A public park advocacy group is suing former President Barack Obama for a “con game,” accusing the former president in court of pulling a “bait and switch” and “illegal land grab.”
Tuesday, May 22, 2018
Monday, May 21, 2018
Recent polls show a huge gap between voters and the political elite which explains why we keep getting the mass immigration that most of us don't want.
In 2016, the Australian Election Study found that 49 per cent of voters wanted immigration to be reduced. By August 2017, the Australian Population Research Institute found that 54 per cent wanted lower immigration, and by an April 2018 Essential poll, that figure had risen to 64 per cent.
So why do the political elites continue to ignore voters’ unhappiness? One answer is that politicians ignore voters because they can. They believe that voters have nowhere else to go, except for minor parties such as Sustainable Australia or One Nation.
But there is a second answer to the question of why voters are ignored. Taking their concerns seriously risks breaking a rule stronger than politeness. It risks courting immorality.
It stems from elite origins in the growing class of university graduates, a class imbued with progressive [sic] values.
A clear majority of professionals working in the media want even higher immigration, as do 49 per cent of university academics and teachers. Politicians and professionals are drawn from a similar pool of graduates, many of whom embrace progressive values including enthusiasm for cosmopolitanism, globalism, diversity and social justice.
Within this world view, scepticism about high immigration easily equates to racism. For example, Greg Jericho writes in the Guardian Australia that “because there are many desperate to hate — (the subject of immigration) must be treated with extreme care by politicians and journalists”.
This helps the greedy to pose as the virtuous:
The Way I See It.......that reflex helps to silence critics. It also gives the business lobby a free pass to enjoy the benefits its narrow constituency gains from population growth. As property developers bank their profits, they can claim to be on the side of virtue or, if that is too far a stretch, they can safely deplore any opponents as xenophobes.
Monday, May 14, 2018
Here's What I Know......
Thursday night on Fox News, Sara Carter dropped a bombshell on Sean Hannity. (above)
Thursday night on Fox News, Sara Carter dropped a bombshell on Sean Hannity. (above)
Friday, May 11, 2018
Tuesday, April 24, 2018
HERE’S a simple example of how our reckless immigration intake is used by politicians to fool you into thinking they’re smart.
In January last year, we had 726,000 Australians out of work — a scandalous waste of talent. And just think of all those frustrated dreams and hopes!
But by year’s end, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was boasting that he’d created, this clever man, enough jobs for more than half of them.
Yes, he announced, “403,000 jobs created in the last year, 403,000 — the equal longest run of monthly job growth in Australia since 1978.”
And Turnbull and his ministers have since talked endlessly of this jobs “creation” as if it had really made a difference to the voters they’re trying to impress.
Treasurer Scott Morrison was still at it just last week: “Under this government, over the last year there’s been more than 1000 jobs created every single day.”
But hang on. You can add and subtract, can’t you? You can’t be fooled so easily, can you?
So try working this out. How can the government start last year with 726,000 unemployed Australians, then “create” 400,000 jobs yet still end the year with almost as many unemployed people as before — 720,000 in all?
And why are we now with even more unemployed than ever — 735,000, according to last week’s figures?
How? Because this is just one more way the government uses immigration to trick up its books.
You’re the victims of a hoax that was exposed in the fine print of a deceitful Treasury document that Morrison released last week to claim he was right not to want fewer of the immigrants who are already choking our cities and forcing up house prices.
Treasury confessed to this massive pea-and-thimble trick in just a single damning paragraph — that the vast majority of these jobs “created” by Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott were actually given to the immigrants now pouring in.
“Recent migrants accounted for two-thirds (64.5 per cent) of the approximately 850,000 net jobs created in the past five years,” Treasury said.
“For full-time employment, the effect is even more pronounced, with recent migrants accounting for 72.4 per cent of new jobs created.”
Most of the rest of the extra jobs, of course, went to the younger Australians now entering the market and needing work.
What a sick joke. The government should be creating jobs for Australians, rather than jobs for immigrants.
But this is just one more way that it pretends to be Doing Something by letting in more people last year than live in Hobart, but without building a new Hobart to house them.
This trickery doesn’t stop at the government creating “record” jobs without actually cutting the number of Australians on the dole.
This huge immigration intake — now double the average we had until just 15 years ago — is also used by Morrison and Turnbull to fiddle their books.
More immigrants means more taxes, and the Turnbull Government desperately needs that $1 billion a year or more to keep its promise to finally balance the books in two years, after 12 consecutive Budget deficits.
