Endeavour Hills violence disproves Q and A conspiracy theories

I suspect that a fair few conspiracy minded leftie arsehats all across Oz will be suffering serious cognitive dissonance today after news of that shooting in Endeavour Hills. After all, it blows a hole in their conviction that the Government's increased security measures are all part of some grand diabolical plan to keep us collectively packin' our dacks about a non-existent terror threat.

Needless to say, even before this act of violence any sensible person could see that being on high alert was completely sane and reasonable. But some people will not be swayed, of course. I suspect that a small proportion of the pinko population will even believe the whole knife attack and subsequent lethal shooting was a sinister act of political theatre engineered by the eeevil Tony Abbott's sinister henchpeople.

Such silliness is fed by Hollywood, of course. But the brimming bolshies at their ABC have done much to promote these delusions, too. Take the most recent episode of Q and A for example. It was an anti-western, conspiracy nut, terrorist apologist sneer-fest.

So ironic that the episode was called "Be Alert but not Alarmed" 'cause the things that any alert Aussie would have found most alarming were the creepy views of the majority of the panelists, not to mention those of the radicals in the audience. And it's stunningly hypocritical of the hand-wringing finger waggers of Aunty's Army to keep condemning Rupert Murdoch for presenting Islam as an overwhelmingly radical, intolerant religion. If anyone's guilty of that it's them!

Just watch that particular episode and you'll see what I mean. It's chockas with jaw-dropping lunacy and nastiness. Plenty of yuks, too. One of the funniest lines comes when Anne-Azza Aly says it's a nonsense to say that Muslims don't integrate, since "you've got two Muslim women sitting here on this panel".

Eh? Being a Q and A guest blowhard is not a sign of integration into mainstream society. Rather, it's the opposite: yet another example of the ABC pandering to a loud minority.

And anyway her claim was factually incorrect. The panel actually had four Muslim women if you included Tony Jones and Scott Ludlam ...

EPA shark cull ruling prompts crowing from creepy Greens

Looks like bong-suckling, Gaia-worshipping crazies over here in the wild west have finally gotten their way when it comes to Colin Barnett's shark mitigation strategy. The EPA, which is clearly afflicted with more than its fair share of wild-eyed shrub humpers, has rejected the State Government's proposal to continue the so-called cull for the next three years.

EPA Chairman Dr Vogel said the decision "erred on the side of the environment". I'd say "erred" is the operative word. Well, if he wants to do some more erring in future, I suggest he should err on the side of humanity for once -- for balance if nothing else.

Cynical opportunist Mark McGowan has leapt in to bitch-slap Barnett in the wake of the ruling. He may well rue the day he did this if he ever becomes Premier and finds himself in a similar position to Barnett.

Not sure what happens next, but looks like it might just be kaput for The West Australian Government's reasonable, targeted and politically responsible approach to a serious problem -- imperfect though it clearly was.

All I can say is that if no noahs are terminated with extreme prejudice in the ensuing summer or next and one of them decides to gobble another human, let it be on the heads of the human hating shark-huggers. And if you think that accusation of misanthropy is a tad OTT then consider this revealing quote from creepy Greens MP Lynn MacLaren:

"Over three-and-half months last summer, 172 sharks, all of which are supposed to be protected in WA, were captured, and most of them we know subsequently died a slow death that achieved nothing to increase human safety.

"We mourn them but for now, today is a cause for a big celebration, for so much hard work by many good people."

This loopy woman is openly grieving over a bunch of bloody fish! Can you believe it? What about the people their toothy brethren killed? Any sorrow for them? Nope. As always, crickets.

Well, I'm glad she's revealed her sickening priorities in such a vivid way. The more humans who realize what she and her fellow travellers actually feel about the human race the better.

March in August's low turnout proves pampered petulance of the Left

Recently I heard about the latest latte leftie dummy spit and group sulk called March in August. Read that it was to start at a park in Northbridge.

Now, because these charming assemblies are full of brimming bolshies who can't be arsed actually thinking about political issues and much prefer to play the man rather than the ball, most of the venom the speakers and placard wavers express is aimed at their favourite hate figure, the PM. And considering that Tony Abbott has been even more, er, Abbottesque than usual lately -- what with his comments about white settlement, as well as his condemnation of those adorable head choppers from ISIS -- you'd expect there to be squillions of squealing Tonyphobes at this latest demo.

But nup. It was a total fizzle. As a coupla Twitter wits opined, you get bigger crowds at an under 10s soccer match, or a sausage sizzle out the front of Bunnings.

Left me scratching my head as to why this was the case ... Hmmm. Maybe it was something to do with the lack of a catchy, alliterative title? After all, there was something distinctively meme-ish about "March in March" and it was extra-easy to remember for the severely cognitively challenged -- who clearly constituted most of the many thousands who rocked up on that day. So, would this latest organized outburst have drawn bigger crowds if it had been named, say, "Anger in August"? Maybe ...

