Morally and Intellectually Superior Left

Two examples this week of the sanctimony of the know all left.

Sharon, a contestant on Big Brother said on Abbott's "suppository" comment, it "doesn't surprise me. I'm not a fan." It doesn't surprise you that he would make a language gaff. Yeah, cause he's like a big idiot. Haw haw haw. How sanctomonious. Abbott isn't perfect, nobody is. But he's a Rhodes Scholar. You, Sharon, were a housemate on Big Brother.

Then there was the "sex appeal comments", which the fashionble leftists jumped on like piranhas. Jo Stanley tweeted her outrage. Huh? Jo Stanley. You mean the same Jo Stanley who worked for the same FM radio network as Kyle Sandilands. Never heard her express any outrage at the sexism of Mr. Sandilands.

Jo Stanley works in an industry which, like television, favours young and sassy over old and mature. Name one woman aged over 50 on a major FM station.

Jo's Twitter backdrop includes pictures of her in a tight hugging dress, with high-heeled pornstar style stilletos. Such is her concern for sexism that she objectifies. Irony?

High heels and stilletos have done more damage than any mean old conservative with a "sexist" mouth.

Stanley is the kind of PC, groovy, fashionable politics gal who never grew out of 20s. She takes the PC view of things like asylum seekers and gay marriage, and becomes shocked, astounded when a conservative gives an alternate take on these issues. Andrew Bolt's appearance on The Project was a great example. Stanley, in a guest appearance on the panel, seemed genuinely shocked that a person would have differing views to her. She seemed astounded that, outside of her chattering class and circle of hairdresser gossip politics, there was a whole world of ideas and opinions.

Stanley is the kind of person who doesn't realise that their fringe ideas are not part of the mainstream.

And there with have the moral superiority of the Left.

Er... Rodney... They Ain't Going to Vote Liberal Anyway

Rodney Croome has no idea what he is talking about if he thinks inner-city seats are going to vote for Tony Abbott regardless of his gay marriage stance. Croome, the director of Australian Marriage Equality, says Abbott risks inner-city seats because of his decision not to allow Liberal Party MPs a conscience vote on gay marriage. Um, Rodney, the Liberals are not going to win those seats anyway; and that's not being apathetic, or saying that they shouldn't try to win those seats; but the political animosity towards Abbott, by the inner-city voters, goes just a little further than the issue of marriage rights. The Liberals aren't going to win Sydney, Melbourne or any of the inner-city seats like Batman or Melbourne Ports.

The serious issues of the economy, border protection and standards of living, are the issues that most Australians care about. It is the suburban heartlands where elections are won and lost: Western Sydney, Melbourne's southeast, Brisbane's suburbs, and semi rural seats.

It is manufacturing and factory workers in Dandenong and new parents, first time home owners in Parramatta who will be the heart of the support for either Labor or Liberal. The inner-city is home to the fringe dwellers who vote with their hearts, not their heads.

Government Has No Place Using Tax Payer Money in This Way

Dave Faulkner can call Andrew Bolt a "blowhard"; but I'm a 28 year old film student, and I too think excessive tax paying funding of art and music is wrong.

Yeah. All those who want to be able to spend their own money are "blowhards."

What evil right wing culture haters.

Making people pay for something they won't see, and probably aren't a fan of, is the same as forcing them to endure ideas of which they dissaprove; it is akin to an intellectual version of forced labour.
Hey, Dave, that makes you kinda like Pol Pot.

If live music is so popular and "big", as you claim, it doesn't need government support. What is it about capitalism you don't understand. Popularity equals demand. Demand equals customers and patrons. Patrons pay money. Are leftists allergic to an understanding of basic economics?

So I ask again, why should people who will never go to see live music, or people who are not fans of indie rock and live music, have to pay to prop it up?

The Dave Faulkners and Marieke Hardys of this world have an automatic reflex that sees them turn to government the minute their industry or livelihood finds itself in dire straits.

Maybe if they stopped making annoying, navel gazing hipster garbage then people would pay to listen

LDP. FREEDOM. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

I'm joining the Liberal Democrats. Heres's why.

The Liberal Democrat Party (LDP) is Australia's only true libertarian party. The Sex Party may claim to be libertarian, but they aren't. Don't even get me started on those pretenders (government funding for abortions and Viagra?)

