of the Aboriginal people for their own benefit and for no other reason.
Look at the imitation Indian that Warren claimed to being just to get high roaded into a job at Harvard when her qualifications were questionable and previously criticised for an inferior book that she produced. This is the same ploy. They receive special preferential treatment from all government departments, so anyone can make the claim without even having to justify it. These racists, these "white Fellas" as Bess calls them, have a lot to answer for as their actions only causes more harm and hate from both sides of the fence. The entire process is an absolute disgrace and needs to be fixed and not by whites but by the Aboriginal people themselves. They should just get lost or better still, bud out and go walkabout.

Amnesty International is RACIST.

Bess Price, finally standing up to the PC Amnesty Int. crowd and giving them their walking orders.

The major issue regarding the Aboriginal people in Australia is that way too many "White", self claimed Aboriginals are telling the indigenous people how they should go about living their lives and what they have to do. These do-gooders do more harm than good as usual. The arrogance of Amnesty International sending "white" people to assess the Aboriginal condition is not only an insult but demonstrates their sheer mendacity at assuming they know better than the Aboriginal people themselves on what the problems and issues are.

It is a typical example of the "Nanny" state that these left wing drongos like to promote and demand. We know the problem better then you because we studied it in a biased, discriminatory and racist university for years. The gaul is way too big to comprehend. The arrogance though is there for all to see as the Aboriginals get nowhere, despite Billions of dollars allocated every year. The entire effort is an utter and complete joke. Aboriginal people can take care of themselves and decide what is best for their own people but they are not allowed to function normally as the PC crowd refuse to admit and confess that they have failed miserably, regardless of the false claims they make.

“Your organisation treated me and my people with contempt and you still do. Your organisation is undemocratic and racist.

Straight from Bess' own mouth, she is an aboriginal and she would know exactly what the circumstances are that lead Amnesty to appoint a "WHITE" tasmanian and a WHITE Victorian female to judge and question the problems facing the Aboriginals in the Northern Territory. As I stated earlier, the arrogance is just too incredible to comprehend.

The New Racism is killing the future of Aboriginal children:

A MISTAKEN belief that reading programs for indigenous children need to be culturally appropriate has hampered improvement in their literacy skills, education experts said yesterday in response to a report by the NSW Auditor-General showing no significant progress during the past 10 years.
Reading researcher and literacy reformer Kevin Wheldall and indigenous educator Chris Sarra cited a perceived need for culturally appropriate programs and a failure to examine the effectiveness of teaching strategies as reasons for the lack of progress in improving literacy among Aboriginal children. Professor Wheldall ...  said the idea that Aboriginal children learned differently was pervasive through the education community, but he thought it was “quite racist”. “All the reviews of the research conclude there’s no evidence for different learning styles, we all tend to learn pretty much the same way,” Professor Wheldall said.

It is astonishing - tragic - that Wheldall’s comment should come as news. 
UPDATE
Bess Price is also fed up:
WARLPIRI woman Bess Price has accused Amnesty International of being an undemocratic and racist organisation, while attacking its indigenous rights campaigner Rodney Dillon as a “white blackfella” and a “physically white English-speaking Tasmanian”.
Ms Price’s angry attack came after Amnesty activists wrote to Northern Territory election candidates, including Ms Price, seeking their views on Aboriginal homelands, but it has been brewing since Amnesty condemned the NT intervention in June…
Ms Price, a Country Liberal Party candidate at the August 25 election and an outspoken supporter of the intervention, claimed Amnesty had done nothing but treat her and her people with contempt while turning “a deaf ear” to the most desperate and marginalised.
The attack comes after her appearance on the SBS Insight program on Tuesday, where she told Aboriginal lawyer and academic Mark McMillan, “you totally look like a whitefella to me”.
Mr McMillan was one of nine pale-skinned Aborigines who successfully took racial discrimination action against News Limited columnist Andrew Bolt in the Federal Court last year…
In her August 7 email, Ms Price slammed Amnesty for sending Mr Dillon and a Yorta Yorta woman from the Victoria-NSW border area, Monica Morgan, to the NT to assess the intervention, at a time when Ms Price chaired the NT’s Indigenous Affairs Advisory Council. “Your organisation sent a white blackfella from Tasmania, a wealthy man, and a woman from Victoria claiming to be indigenous who never met me or tried to talk to my people and you believed what they told you,” she said.
“Your organisation treated me and my people with contempt and you still do. Your organisation is undemocratic and racist.
“Would you send an Italian-American of mixed heritage to Russia to consult with them meaningfully because he is of European descent and therefore will understand the Russians? Why do you think a physically white, English-speaking Tasmanian would better understand my own people than I do?"…

How the Warmist Lost: They Lied and lied and lie....

Greater stupidity one would be pushed to find. Not only are these drones promoting a hoax, they actually believe it as well.

One does not have to search far to find how much those warmists have lied, threatened, induced fear and manufactured data to suit their own agenda. They are and have been totally and completely dishonest and forced other scientists to their way of thinking or get fired, replaced, removed from science sites or receive a bashing at the hands of the Global Warming media like the Guardian in England or the New York Times in the US and many more. Both those scandal sheets have a lot to answer for and it is about time they were held accountable for their gross neglect and exaggerations, the misinformation and the gross mismanagement of news and articles concerning that Global Warming Fraud.

Someone has to pay and a lot are guilty.

How we won

Andrew Bolt August 05 2012 (5:15am)

Apparently just a few of us knuckle-draggers have now won the debate, with barely a skerrick of support as we’ve taken on politicians, warmist scientists, academics, public broadcasters, most journalists, teachers, climate commissioners, green entrepreneurs, Hollywood, the United Nations and countless billions in public funding.
So declares warmist Professor Robert Manne, Australia’s “most influential public intellectual” - whose credentials must now be questioned, given this result.
According to Manne, the victory of the “denialists” - a term he’s chosen to exploit the Holocaust - should simply not be:

What is clear, however, is that a rational citizen has little alternative but to accept the consensual core position of climate scientists. Discussion of this point should long ago have ended.

Note the assertion that discussion “should” have ended, even though Manne implies that some scientists do indeed still question what he vaguely describes as “consensual core question”. There is an antipathy here to the questioning mind that is unbecoming in an academic. Sinister.
And Manne immediately betrays the real problem in having a mind as closed and unquestioning as his own. A mind too gullible:

In 2009, two scientists from the University of Chicago published in Eos the result of a survey they conducted among a group they called “Earth scientists”. They discovered that among those who called themselves climate scientists and who had published recently in the field, 97.4% agreed with the proposition that “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures”.

Define “significant”, for a start. But then look at the methology of this survey Manne cites:

The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers - in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change.  The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.
The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth - out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer - those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor - about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.

The real result is based on the views of just 75 of 10,257 scientists. Manne thinks this is decisive. This says everything.
Now, someone of a properly sceptical disposition, as all true scientists and journalists should be, would actually question many other statements made by warmist scientists and people like Manne. And they’d find them to be even dodgier than Manne’s survey, which would naturally then make people start to doubt what else they were being told. And with further doubt came further evidence of exaggerated claims and busted predictions. And it’s this process - one involving not denialism but questioning, not claims but evidence - which is handing sceptics their “victory”.
Consider. It is sceptics who exposed the following warmist claims as false:

The Himalayan ice would melt by 2035.
The Arctic ice would vanish in 2008 or 2012.
The world would warm significantly over the past decade or more - and certainly much more than it has.
Polar bears are vanishing.
The Greenland ice sheet was melting fast.
Australia’s carbon dioxide tax would make a difference to the climate.
The Great Barrier Reef would now bleach every second year.
Reefs faced devastation from a warming world.
Australia’s drought would be “permanent” or the “new climate”
The ”rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”
The sea level rises have accelerated.
Hurricanes would get worse.
Decreasing ice on Mt Kilimanjaro was evidence of warming.
Antarctic ice was declining.
The world was warming so fast we’d be down to just a few breeding pairs in the Arctic by the end of the century.
Snow in Britain would almost vanish.

All these claims proved to be false. Manne would have accepted them.
This explains our victory.
(More from Jo Nova.)

Climate Change: Just a mention, gets you a Grant.

The photoshopped polar bear on dimishing ice. CAGW lies..

The entire CAGW theory and it's hallucinatory projections appears to be at an all time high. All that is required to receive taxpayers dollars is to include the words "climate change" and heh, presto, here's the money.

This level of stupidity is unsurpassed, the lies and exaggerations just keep on coming and it's the Labor Government under major lunatic Gillard and those whacko marxist Greens who are promoting precisely that great lie.

One wonders what level of ignorance and hysteria one has to approach and foster in order to inhale all that drivel, what level of soul selling is involved and also how does one reach such a level of dishonesty. Hopefully some day in the future, those charlatans will be exposed for the charlatans they really are and are forced to repay those tax dollars which should have gone to schools and hospitals and the odd road in bad state of repair.

How to write a modern grant application 

Andrew Bolt

July 25 2012 (8:15am)

How do you get a grant from the Australian Research Council? Just add the words “climate change” to your otherwise undistinguished grant application. Philippa Martyr demonstrates the extremes some researchers have gone to - and been rewarded for:

Civil Engineering: “This project will develop innovative light gauge steel roofing systems with considerably increased wind resistance and reliable design rules for cold-formed steel codes worldwide. It will contribute to the Australian government’s goal of increasing building resilience against future extreme and more frequent wind events caused by climate change.” ($320,000)
Political Science: “Commonsense says that claims about how social and political life ought to be arranged must not make infeasible demands. This project will investigate this piece of commonsense and explore its implications for a number of pressing issues, such as climate change, multiculturalism, political participation, inequality, historical justice, and the rules of war.” ($408,587)
Psychology: “Climate change represents a moral challenge to humanity, and one that elicits high levels of emotion. This project examines how emotions and morality influence how people send and receive messages about climate change, and does so with an eye to developing concrete and do-able strategies for positive change.” ($197,302)

Journalism and Professional Writing: “This project will examine the use of news management or ‘spin’ by Australian governments. Is it a legitimate tool of government in the face of a hyper-adversarial news media or a technique which undermines democracy? It will examine ‘spin’ in connection with policies on climate change, economic policy, indigenous policy and asylum seekers policy.” ($95,000)

Literary Studies: “The project will devise and develop a new ‘cultural materialist’ paradigm for science fiction studies and apply it to a case study of science fictional representations of catastrophe, especially nuclear war, plague and extreme climate change.” ($239,000)

Read on for more astonishing examples from the great green gravy train. UPDATE
Digging deeper, we find the winner of the journalism grant is former communist turned journalism academic David McKnight, who earlier received nearly $200,000 - or $3 a word - to write a predictably hostile book on Rupert Murdoch.
Dr Roberto Soria was onto this earlier this year (along with JoNova):

And by the way, number of winning projects that propose to test whether climate change is real or catastrophic: zero. The climate-change industry has really become a monster out of control.

Some of those projects would not have got a cent, if the government wasn’t under the influence of this collective hallucination.

There’s a whole parasitic class of academics who make a good living off the catastrophic climate change myth, and the larger this class grows, the more difficult it will be to burst the bubble. Anyway, just in case you think this is just sour grapes, it is not. I actually won a grant myself this round, and it is one of the few projects that will do absolutely nothing for or against climate change But I am sad to see so much research money wasted for nothing.

JoNova has had cause to chide McKnight for his writing on global warming:

Here’s a UNSW “Senior Research Fellow” in journalism who contradicts himself, fails by his own reasoning, does little research, breaks at least three laws of logic, and rests his entire argument on an assumption that he provides no evidence for.

Gillard Government with more Blood on their Hands.

Pick out the criminals!

More Blood on the hands of the Gillard Government as they deny their policies promotes death and harm. Not just to adults but children as well. A well meaning policy gone haywire while Gillard stands by and watches more people die. It was not enough causing deaths with their botched and rushed insulation program.

Gillard Government with More Blood on their Hands.

Once again, a law was introduced under the believe  that it was somehow humane and benevolent to potential illegal immigrants open up the flood gates. Gillard's Labour decided that an open border policy is a very bright idea and meanwhile Australia will end up paying billions of dollars to welcome these misanthropes, as they refuse to travel and immigrate legally. As they come within the border of Australia territory, they simply toss their identification papers and passports overboard and pretend to being "victims" of something or another but Sri Lanka, Iran and Pakistan are not countries that can be claimed to being victimhood producers, they are not at war.
These people see the benefits of Australian life and decide to spend 10 of thousands of dollars getting there and then claim refugee status which ofcourse they are not. They are no more refugees than I am. Gillard's lackies welcome them with open arms, grant them thousands of dollars as well as accommodation and jobs while the rest of the population can go to hell. Those same benefits are denied their own citizens. How is that for hypocrisy and blatant stupidity. Gillard's government has managed that part to perfection..

Some saved - but tougher laws will save hundreds more

Andrew Bolt June 22 2012 (6:28am)

Boat people policy

More are believed to have been rescued than seemed possible - a credit to our authorities:

DOZENS of people are feared to have drowned and a frantic rescue operation was under way last night after a boat carrying up to 200 asylum seekers capsized on its way to Australia…
The Australian Maritime Safety Authority said life rafts had been deployed to the survivors, and 110 people had been rescued. A spokesman said: ‘’Our primary focus at the moment is to rescue as many people as we can’’.

The boat was from Sri Lanka. The Government should urgently consider making some blanket declaration that Sri Lanka is not a country now from which we accept refugees, being a functioning civil society.
And this week it should announce a dramatic bi-partisan toughening up of our border laws. This week. Before the anger is once again replaced by apathy.

Anne Rose and the AGW Scare Mongering - Hand in Hand.

Takes the same effort to be stupid then it does to be smart. G20 Manage.

There appears to be no limitation to the obvious lies and misinformation coming from lunatic lefties such as  Anne Rose. Another one incapable of recognising the bleeding obvious and concentrating solely on the tunneled visioned hypocrisy of the AGW crowd. The precondition to belonging to this group is a healthy dose of cognitive dissonance as well as selective reasoning ability that allows one to believe other members of that same lunatic group.

One has to wonder how far they will go to completely submerge themselves into that delusion and what it will finally take for them to surface and actually admit that they had or have absolutely no idea whatsoever about what was really going on.
Following the delusion is the order of the day, even though there are thousands who can prove her wrong as well as over half of the population who has had a think about the AGW scare mongering has decided it is precisely that - scare mongering.

But do not let a good lie, a religious conviction, stand in the way of a good fairy tale. Fascinating that this is an example of the future generations demonstrating how the education system has failed them miserably already and prefer to follow delusional trends while claiming they even possess some grey cells capable of the thought process. I have my doubts.

Designer conscience

“SOY latte with honey” was climate-change warrior Anna Rose’s choice of coffee at a cafe.

It gets worse:

“There has been a massive campaign of misinformation and confusion and doubt,” she says.

And then the head of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition proceeds to demonstrate just that:

At the moment, Australia is on track for at least a one-metre rise by 2100.

But as usual, to be blatantly and obviously stupid one needs more words and Rose does not fail there either. She has swallowed that AGW ruse hook, line and latte.

And then the head of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition proceeds to demonstrate just that:

At the moment, Australia is on track for at least a one-metre rise by 2100.

False. Note that even the alarmist CSIRO projects a maximum rise of 0.8 metres, and likely rises of much less:

Note that since publication of the AR4, Pfeffer et al. (2008) have argued that a rise in excess of 2 metres is “physically untenable,” and that a maximum rise of 0.8 metres (near the upper end of the IPCC AR4 projections) is more plausible.

Note also that the observed sea level rise over the past 20 years is just 3.1mm a year (or 31cm per century) and falling:


Undaunted, Rose goes on:

it is not the polar bears and Barrier Reef, although they are affected

False.
From Canada’s Globe and Mail in April:

The debate about climate change and its impact on polar bears has intensified with the release of a survey that shows the bear population in a key part of northern Canada is far larger than many scientists thought, and might be growing.
The number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay, believed to be among the most threatened bear subpopulations, stands at 1,013 and could be even higher, according to the results of an aerial survey released Wednesday by the Government of Nunavut. That’s 66 per cent higher than estimates by other researchers who forecasted the numbers would fall to as low as 610 because of warming temperatures that melt ice faster and ruin bears’ ability to hunt. The Hudson Bay region, which straddles Nunavut and Manitoba, is critical because it’s considered a bellwether for how polar bears are doing elsewhere in the Arctic.