But I think the main reason for the tragically piss-poor turnout was the highly immature and emotional nature of the Left. If your actions are motivated by feelings, well, they'll always be inconsistent in nature.

Then there's pervasive pinko tendency to blame others for your own condition. So, in the same way that these child-brained adults accuse decent hardworking folk who never did anything wrong to them for their own misery, they also leave it up to others to tell them what to do. Hell, the spoiled sprogs can't even shift their fat arses down to a local park unless the local commissars motivate them sufficiently.

It's all there in that stupid exhortation so beloved of the bolshie: "maintain the rage". Such "rage" can hardly be genuine and justified if someone has to tell you to maintain it, as well as when and where to express it, right?

Actually, it's not really rage at all. More like wallowing in your spurious sense of victimhood on cue.

Abbott's wink during phone sex gran's call causes comical outrage

Just so funny watching the squealing crybabies of the Left going completely and utterly spacko over what was a comparatively mild budget -- and one aimed not at "inflicting cruelty" as they describe it, but rather to undo the massive economic and financial damage wrought by the previous government, surely the worst in living memory.

The explosion of outrage over Tony Abbott's notorious wink during his interview with Jon Faine is the most recent example of this socialist shark-jumping. So insanely obsessed are the leftist squitterati with every aspect of this man's character that even the momentary movement of one of his eyelids is cause for a nationwide paroxysm of foam-spitting indignation.

Sarah Hanson-Young, for example, believes the wink shows him to be "a total creep". This from an overfed, overrated, mental and emotional infant whose reaction to news of scores of people drowning as a result of her inhumane political demands was "accidents happen". Now that is creepy.

And you've gotta wonder what Faine's immediate reaction to this pensioner's declaration that she worked as a sex line worker to make ends meet was. Did he sit there po-faced, solemnly determined not to denigrate the dignity of this poor denizen of the working class by raising an eyebrow or looking askance?

I doubt it. Odds are he was just as amused by the revelation as Abbott was. And I'm willing to bet the vast majority of the lefties listening in were also amused -- before their PC programming kicked in and they managed to stifle their smirks, that is.

Perth March in March mystery: the bloke in the yellow sheet

Have you ever had an experience that was highly reminiscent of a thriller or horror movie that sent chills down your spine? You know, like waking up in the middle of the night and seeing some butt-fugly face staring at you? Frozen in horror, you were unable to breathe for what seemed like minutes until suddenly the hideous mug disappeared and you came to full consciousness ... Or maybe while stopped at a traffic light on a wet day you saw rain drops collecting on your window that spelled out the word "death". But no sooner had you apprehended this terrifying omen than it was scattered to oblivion by the windscreen wiper.

Yeah, well, I just experienced something similar ... kind of.

See, about an hour ago I was down at Langley Park for the start of Perth's March in March, intending to shoot some vids for YouTube.

Anyhoo, when I first arrived I took a shot with my phone. Tweeted it about twenty minutes ago. It was only after I did so that I noticed a most intriguing figure in it. He was a bloke in the crowd who seemed to be wearing nothing but thongs and a yellow sheet (or was it a towel?).

Now I find this very mysterious. Actually, I feel a bit like the David Hemmings character in the champion Antonioni flick Blow-Up. While developing shots from a fashion shoot, he realizes he may have inadvertently captured a murder.

Sure, nothing was murdered at this event except common sense. Still, shrouded figures are always fascinating. You've gotta wonder, who was this be-sheeted bloke?

He seemed to be a visitor from another dimension whose presence was deeply symbolic. But what did his sinister presence mean, exactly?

Hmm. Some of the protesters were chanting their desire to put Tony Abbott on a guillotine. Was he some kind of antipodean unionist version of Ingmar Burgman's Death character, perhaps?

If so, I'd say watch out Tony. Particularly if this same figure appears at the next Abbott presser.

Chilling. Truly chilling ...

PM's views on locked up forests provokes wild green lamentation

Love the fact that Tony Abbott is really sticking it to Tassie's tree huggers with his comments on forestry. I can almost hear the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth emanating from the Apple Isle. And I live in Perth!

Listening to local ABC talk back this morn (Geoff Hutchison) I heard some wife of a cabinet maker fulminating about the PM's desire to plunder and pillage the old growth forests. She purported to speak on behalf of those who work with wood. Said that they were appalled that he was using their craft to justify his policies.

As she ranted I thought: Well, if hubbie felt that way, why wasn't he calling? Sounds like there might be a whole new left-leaning demographic out there that no one's defined yet -- the carpenter's wives.

Anyhoo, I think the PM made some good points in his speech to timber workers, including this one:

"When I look out tonight at an audience of people who work with timber, who work in forests, I don't see people who are environmental vandals; I see people who are the ultimate conservationists," he said.

So true. Of course loggers want to conserve the forests. Without them they have no bloody industry.

Greens, on the other hand, are so consumed with infantile Gaia-worship that they often endorse policies that are extremely bad for the environment. Take their opposition to controlled burn offs, which has repeatedly resulted in catastrophic fires that caused massive destruction of forests as well as the death of countless animals and scores of humans.

But it's hardly surprising that greenies would be so out of touch with nature. Unlike timber workers they have little or no real contact with it. Instead they sit slurping lattes and suckling bongs in the inner urban areas of Australia's biggest cities.

And just on the issue of vandalism and the environment: I hope that this push to free up the forests will be accompanied by a more hard-line approach to the deep green howler monkeys who have caused so much criminal damage of property and machinery over the years.

Would be great if the freeing up of every acre of green was matched with the locking up of a greenie. Thus would nature balance itself ...

Van Badham vs Tim Blair

Gawd. I've seen a lot of infantile, egocentric behaviour from the censorious squawkers of Artsville. But one recent reaction has really taken the bloody cake. It comes from nascent socialist squealebrity Van Badham.

Appalled and offended that she's been mocked by Tim Blair for a grotesquely self-indulgent anti-Abbott rant in which she included details about her late father's unseemly behaviour while he was unemployed, she tweeted this to one of her fellow sneering hipsters.

OMG! The insult to my *dead father* actually was published by THE DAILY TELEGRAPH. My god! What is this?! pic.twitter.com/odHnuZtGK1
— Van Badham (@vanbadham) December 20, 2013

It's called a fair crack, Vanessa.

It could also be said that using your dad's death to score cheap points against your main political hate figure constitutes an insult to his memory. We've all got dead relatives and loved ones. But only the most shameless and selfish use their deaths to slime those they detest -- and so soon after their passing. (It's not unlike Bolt-obsessed bloviator Mike Carlton and others like him using the death of Nelson Mandela to slime conservatives.)

Then there's the sheer irony of the potty-mouthed termagant demanding that everyone bow in sympathy to her fine feelings and respect her in her grief. Just take a look at the petulant princess's Twitter stream and you'll see what I mean. You'll be picking your jaw up off the floor.

She's gotta be one of the most abusive lefties on the site -- and that's saying something. She goes out of her way to provoke and offend people, verballing them at every opportunity.

Is it because she's as batshit insane as she appears to be, or is it just a cynical ploy? Maybe even a bit of both ...

She's certainly cottoned onto the fact that to carve a niche in the the leftoid media too much vile abuse is just never enough. As well as endless adulation from absolute idiots, there are well-paying meeja gigs and grants galore to be had if you can out-crazy your fellow feminist moonbats. To the "victim" the spoils!

Vanessa Badham is what I call a blushing violent. Vicious, aggressive, happy to make the most vile and knowingly false accusations when it suits. Then at other times when it suits she hides behind her gender, and plays victim. It's an amazingly cynical tactic. And sooo typical of the primitive, vindictive, cowardly Left.

My advice to the spoiled brat: Listen, baby cakes, if you don't wanna be mocked because you're still grieving then don't put that sensitive info into the public realm -- let alone for the purpose of a mean-spirited sliming.

Frankly petal, your feelings aren't that important. You show no respect for the feelings of others, so why should they respect yours? You were askin' for it.

Lefties are just cowardly bullies who can't think for themselves

Just a general thought on the sad, stunted psyche of your typical socialist: Isn't it fascinating how they become so fixated on individuals. Abbott Derangement Syndrome is a good example of this, as is the nasty way they gang up on and try to silence dissenting journalists like Andrew Bolt. It shows how utterly piss-weak they are. So funny to watch countless fulminating fluffy wuffies utterly apoplectic over the arguments of just one guy.

This is a key difference between the Left and normal, adult folk. Socialists are scared of individuals they can't control while everybody else (justifiably) fears hectoring packs of primitive idiots (namely lefties) who are trying to control them.

And just as your typical brimming bolshie loves nothing more than joining a baying pack of fellow ferals bent on isolating and intimidating individuals into compliance (or, failing that, silence) he is just as likely to dutifully obey the crazed dictates of a narcissistic, domineering individual.

Look at their well documented tendency to laud "charismatic" leaders like Gough Whitlam, Bob Brown and Fidel Castro. That seems paradoxical at first, but when you ponder just how totally lacking in inner courage and principle they are it make perfect sense. They can't think for themselves and therefore look to a single source of authority to do all their thinking for them.

Basically, the poor creatures are barely sentient cowards. And as we all know, a coward is always the worst kind of bully when he gets the chance.

Love media still wedded to image of evil, rorting Abbott

Amazing to watch the socialist squitterati continue to pursue Abbott in such a focused and relentless manner. They clearly haven't learned a thing. It's as if they still believe that he is the Coalition's weak spot, and ultimately unelectable.

Makes you wanna say: "Hey bozos. He's actually got the gig, and the more you slag him off, the more highly people regard him!"

And on their obsession with the Government's so-called dodgy expenses claims: It goes without saying that they're applying a double standard. There were plenty of cases like this when Gillard and Rudd were PM. But the same hacks squawking up a storm now were pretty much silent then.

Then there's all this eye rolling when it comes to the fact that so many claims related to attendance at various weddings. Puffing themselves up with faux indignation, they huff: "How could you possibly claim such an intimate expression of love as a political networking event!"

It's reminiscent of their tactics on "marriage equality". Their sole aim is to cast themselves as big-hearted compassionate types and the Libs as mean-spirited arseholes. This may convince a few credulous cretins out there. But most can see beyond it.

Then there's the ideological inconsistency. They are always bitching about how marriage is a repressive social institution to enslave women; that's it's not about love at all.

If that's what they believe, then why are they shocked that conservative pols would see marriage as a political activity above all. And if the institution is so oppressive, why would they wish it upon gays and lesbians anyway?

But of course it's pointless to ask such questions of these grotesque, hateful numpties. They're driven by emotion, not sense, after all.

Julian Burnside QC defends his Tasmanian solution to Ben Fordham

If you want a really good insight into the psychology of the Left, then you can't go past this interview that Julian Burnside QC gave to Ben Fordham on 2GB. In it he argues for turning Tasmania into a big detention centre.

It starts out with Fordham asking: "Are you serious?"

Burnside prevaricates a little and says, somewhat halfheartedly, "It could work". He adds that of course it won't be adopted anyway ...

It's pretty obvious from his tone of voice that he's not offering a serious solution to the whole asylum seeker problem. And if he's not serious, then why suggest it?

It's merely a rhetorical exercize that enables him to demonize the two major parties (LNP mostly). He can look at the machinations of democracy, turn up his nose and sneer: "If only you were all pure of heart and compassionate like me and my fellow travellers!"

If anything it shows how little he truly cares about humanitarian issues. Not only is he unmoved by deaths at sea -- endorsing a policy that will guarantee that they continue -- he's just using them as fodder to show how much cleverer and more visionary he is than those appalling politicians. (And who elects those nasty pollies? Why, those thick, primitive proles, of course ...)

Julian Burnside QC, like all his latte slurping, finger wagging ilk, thinks it's all about him. He believes that anyone who is not in his luvvie elite is invariably cruel and heartless, always driven by the basest motives.

When Fordham says that both major parties are pushing for a hard-arsed border policy to deter arrivals and thereby stop the drowning deaths he immediately impugns their motives, asserting with no evidence whatsoever that politicians "don't care about people dying at sea". Fordham notices the casual arrogance inherent in this statement, asking if he's become a mind reader.

As well as being pompous and sanctimonious, Burnside is also intellectually dodgy as all get out. In a shamelessly deceitful tactic he says that the rate of boat arrivals "tracks parallel with international refugee movements". If that were an accurate statement then every democratic nation on Earth would have experienced an astronomical rise in refugee arrivals. That's simply not the case and he knows it.

He also refuses to acknowledge that even his beloved ABC defines those coming here by boat as "illegal arrivals". When Fordham presses him on this point he quite curtly -- and without a hint of self-parody -- says "Trust me. I'm a lawyer." It's comedy gold.

The interview contains many more gems of self-satire from one of the high priests of hand-wringing. Definitely worth a listen.

Peta Credlin's DUI charge vs Gillard and the AWU scandal

It's not at all surprising that leftists are already attributing the dropping of Peta Credlin's DUI charge to borderline corruption by the Liberal Party. It's early days with this particular issue but I'm sure they'll keep seething about it for as long as they can. We'll probably even see a coupla competing conspiracy theories ...

Makes a marked contrast to how they reacted to Julia Gillard's alleged involvement in the AWU scandal. Without a doubt she stonewalled for years and even personally bullied media big wigs to keep the story suppressed. And during that whole period lefties either remained completely silent, or actively joined the campaign for censorship of reporting of this issue. They're still saying "nothing to see here folks, move along" even though the Victorian coppers are investigating the former PM.

Sure, these people aren't the sharpest pencils in the box, generally speaking. They'll just believe anything their thought leaders tell them. But the smarter ones creep me out. They must see how condemning Credlin and the Libs while defending Labor and Gillard is an outrageous double standard. Yet they do it anyway. If that's not a kind of corruption in itself, it's pretty damn close.

That said, if Gillard does end up in the clink, it can be seen as a plus for Labor. They will be able to finally truthfully say that they do have at least one conviction politician.

Robotic Rudd heading for mega-meltdown?

Most people think that Kevin Rudd is a bit if a strange one. But I think he's more than strange. I think he might just be a robot.

I mean, watch him. His avuncular nerd persona is so contrived, it hardly appears to be organic. Actually, it seems more like it's been programmed by some geeks having a laugh.

Then there's his emotionless voice, and the absurd verbosity. And watch his hand movements when he points to reporters, etc. Mechanical as all get out!

And what about his astonishing psychological imperviousness. No human -- even a psychopath -- could have survived that all out assault from his own side after his second tilt at the Lodge after being knifed by Gillard. Yet he did, and came back to win.

Kevin Rudd 2.0 is one hard-arsed uber-droid. But even machines have their limits. And it looks like the machine we call the PM is finally starting to fall apart after years of constant pressure and no maintenance.

Take that strange presser in Perth. It was pretty obvious that Rudd was very close to boiling point. He's been programmed to win at all costs, see. And the increasing likelihood that he might just lose -- and big -- simply does not compute. With pretty much every pundit in Oz predicting a Coalition landslide, the odds of the PM chucking a full on cyber flame-out a la the creepy android Ash from Alien are pretty damn high, I reckon.

In the video below the monomaniacal contraption attempts to off Ripley with a rolled up magazine, and is set upon by the crew before winding up as a talking head covered in yicky white android blood.

Dunno about you, but I can easily envisage the Ruddster meeting a similar end after losing it with one of his assistants. 

"Abbott's Internet" ad campaign another example of Labor waste

As the spin-obsessed smarties in Labor become increasingly nervous about their chances of holding onto government, they're trying ever more desperate tactics. Abbott-focused smear campaigns are in high gear, and they're really pulling out all the slops.

As well as relentless and vicious personal attacks they're flogging a line about his team being a bunch of utter bozos re the interwebs. The latest example is a daffy online campaign attempting to convince people that they should vote Labor because Abbott's internet plan is way behind the rest of the world.

Even if everything they say in it were true (highly unlikely) how many votes would it garner? Buggerall, that's for sure. Fact is, most people in the country are concerned about slightly more important issues than their bloody internet connections. Only a few vapid tech-heads addicted to file-sharing and movie downloading would think this was a crucal enough issue to alter their vote.

Yet Labor clearly think it's worth a shot and have poured a whole lot of taxpayers' money into this stupid, pointless campaign. They flew a production crew, along with some actors, all over the world to get these reactions from locals that they believe will be enormously persuasive. Imagine how much this would have cost (not to mention the appalling carbon footprint it left!). It's yet another example of Labor splashing (our) cash around in a desperate attempt to cling to power. 

My guess is that it won't win one new vote. On the contrary, its glaring wastefulness will probably have the opposite effect.

Fake "undecided" voter at Brisbane people's forum one of many

Not surprised by the revelation that a zealous young Labor supporter called Gabrielle Ward purported to be an undecided voter so she could ask a question at the Brisbane people's forum recently. As Bolta remarks, there seems to be a lot of this happening lately, particularly on Q and A.

Certainly confirms what I've long thought. At the beginning of pretty much every episode of that show you'll see that those who claim to vote LNP outnumber the other voter categories. But if you look at the actual audience you'll see that the majority are borderline retarded whippersnappers, smug middle class wankers, and dirty, smelly ol' hippies. And we all know that people in these sad demographics overwhelmingly "dress to the left" (if they can dress themselves, that is).

Inevitably, Q and A audience members' questions will focus mainly on tragic ol' leftie obsessions such as catastrophic climate change, the hideous cruelty of the "race to the bottom" by the major parties on border policy, gay marriage, eeevil Rupert Murdoch, the appalling rise of misogyny in Australia and the countless shortcomings of the puritanical pugilist Tony Abbott.

Sure, I can't actually prove this, but it's pretty bloody obvious that as they enter the venue for the taping a fair whack of the crowd will happily lie about their political allegiance in a brazen attempt to discredit conservative claims of left-wing bias at the national broadcaster. And they do it week in, week out, at numerous venues all over Oz.

My suspicion is that some are young Labor luvvies like Gabrielle Ward. But the vast majority of those engaging in this widespread and repeated con are Greens supporters. Labor types will resort to dishonesty far more easily than normal folk, sure. But at least they do usually have a moral code, even if they don't use it that often. Hard core Greens supporters, on the other hand, lie as easy as breathing. They get off on it, too.

After all, their whole mission is to white-ant Western civilization at every opportunity. They hate the very idea of universal morality -- seeing at as some sort of eeevil white male plot to control women, gays, minorities, and, er, bilbies. So in their tiny, often bong addled minds, when they fob themselves off as conservatives they don't see it for what it truly is: gutlessly telling porkies. Hilariously, they actually believe they're bravely striking a blow for the dispossessed! Makes 'em feel like members of the French Resistance during the Nazi Occupation, or something.

Gawd, what pathetic skulking little weasels they are ...

Rudd, Abbott's character flaws now the focus of voters

Watched The Project the other night -- well, watched it for as long as I could bear (limit: about a minute and a half) -- and the airheaded whippersnappers were bemoaning the fact that much of the meeja coverage of the upcoming election was focusing on the personalities of Rudd and Abbott over more substantial policy issues.

This was pretty funny coming from them. The show itself is pure "heat 'n' eat". Each issue gets an ultra-slick, ultra-swift, ultra-simplistic and predictably PC treatment -- then onto the next. Their adoring audience of sneering hipsters are in no doubt about which positions they're expected to hold, and which are deemed way uncool. And coolness is all they care about anyway ...

But back to their point: Firstly, I think there has been a great deal of policy analysis in the meeja. You just have to look for it. And if you boil it all down now as we head into the campaign home stretch it's very clear what each major party is all about. Basically the Libs offer small, responsible government and are therefore aiming for the adult vote. Nanny-statist Labor, on the other hand, just want to keep power at all costs, and are desperately courting cretins.

Most Aussies have figured this out. And now as they prepare to cast their votes they're looking very closely at the two leaders' psychological make-up. Rupert's tabloids in particular are well attuned to the zeitgeist and are responding to this heightened interest. Hence their focus on the make-up lady story and Abbott's "shut up" comment.

The character of the leader is certainly not the most important factor in most voters' decision making process. But it's a biggie -- as it should be. And I think Aussie voters have pretty much made up their minds about Rudd. They've realized that for all his talk about having changed, he's still the same two-faced, narcissistic, bullying asshat that they were ready to kick out back in 2010 -- just before the faceless men did it for them.

And Abbott? Well, I think for ages they believed the leftie-luvvie lie about him being a woman-hating, puritanical thug simply because it was repeated so often. Now that he's been in the public eye much more frequenty and in many different contexts I think they've been pleasantly surprised and many have changed their minds about him. Interestingly, he's now the most Googled pollie in Oz. Clearly a lot of people are trying to find out as much as they can about him so they can decide for themselves what he's really like.

As Rudd falls in their estimation, Abbott enjoys a commensurate rise in their affection and interest. As a result, it looks almost certain that the Abbott haters' worst nightmare is coming true. The man they loathe more than anything will now be PM!

What a laugh! If he does win on September 7 their complete and utter despair will be the icing on the cake for me and many, many others. 

Sanctimonious Scott Ludlam on Q and A in Perth

Disappointed I didn't know that Q and A was in Perth last Monday. If I had, I would have gone along and had a look.

Needless to say it was handled in the simplistic and biased way that we've come to expect from Tony Jones and their ABC. And it featured one of the more pompous hand-wringers in this state, Scott Ludlam of the Greens.

Not unlike his fellow inner urban nature boy from Victoria Adam Bandt, Ludlam has an affected, prissy manner. He's obviously desperate to convey an impression of perspicacity. On the contrary, the po-faced sneering actually highlights his infantile credulity.

Really, some of his arguments were amazingly puerile. Par for the course with the Greens, they were also incoherent and sanctimonious as all get out.

Take this contribution on the carbon tax:

SCOTT LUDLAM: I think it is a really useful question. When the wholesale price of electricity goes up 10% and somebody comes along the next day and slugs you for an import cost that’s 400% higher, I would be with Tony on that. I would be paying very close attention to what the ACCC is doing. But can I just ground this question very quickly as to why we didn’t vote for the first one is because it wouldn't have worked. The carbon price would have been one euro a tonne at the moment. That was why we didn’t vote for it. What Kevin Rudd has just done, for short-term tactical advantage, which I agree with Narelda probably will be quite popular, is sacrificed and cost us another year. This is about the weather itself turning against us. Could we please, just for a moment, ground the conversation about why we pass these kind of laws, why we are trying to prevent the worst and most dangerous impacts of climate change is because they will wreck the economy. They will wreck the economy not just here but all of our supplier and customer countries, within our life spans. This is not something for our kids to deal with. This is on top of us now. That is why we are coming to grips with this situation. I would like to quickly acknowledge and shout out to the kids at Power Shift in Melbourne, who have been conferencing on this stuff all day and over the last couple of days to try to do a better job than the old parties have been doing, quite frankly. Having Tony Abbott marching around the landscape saying, “Oh, it’s some kind of invisible gas. We're just wasting our time,” really, grow up. Grow up.

Eh? He's saying that Gaia has cracked the shits with us and is destroying the global economy via the climate. And the end of the world isn't just nigh, it's now! Then he tells us to grow up? Unbelievable.

Revealingly, Tony Jones let Ludlam deliver that whole balmy spiel uninterrupted, strongly implying that he agreed with it. In marked contrast Jones repeatedly interrupted the rational, measured Julie Bishop during the same discussion. 

Speaking of rational and measured discussion, that's what Ludlam himself says he wants to see more of during election time.

SCOTT LUDLAM: That’s okay. It’s good practice. Thanks to the questioner and thanks to Narelda for framing the discussion. We've both heard really measured contributions, both from Julie and Stephen, and if only that was the case during election campaigns, where we see political parties getting into a law and order auction, tough on crime, tough on kids, lock them up, stay safe, kind of really degraded political debate. What we should instead be looking at are exactly the kind of things that have been said here in a much more measured way, but it's not often what we get. We get things like the intervention, where they sent the army into the Northern Territory and totally disempowered people who are now campaigning against it being rolled out elsewhere. Look for justice re-investment. Look for transferring money out of the criminal justice system and into precisely the kind of services that people are talking about, it's hard to have that conversation if the election debate is degraded. So maybe we can continue this type of discussion over the coming months.  

So the pure and virtuous Ludlam doesn't like a "degraded debate" ...

Hell, this is politics he's talking about! It's not pretty but our elected representatives should be able to, and must, speak freely on these issues, no matter whose delicate sensibilities are offended.

Saying you don't want a "degraded debate" is just another way of saying you don't like debate at all. The last thing he wants is for politicians to "continue the discussion" as he claims. Clearly, he'd much rather they stop arguing and go along with what he and his fellow hand-wringers demand. It would be a refreshing change if he just 'fessed up and said openly that this is what he wanted.

But the height of his brazen hypocrisy came late in the discussion when the panel was discussing asylum seekers.

SCOTT LUDLAM: Just to remind us that these are human beings that we are talking about.

JULIE BISHOP: And they’re drowning at sea. And they’re drowning at sea.

TONY JONES: Yeah, I mean the people were clapping then but Julie Bishop made a very powerful point, it seems to me.

SCOTT LUDLAM: That they’re drowning. Absolutely.

TONY JONES: They are drowning at sea the way things are.

JULIE BISHOP: They are drowning at sea now.

SCOTT LUDLAM: Yeah.

JULIE BISHOP: That’s right.

SCOTT LUDLAM: And if you want to know why they are coming, go and see a film about it called No Fly Zone about what just happened in Sri Lanka that the Australian Government turned a blind eye to. And people will continue to leave there no matter how cheap and nasty the debate gets in Australia, no how many racist billboards go up that Tony Abbott gets to stand in front of. The people will keep coming.

For a start, Ludlam cares more deeply for the welfare of bilbies and quolls than he does about people. And the reason they are drowning in their hundreds is because of the very policies that he and his sanctimonious, censorious ilk espouse. 

What a silly, pompous, spoiled and most of all heartless child he is.

PS: In the ABC transcript, Ludlam's last little brain fart above is incorrectly attributed to Jones. Considering how similar their opinions on such matters actually are, it's easy to see how the error was made.

Victorian Women's Trust maintains the rage over Gillard's fate

The way that victim feminists bemoan the fate of Julia Gillard is just too tragic for words. Take those tawdry ads taken out by the Victorian Women's Trust.

In them, they're perpetuating the silly claim that sexism was to blame for Gillard's demise. But as anyone with at least one eye half open and an IQ over fifty knows beyond a shadow of a doubt she lost the top job 'cause she was the worst bloody PM this country's ever known!

If sexism played a part it was that Gillard had a much easier run than a bloke of comparable incompetence. Hell, she was treated with kid gloves by almost all of the mainstream media throughout her prime ministership. And she had the support of the majority of her colleagues for months, if not years, after it was completely obvious she would lead Labor to electoral oblivion. It's highly unlikely they would've maintained support for a bloke in the same circumstances.

Sure, she copped a lot of abuse from punters infuriated by her endless lying and utter disdain for them, some of which was sexist. But she stoked the fire by making such an issue out of it. (One shouldn't feed the trolls, remember.)

And there were a couple of cases of journos saying offensive things about her and to her face. But these broadcasters copped torrents of mud thrown back at them, and one even lost his job (along with two others who dared to bring up issues about her past that were of legitimate public interest).

Most truly independent-minded and strong women would have shrugged the abuse off and got on with the gig. Yet Gillard milked it for all it was worth and tried to turn her reign into a soapie about the scourge of sexism with her as the heroine. Even after this cynical and devious tactic made her popularity plummet still further, thus cementing her fate, the hand-wringers continued to cry "victim"!

The bleating will go on forever, too. After all, there's nothing lefties love more than clinging to their bitter delusions. Think of all the unreconstructed Whitlamites who are still "maintaining the rage" over the Great Helmsman's sacking close to forty years ago, eh!

Still, there's an upside to all this wailing and gnashing of teeth. The more the sob sisters squawk and squeal about what happened to Gillard, the more sick and tired of this particular brand of feminism the electorate will become. As a result the odds of a woman like Gillard ever becoming PM again will be even further diminished.

So, keep shriekin' chickybabes! You're doing the nation a favour.  

Kevin Rudd on last night's 7.30 Report was creepy and desperate

Fascinating to watch Kevin Rudd back in "7.30 Report Land" again. Like so many are now, I'm immune to his folksy fakery. So as Leigh Sales questioned him I was watching him much more critically than when he was PM previously. 

Rudd always struck me as being a bit robotic; not quite human. But this quality seemed far more pronounced this time. I kept seeing him as a nerdy Terminator, sent back through time to destroy Australia's economy! All through his interview I kept imagining bits of his face falling off, revealing the gleaming metal machinery underneath.

Now that we know what he's been up to over the last three years, the quirky but gentle persona he's so keen to present doesn't just look silly. It's downright sinister.

And the bit where he brushed off talk of vengeance was astonishing:

LEIGH SALES: Is there another reason: revenge?

KEVIN RUDD: Oh, good grief, no. Sort of past all that a long time ago. If I was so sorta wounded by the events of 2010, I would've gone offer whimpering into the corner a long time ago. I'm a positive sort of bloke, get on with the business and had we been travelling in much better circumstances, then I'm sure none of these events would've happened.

So, he's employing the same tactic of outright denial that Gillard used after she knifed him. Except it's even more absurd than when she used it. 

Fact is, he had heaps to do with Gillard's downfall. Spent much of his time plotting, leaking and poncing about in front of the cameras to damage her leadership. And on his third attempt he finally got rid of her! Then he turns around and with a straight face says he has no ill will towards her and had nothing to do with her ousting. Ha!

Clearly, in all that time he hasn't given much thought to how he was going to govern when he reclaimed the top job. The interview makes clear that he's policy light, and even though he dispatched Gillard, he's still totally dependent on her tactic of demonizing Abbott.

His attempt to characterize the conflict between them was truly desperate:

KEVIN RUDD: ... I think it's time you demonstrated to the country you had a bit of ticker on this. I mean, he's the boxing blue; I'm the glasses-wearing kid in the library - come on, let's have the Australian people form a view about whether his policies actually have substance, whether they actually work or whether they're just slogans and I'm prepared on each of these things to take him on directly.

Labor luvvies and pollies are always trying to smear Abbott as a thug and are forever reminding us of his love of boxing. (Actually I'm surprised Rudd didn't use their favoured word "pugilist".)

The reality is that Abbott is a highly intelligent and articulate former journalist and Rhodes Scholar whose arguments against Labor have caused them endless grief. The thug label was tired long ago, and I think that most of the electorate sees through it now.

There was plenty more in that interview that revealed how desperate Rudd is. I think he's going to lurch from one improvised tactic to another from now on. While his reign won't be the rolling disaster that Gillard's was it's sure to result in him being much less popular come election time than he is now. 

Kevin Rudd's popularity is overrated

There's a helluva lot of chatter now about how Julia Gillard will be gone very soon. Clearly many in Labor believe that Rudd really is their best hope of saving the furniture. Some also believe they can beat the Coalition with him at the helm again.

Frankly I think this talk about him being a possible saviour is way over the top. As numerous columnists have pointed out, many of Labor's worst policy disasters actually began under him and not Gillard. And the Libs will be reminding us of that at every opportunity, no doubt. Also, the fact that he gets mobbed by fans in shopping centres doesn't necessarily mean that people will vote for him in droves.

There's something quite strange going on there, actually. It's more to do with mass hysteria than politics. It's kinda like what happens when One Direction are in town and all the schoolgirls go absolutely spacko for the cameras. Part of the reason they do that is because they've seen others do it on previous TV reports. It's a conditioned behaviour; a kind of ritual.

Another example: Gangnam Style. It's a very catchy song with a unique energy about it. And everybody has fun joining in with those signature horse-riding moves. 

Being the outrageous media tart that he is, the former PM has managed to imprint his nerdy and avuncular persona on pretty much the entire Australian population. We've all seen him yucking it up with everyday Aussies in shopping centres right across the land. So taking a selfy while arm-in-arm with the Ruddster and saying "Kevin come back!" for the attendant news cameras just seems like the thing to do.

Many of the same folk being caught up in the circus-like atmosphere that surrounds KRudd on his flesh-pressing jaunts will be in a much more serious frame of mind on election day, however. As a result only his most ardent supporters will actually vote for Labor if he's the leader. And there actually aren't that many of them.

Still, decimation is preferable to near extinction. Which is why the ALP should, and almost certainly will, go back to him. 

Akerman sledged for citing Mathieson sexuality rumours

So Piers Akerman mentioned on Insiders that rumours about Tim Mathieson's sexuality had been circulating in the Canberra press gallery for a couple of years. Not surprisingly his statement has provoked widespread condemnation from Piers's, er, peers. Needless to say, countless leftie Twitter trolls are arcing up big time about it. And they're all sheeting home blame to Akerman.

But why condemn him for merely reporting what he's seen and heard? It actually reflects more poorly on the press gallery, in my opinion. Clearly, the vacuous busybodies are mighty interested in the sex life of the PM's beau, and spend a lot of time gossiping about it. But if someone mentions their obsessions publicly, they all go into paroxysms of faux indignation. What a pack of prurient, cowardly hypocrites!