No. The LDP are the only true libertarians.

For a year I've been weighing up whether or not to join. I vote for the Coalition; but I have said that if an LDP candidate were to run in my electorate "beware the Coalition."

It is my feeling, and that of many others, that the Liberal/National Coalition has strayed away from the original ideals of individual freedom and personal responsibility.

Tony Abbott, the current leader of the Liberal Party in federal parliament, is a moderate statist.

One of his major policies is the funding of a maternity leave scheme paid for by increasing company tax. So he will scrap the carbon tax (which Labor says they will do as well), but he will increase the tax on companies in order to fund something that individuals should be funding themselves.

I will always be a Liberal Party voter as long as they remain a semblance of a reliable alternative to the green socialism of the ALP and the Greens. The Liberal Party have long stood up for the destrangulation of union infested labour, and for changes to IR laws that, despite the scaremongering, would actually benefit individual workers.

They seem to have forgotten their own philosophy, though.

It was the Liberal Party under Howard and Costello that introduced the Baby Bonus, a payment to new parents that I believe is responsible for rates of poverty, abuse and dependence in low socio-economic communities.

Now it is the Liberal Party that wants to make bosses pay full maternity leave to women who choose to be pregnant.


Now to some of the policies that attracted me to the LDP.

The LDP believes in the decriminalization of victimless crimes. I have long argued that there is no need for governments enforce laws that harm nobody when they are broken, except maybe the person breaking them. Fines for not wearing a bike helmet while riding a bike, for not wearing a seat belt while in a car, and fines and even jail time for the personal use of drugs, are all draconian laws that have no place in a free society. I would add to that list jaywalking. I am an adult. I am smart enough to judge the traffic for myself. I will decide when and where I can cross the road.

People should have the freedom to wear a bike helmet if they choose; to wear a seat belt if they choose. They should never be forced to do these things in the name of "personal safety."

The LDP also supports the RIGHT to own a firearm for sport, hunting and SELF DEFENSE. As it now stands in Australia, every state has differing gun laws. One thing all the states have in common is that they do not allow "self defence" as a valid reason for being approved a handgun licence. This is absurd. Self defense is the right of every free man. So long as we have life and liberty we should be able to defend them.

The LDP supports concealed carry by law abiding citizens who have no previous history of criminal activity or mental illness.

Those who who know me know that I am an ardent supporter of gun rights, the right to keep and bear arms, and the effect guns have in reducing crime.

The LDP supports market based approaches to tackling climate change. The government has no place imposing a tax on private businesses. Let the market decide the price of carbon. Allow free and voluntary trade in a free market. If the people want cleaner energy they will pay for it. A man and his wallet is a better indicator of popularity than a government and its policies.

The LDP also plans to scrap compulsory voting. Just as no citizen can be forced to silence, no citizen can be forced to speak. Forcing free people to attend a polling booth and have their name ticked off is akin to forcing them to give their opinion. The fact the government forces you out of your house on a Saturday in order to do your "civic duty" is Orwellian, evil and borders on slavery.

In her appearance on the ABC's QandA program earlier this year, then prime minister Julia Gillard laid the blame for America's gun culture on the fact that they don't have compulsory voting over in the States. The scaremongers tactic was as tyrannical in nature as it was absurd. To defend one tyrannical law by attacking a cherished freedom is the tactic of Marxists. Her suggestion that non-compulsory voting in America allows the gun lobby to wield enormous power is ludicrous. Every registered citizen can vote in America. Not every citizen does. Nobody, who is legally able, is stopped from voting, as seemed to be how suggestion.

When people like Julia Gillard defend compulsory voting by attacking the people who defend the right to bear arms, you know tyranny has reached it's absurd point.

And finally. The LDP advocvates the complete sell off and private ownership of the ABC, SBS, government owned public transport and Australia Post. Tony Abbott seems too scared to say he will sell off the ABC. I doubt he will even if he does form government.

The government has no place in the media. Forcing citizens to pay for a national broadcaster is as evil and despotic as, I don't know, forcing them to vote.

Bow to Your Future King

Ok. I'm going to be a scrooge

First. Congratulations to the Duke and Duchess. My issue is not with them. I admire the Duke and Duchess, the Queen and some other members of the royal family. My issue is with the sycophantic media.

My issue is with the insult to free people that comes with the notion that this baby is the future heir and ruler.

It is a baby. The idea that this is our future head is insulting. We are adults for crying out loud. That we fawn over the birth of a future ruler and heir, that the media declares that this is our future king and head. No. No no. Enough. Free people deserve better. We aren't subjects.

Yet people of Britain, Canada Australia, New Zealand and other nations of which Queen Elizabeth is sovereign head, seem happy to be ruled by privilieged, born into status celebrities. It is wrong.

But, if you're happy being ruled in the future by a young man who uses tax payer money to get laid in Las Vegas. If you don't mind that the sister of the Duchess of Cambridge is a media show pony whose bum is more important than the poor people of Britain; a thug who was smiling stupidly in a car in Paris while the male driver aimed a pistol at photographers.

What joy to know that while the British subjects are unarmed, the sister of the future queen has mates who have easy access to weapons.

The Queen is a lovely lady I admire. Tyrants and thugs follow behind her.

People's Justice

Not happy with the decision of a jury in a court of law, rioters and protestors want to serve up their own justice to George Zimmerman.

It makes you wonder what the point of the adversarial system is if people think they can take the law into their own hands when a result doesn't go their way.

These closet tyrants and mini Stalins are only happy when they get their way. Anything else is "unjust", unfair.

In the minds of the protestors, only the hanging of Zimmerman will suffice.

They want him fed to the crowd. They want to lynch him. They want to let all their anger out on this man. It is a catharsis.

Feed him to the people. Let the people hand out justice. Who needs laws and constititions. Who needs statutes and order. The courts have failed because the ravenous socialists say so.

Now feed us. Feed us

In this age, good and brave deeds stand out for their rarity. This week, two brave men accomplished very different, but admirable achievements.

Shane Crawford didn't have to cycle from Melbourne to Perth to raise money for breast cancer research. In 2012 he walked from Melbourne to Adelaide for the same cause.

But, like all people of Crawford's calibre, he felt he could do more. Brave.

Harry O'Brien didn't have to reveal his emotional demons to anyone. He didn't have to front cameras, calmly and bravely revealing a "long and complicated history of sexual abuse."

O'Brien's composure was inspiring. He is a courageous person who should be, and will be supported.

Crawford and O'Brien have contributed towards bettering, even saving the lives of millions of people.

Crawford's fundraising means more money towards research and, hopefully, cures for cancer.

O'Brien's candid revelations might just give depression sufferers the inspiration and incentive to come out and talk about their troubles. Crawford and O'Brien are just human. But they showed a superhuman courage this week.

The Ruddbama Awards

Proposal: the creation of a new award of demerit for the most ungenuine, fake politician. The award to be known as the Ruddbamas
A politician qualifies by being a fake, a poser, a douche, or having delusions of celebrity.

The Rudd Express - the myth of the "Honeymoon Period."

I don't know which is slower. The computer I'm using now, or Kevin Rudd at naming an election date. Remember when John Howard got flack for taking his time?

Ok. I accept the argument that Labor needs to preselect members for vacated seats before an election is announced. But shouldn't Rudd and his backers thought of that before they rolled Gillard. Surely Rudd would have been prepared for the possibility that a large chunk of the cabinet - Gillard supporters, and Rudd despisers - was going to quit now that Rudd was back.

All of this seems very last minute.

If Rudd thinks the polls are going to stay the same, or perhaps increase even more in his favour, he is deluded. Of course, there is no proof that is the reason for his reluctance to name an election date. It may be that Rudd is very much aware that the longer he stalls the less popular he will be come election day.

One mistake Rudd has made is believing the hype created by the myth of the "Honeymoon Period." No such thing exists. Despite appearances (and a lot of people do like Rudd). Despite the polls that say he is prefered PM (such polls mean nothing when it is the government we vote for, not the PM. And Labor still trails the Coalition)the "Honeymoon Period" is still a myth.

Rudd was scrutinised and attacked from his first day back in the Prime Minister's chair - the last day of Parliament before the winter break.

His past failings were brought up; his manner, speech and lack of skills in delegation were also mentioned in the media and in Parliament. There is no, and never has been, a "Honeymoon Period."

The Left may fawn and suck up to certain leaders like groupies after rockstars. But Rudd's political opposition has never, and will never, allow for any softness or niceities simple because it's Rudd's first month back. The scrutiny starts from day one.

That scrutiny will increase as more revelations about Rudd's involvement in the illegal shredding of documents relating to a child sex abuse victim come to light. The media has been silent on this. No surprise. It's a block in the road stopping the Rudd bandwagon. And we can't have a few little allegations of illegality get in the way of the Rudd Express, can we?

Crazy Green's Policies

One need only look at the Green's policies on Aboriginal affairs, and animal welfare, to see double standards and hypocrisy. Why do I highlight these two particular areas? Well, read this section, from their animal welfare policy statement:

A ban on the recreational shooting of all animals, including Australian native water birds

Native birds are already protected; but it's the Greens, so we can't expect facts.

Now see this from the Green's policy statement on Aboriginal affairs:

The rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to sustainably hunt, fish and gather native flora and fauna in line with traditional cultural practice

Hold on a minute. I thought the Greens wanted native fauna to be protected (it already is). Yet they propose a policy of allowing Aboriginal people the right to use traditional methods of hunting.

Traditional Aboriginal methods of hunting include the use of spears to kill kangaroos, and the burning of bush habits to scare animals out into the open. The Greens think this traditional form of hunting is acceptable, yet the more humane methods used by modern hunters is unacceptable.

Only in the Green's twisted world would spearing an animal to death be considered more acceptable than a quick, single shot from a rifle.

But that's the crazy Greens for you.

Nicola Roxon, this week, shamefully used her valedictory speech to federal parliament to highlight the negatives of Australian society, and to stir up even more "us against them" rhetoric among the pseudo victims of the feminista. Roxon spoke about an underbelly of sexism.

Yeah, sexism is so bad in this country half of us voted for a government lead by a female prime minister; while the other half, the Coalition voters, admire such great women as Margaret Thatcher, and have tremendous respect for Julie Bishop.

Sexism is so bad Nicola Roxon got the opportunity to rise to the position of Attorney General.

Roxon pointed to the "crass, sexist" behaviour the prime minister has been subject to, failing to mention that much of the criticism of Gillard has been constructive and warranted.

Yes, examples such as the Howard Sattler interview last week show a tendency for some to behave in a way they would not towards a male politician. But such examples are not indicative of an "underbelly of sexism."

Speaking on the same day, outgoing Labor senator Trish Crossin, who makes way for Nova Peris, said that were needed in parliament, but "not at the expense of each other."

What?

So a woman could replace a man, but a woman can never replace a woman?

And some people wonder how quotas are seen by many as sexist?

Labor, like much of the left, has yet to fully to understand the concept of individuality. It still thinks women are a single entity. It still blankets women under the cloak of "reproductive rights" as if they are a single vagina.

Roxon's speech did nothing but attempt to stir up fear and division. The Labor party is no doubt disappointed she retired.

Apologies

Apologies for the time between posts. I have been rather busy. I'm studying film, and working on a number of different projects at once.

One thing I have learnt is how one can use media to convey their message. As a passionate conservative with a slight libertarian lean, it annoys me that so much of what passes for film these days is leftist drivel and revisionist moralizing.

Films such as, Rabbit-Proof Fence, from my own country, portray historical events as a stereotypical, 2-dimensional cut-out. Very little cinematic attention is given to pro-conservative ideals and beliefs.

With this in mind, I have made it my aim to bring more of a conservative voice to film. Whether it be subtle, or obvious for all to see, conservative thought and opinion has a place in film and literature. It belongs in media just as centre left views do.

The Reality of Silver Linings Playbook

In Silver Linings Playbook, Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence play Pat and Tiffany, characters with extreme emotional frailties who find a "silver lining" - SPOILER: it's each other. 

In the tradition of every American romcom ever made, love wins out in the end, and everyone lives happily ever after. Except the writers forgot to include the epilogue where, a year later, Pat brutally murders Tiffany and one of her many lovers. Oh, that didn't happen? Sorry. I seem to have once again mistaken Hollywood for real life. Silly me. Because, you see... 

In reality, Pat and Tiffany's respective issues, when put together, are the dating equivalent of being chased by every deadly animal in Australia, while balancing a crate of  nitro-glycerine on your head and dodging flying bullets every few seconds. 

"But, Keagan, you miss the point. It's a silver lining, man. Don't you see? Why can't you just be happy for Pat and Tiffany?" 

Well, it's hard to be happy when there's every chance that Pat is going to be back in the psych ward in a year; and Tiffany is going to be either dead, or in hiding with an AVO against Pat. 

Think back. What was the reason for Pats admission to the hospital? He flipped his pancake and committed an extremely violent assault. Why? Because he caught his wife in the shower with another man. He beats up the showering Casanova to the gentle tones of Stevie Wonder; his wife then leaves him; and he winds up in the hospital. 

Tiffany's woes begin when her husband his hit by a car after buying women's lingerie. Because, hey, why the hell not, right? She spirals into a deep depression, which we learn about from her candid conversations to Pat. 

So how did Tiffany cope with this depression. How did she handle her loss?By banging the hell out of everyone at her workplace - men and women.  She is fired soon after. 

So, you have a woman who responds to stress and depression by spreading her legs for whoever is willing; and a guy whose reaction to being cheated on is to perform his own WWE shower smackdown. 

You can see how this is going to wind up. Add to that the conspicuous fact that Pat doesn't believe he needs medication; and Tiffany doesn't believe she needs therapy. 

All Tiffany needs is to be fired from another job, or for a family member to die, or some other stressful event, and she's back to being the town carousel. 

And we all know how well Pat would handle that situation. 

At least when he's back in the psych ward - Tiffany's blood stained dress in his arms, White Stripes playing on rotation - he can be confident in the knowledge that there's always a silver lining. There's just a whole of silver misery on top of it.   

   

Homophobia Rife in KAP

Bernard Gaynor, a senate nominee representing Bob Katter's "Katter's Australia Party", yesterday tweeted. "I wouldn't let a gay teach my kids."  

In a spectacularly ballsy (sorry) move, Gaynor effectively committed political suicide. Which is pretty impressive considering an election hasn't been called yet, and Gaynor isn't even a senator yet, and most political hopefuls wait until they have POWER before putting their foot in their mouth. 

But the hilariously named Gaynor just can't seem to wait to express his paranoid and unjustified views. 
    
People like Gaynor hold these incredibly backward views because they want to shield their children from a lifestyle that they consider sinful and full of vice. 

But, by refusing to let gays teach their kids, parents like Gaynor are unintentionally exposing their children to the things that they intended to shield them from. 

Think about it. Most children before the age of 12 know "gay" only as an insult or an exclamation of disapproval or displeasure. As in: this homework is gay. 

Most 8 year olds aren't thinking, "I wonder what Mr. Green does in his bedroom. Is there a misses Green? Does he like Abba? I wonder where he's stuck his penis?"  

Most 8 year olds are thinking about whose turn it is to be batman; and how many more girls they can sit next to before girl germs reaches epidemic proportions. 

The one thing 8 year olds are not thinking of is whether their maths teacher fantasizes about George Michael and hot tubs. 

And as much as sick, backward, juvenile, dangerous lunatics like Gaynor like to say they are only trying to protect their children, the fact is, they are unwittingly, and ironically, drawing attention to an issue that they wish to hide their children from. 

As I sarcastically commented to Mr. Gaynor on Twitter, "when your kids are learning their times tables, the sexual lifestyle of their maths teacher is SO important." 

  

    

Little Book? So, Piers, You Want to Talk About Little?

Piers Morgan, like many who share his view on guns, doesn't like silly facts getting in the way of emotion and sensationalism. 

Morgan calls for a ban on assault weapons because the last 4 mass shootings in America involved those particular firearms. When Ben Shapiro pointed out that most gun murders in America are with handguns (many of those murders gang related) Morgan continues his inane tirade against assault weapons. 

For crying out loud, Piers. It is numbers, percentages that tell the truth about the severity of a particular problem. The fact that the last 4 mass shootings in America have involved assault weapons is irrelevent. Most gun crime is committed by crooks with your typical, run of the mill handgun. 

I also found Morgan's dismissal of the "tyranny" argument as quite naive and dangerous. Morgan, like many who want us to place all our faith in government, makes the mistake of thinking politicians will always do right by the people; that they will never abuse their powers. 

There's a good little lamb.   

Transcript is here.  

Member of Congress Says Obama Should Bypass Congress

Seems not even the White House believes the President can use the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling. Thank God, America, Nancy Pelosi isn't your president.