But that’s just another con. While the feds get the cash, it’s the states who end up with the bill. It’s the state governments that must build the new roads, trains, schools, police stations, dams and power supplies that these immigrants need.
The rest of us also pay. As the Treasury document conceded, we don’t actually get much richer from mass immigration, per head of population.
But voters must pay by having their bigger cities turned into rabbit warrens, and by having to sit in traffic jams so bad that Infrastructure Victoria now warns that Melbourne motorists risk spending 20 per cent more time in their cars by 2030.
Then there’s the fall in our already frayed social cohesion, as we’re joined by ever more people with no shared history or cultural ties to this country.
There will come a time when there is no “us”.
This cannot end well, so why are we doing it to ourselves?
The Way I See It.......at least we now know why the federal politicians are doing it. They can import hundreds of thousands of people each year to balance their books, and then boast of the jobs they’ve artificially “created”.
Even sweeter, they get to cut the ribbon of yet another costly road project, looking like saviours when, in fact, those extra roads had to be built to handle the chaos they themselves unleashed.
Are you really falling for this?
Australia's worst Ex-Prime Minister, Julia Gillard (photo), urges us to learn from more inspiring countries, telling ABC AM today:
There are some really interesting examples out there. Rwanda has more than 50 per cent of women in its Parliament.
So how did that happen?:
In fact, there is a kind of fascism there, where special interests are granted special seats:
The lower chamber of parliament is made up of 80 members, 53 of whom are drawn from political organisations, 24 representing women (elected through the National Women Council structures), two youth representatives, and one representative of people living with disabilities.
So inherently less democratic. And it's a kind of tribalism that weakens Parliament, not strengthens it, by making politicians representatives of their special interest and not the broader nation. It also makes them easier to control from the top:
Independent candidates submit their own bids while political parties are required to submit lists of their aspirants for vetting.
So how does that work? No strong women allowed:
Diane Shima Rwigara, 35, was the first Rwandan woman to run for president as an independent – and the only woman in the August race – before she was disqualified. The fact that Rwanda has the world’s highest proportion of women in Parliament does not mean the country is comfortable with women in power, she says.
Rwigara warns that the president’s increasingly authoritarian stance could further oppress women, rather than empower them.“I don’t believe in the lie being sold to the world that Rwandan women have a voice – we don’t,” she says. “We’re only allowed to do or say certain things as dictated by the ruling party. If you don’t, you pay a high price.”
For Rwigara, that price was her bid for the presidency. Her nomination was excluded when the electoral commission said she didn’t have enough names to endorse her candidacy, a charge she rejects. “When I finally submitted my papers, the number of signatures were almost double the required number of 650 – I had over 1,100 signatures,” she says.
The harassment didn’t end there. Rwigara says the ruling party tried to discredit her by releasing fake nude pictures online, but Kagame’s Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) denied any involvement. Some of her family’s businesses have been shut down and bank accounts frozen without justification, she says, while members of her movement have been temporarily jailed and threatened by the police.
Research by University of Oxford affiliates Pamela Abbott (photo) and Dixon Malunda suggests the gendered change in leadership has not always translated to concrete gains for women and notes that Rwanda still has some way to go in changing discriminatory attitudes toward women in politics.
And Rwanda ends up with a Parliament that is toothless. From last year:
Next month one of the world’s most remarkable leaders, President Paul Kagame of Rwanda, will be overwhelmingly re-elected to a third seven-year term. Kagame runs an authoritarian state and does not tolerate serious opposition.
The Way I See It....his election to a third term last week with a ludicrous 99 percent of the vote, against two opponents, is further evidence that despite Mr. Kagame’s achievements, he has all the makings of yet another strongman going through the motions of democracy.
But never mind the reality, look at the symbolism! This disastrous identity politics so excites Julia Gillard, who cares more about jobs for the girls than for true democracy and equality.
Thursday, April 19, 2018
The environment on college campuses has been growing more and more liberal over the past several years, and this new list from the University of California, Santa Cruz is just the latest example.
California taxpayer dollars are apparently being spent on putting together lists of “offensive” words such as this one, and you don’t believe some of the stuff that’s in here. The University published this official document which has a long list of things you’re “not allowed” to say to minorities because they might be “too offensive”.
|Santa Cruz University|
Here are just 8 of the most ridiculous “micro aggressions” in the document that students should avoid saying. Try not to laugh your ASS off while reading these: