Get real Janet

UPDATE: I am amazed by some of the comments who act as if we are discussing what Mark Latham said. So let me point out that the issue is what Sky News did. We do not have much artillery on our side of the line and if you want to think that it is quite all right for Janet to line up with those who have effectively shut Mark Latham’s commentary down, well fine and dandy. That’s why many of you also don’t get Donald Trump, who is also someone who fights these issues out. Sky News made a commercial decision but all that has been done is remove someone who was actually trying to explain things from what I would have thought is our point of view. No? OK, go watch Q&A instead.
______

An article by the snooty and condescending head prefect at The Oz titled: Mark Latham’s lack of basic decency. Another one of those pseduo-members of the right decides to become an arbiter of proper and improper free speech in defence of our values. The top ten eleven of the top comments with no omissions.

No problem with what you say Janet, just this: A tale of two insulters of children: one calls a child gay – supposedly a good thing – and gets fired for it; one gets a child subjected to the trauma of a two-hour police interrogation for uttering a single word, then humiliates her across the whole country, calling her the face of racism. The latter gets Australian of the Year – surely now an utterly worthless award. Of course, the fired one attacked the left, the exalted one praised it. Total abominable hypocrisy.

Screw your decency Janet. While you ponder on your precious decency the left continues to wage war a vicious war against men, whites, kids, Christianity and western values, all without shame or fear of reprisal. As far as I can see Latham is one of the few grunts in the trenches, doing the dirtiest of jobs , trying to defend our values and freedoms. If we’re going to rely on our decency we might as well raise the white flag now.

The blatant hypocrisy is what galls me Janet. The left, through State funded media, universities and other Government agencies and now our corporations routinely abuse and intimidate anyone and anything that do not agree with them. Not only do they abuse and falsely accuse and label people they savage them, discriminate, intimidate and do everything to destroy them. I’m totally with Latham on this. It’s time somebody with a platform and the spine and intellect stood up to this rabble of thugs.

Disagree Janet. ABC hurls subversive insults every day. Wendy Harmer is excruciating to listen to, obviously leftist and now living on the public purse. Lathams comments about her are antagonistic and inflammatory and possibly insulting, but so was the lefts relentless attacking of Abbott. The young man put himself in the public domaine, thus open to public criticism. You must admit, he was used as a pawn by feminists for IWD. Lathams sacking was a PR stunt by a board acquiescing to political correctness and his comments were re broadcast by those who like to take offence on behalf of others. I’m deeply offended by the ignorance and bias and insults of the ABC, can we sack all them too?

Yet it is OK for the likes of Wendy Harmer to say worse about conservative targets in her so called comedy routine.

May I toss a rotten egg into Janet’s one woman’s Animal Rescue dog’s dinner? It isn’t all beer and skittles in the State of Denmark. The ABC has been getting away with its sneering, devious, relentless campaign in promoting its own agenda for decades. The “Four Corners” stitching up of Pauline Hanson the other night was a typical example of how this blatant propaganda outfit can abuse with our money by sticking to the “rules”. What a breath of fresh air it was to listen to the “Outsiders” team call this mob out for what they really are. Mark Latham doesn’t mince his words and unlike all the other “decent” and gutless politicians – given the power – I’m sure some-one like Latham would soon bring the ABC into line. I have listened to Mark Latham now for many months on SKY and he comes across as the typical honest Aussie you would meet in the street or pub. He is not a 2 week foul mouthed wonder. Most of the time Mark Latham succinctly puts into words want his viewers are thinking. If he has a “sin”, it is from time to time, like a rugby league player he occasionally throws a punch instead of keeping to the rules. Surely like the talented rugby league stars we watch on SKY, he needs to be sin binned – not given a life sentence.

Mark Latham is one of the most incisive and perceptive political commentators in Australia. Unfortunately in his zeal for the cause he sometimes overstepped the mark. There are others, of course, who are shrinking violets, not game to say anything controversial out of fear that they may upset one of the plethora of ‘identities” who are constantly on the prowl looking for some imagined offence. Mark Latham had the courage to ‘call a spade, a spade’, something that is sadly lacking in so many of the politically correct, left wing journalists who comprise the ‘establishment’ of modern journalism. Many such presenters and journalists abound at Sky News, David Speers, Laura Jays, Kristina Keneally and of course PVO, who would bore you to sleep in five minutes flat, if you had the misfortune of being compelled to listen or watch him. It is apparent that they have taken much delight in bringing down one of their more courageous and outspoken colleagues. The sacking of Mark Latham is a very big blow to the standing of Sky News and further entrenches the power of the ruling, left wing elitists there, such as the aforementioned.

I understand your argument and support the need for decency in debate and argument. But gee I admire Latham’s intellect, ability to identify the weaknesses in PC arguments and cut to the quick. How would he react if his wife or son was abused? Well, it would not be by running off to some government bureaucracy. He would stand his ground and give back ten times. A person prepared to back themselves like he does, on stage in the midst of the hateful luvvies, is worthy of support.

Janet I must take issue with your comment today. As a profuse listener to radio and television I must say I have never heard Mark Latham make any remark that was not totally and completely the truth. You mention Wendy Harmer, I took Marks reference to refer to Wendy’s low acts of attacks on others in her public appearances. As for the young man that Mark referred to, Mark asked was he Gay, and unless a person thought that to be Gay was something to be ashamed of, I cannot see a problem. Alan Jones said it all on his Jones&Co Show last night.

I usually find Janet’s articles stimulating and perceptive. This time, however, while criticising the left for denying freedom of speech, she does the very same thing herself in her last paragraph. Surely Janet appreciates that the concept of decency is subjective. I found nothing indecent in Latham’s comments. Her argument is invalid.

So the right fight with one arm behind their back while the lunatic left run rampant. Get real Janet

“How is this not front page news at every news organization across the United States?”

This is exactly what the video show: Obama’s Former Asst. Defense Secretary ADMITS Obama Spied on Trump (VIDEO). As the article asks:

How is this not front page news at every news organization across the United States?

Once again President Trump has been proven right when he said that his wires were tapped by President Obama.

We know why it’s not in the news but it’s still a scandal. In fact, the absence of reporting may be a scandal almost as large.

Who will monitor the monitors?

Saw the video this morning when it was put up by SRR on the open thread. And we can now find this on Drudge: Exclusive: Google and social media companies could be prosecuted if they show extremist videos, extremist as in the kinds of things put up by Paul Joseph Watson. So this is where we are:

Google, Facebook and other internet companies could be prosecuted if they do not stop extremist videos from being seen on their websites by people in Britain, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Ministers are considering a new law which would mean Google – which owns YouTube – and other social media sites like Facebook and Twitter can be prosecuted if they allow such videos to be disseminated.

Theresa May, the Prime Minister, made clear her displeasure at internet companies that publish extremist content on Friday, saying “the ball is in their court” over taking action.

Letting Google decide what is extremist will no doubt weed out everything vile and inappropriate while leaving only what is wholesome and suitable for children. We can get Soupstain and Triggs to monitor our local content.

The average reader of a right-side blog is better informed than the average viewer of television news

There was this in the comments on the previous thread that quite caught my eye:

George Wallace
#2335836, posted on March 24, 2017 at 7:17 pm (Edit)
One of the biggest stories on earth right now – the illegal surveillance of a president-elect by a sitting president in the USA – is being totally ignored by the ABC. No mention at all. Quite incredible.

And you know what, he’s right. One of the genuinely astonishing parts about discussing politics with most people is that the only things they know about are what they find on the news or in the papers, which means everything that might in any way contradict their leftwards worldview is kept from them by every means possible. This is what their ABC does. They either do not report, or distort what they do report or misstate the significance of what they report or just outright lie. But as an example of the way in which the community is mis-informed, just as Mr Wallace said, it really is incredible that no one who depends on the ABC is aware of this: OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE: Obama INVOLVED in “Wiretapping”. They might be told that Trump has said as much, but they would never ever have an inkling that any of it might be true, or that these are issues they might wish to weigh up for themselves. Instead, the story, even where it is reported, is bundled up for their viewers so that not only are they told what the right view on each and every issue is, but the proper response is provided as well.

For us over here, we get an almost lethal dose of the ABC and friends’ pre-digested news, since how could we not, even if we tried. But for ABC types, they are kept in their safety zones to prevent their ever having to come across news that might disturb their peace of mind, even if that peace of mind requires an almost complete ignorance of what is going on in the world.

Yet you do have to wonder how this will be kept from going through the roof. From Drudge, right now:

NSA To Provide ‘Smoking Gun’ Proof Obama Spied on Trump…

Gathered, disseminated secret electronic communications prior to inauguration….

So we shall see if it is still news come Monday, whether the don’t-want-to-know crowd will get their wish and end up not knowing.

UPDATE: I just don’t think it comes across exactly what we are dealing with. Let me take you to the words of that last story linked above. This is from the story:

Nunes said he was alarmed by what he saw in several dozen intelligence reports that include transcripts of communications, including communications directly from Trump. The reports were based on a foreign electronic spying operation between November and January. They were revealed by an intelligence community insider who alerted Nunes.

Nunes said on CNN that after reading the reports he was confident the Obama White House and numerous agencies “had a pretty good idea of what President-elect Trump was up to and what his transition team was up to and who they were meeting with.” . . .

The intelligence reports, which number in the dozens, suggest that the names of Trump and his advisers were not properly “minimized” in the foreign intelligence reports, as required under intelligence rules protecting the privacy rights of Americans.

“We don’t have the full scope of all the intelligence reports that were produced, or who ordered the unmasking of additional names, and we’re hoping to get that,” Nunes said.

The transcripts appeared to be the result of legal intelligence collection against a foreign target. The problem, Nunes said, was that someone in government ordered the names of the Americans to be unmasked and the reports to be distributed to government agencies. . . .

The explosive reports uncovered by Nunes contradict public testimony Monday by FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers.

Comey and Rogers stated during an intelligence committee hearing that they had no information to support Trump’s claims in a series of tweets that he had been placed under electronic surveillance by President Obama. . . .

Asked if he could rule out that Obama was personally involved in the surveillance, Nunes said “No, I cannot.”

He said she said media edition

The me in the title is Scott Adams, Dilbert’s Scott Adams: Some Fake News About Me from Bloomberg. A true exposure (via Instapundit and Small Dead Animals) of the cretinous actions of the media. This is how the article begins:

Last autumn, before the election, a writer for Bloomberg asked to spend a day with me to interview me for a feature piece about my blogging on Trump, and my life in general. I could tell from the initial conversation that it was going to be a hostile article. The reporter was open about being deeply frightened of Trump, believing him to be a racist, sexist, homophobic monster. So you can imagine how she felt about me for writing flattering blog posts about his persuasion talents.

I quickly determined that agreeing to the interview would be foolhardy. Obviously it was going to be a hit piece. The writer weakly tried to conceal that fact, but failed miserably.

If I agreed to the interview, I knew I would be making myself the target of ridicule and shame, baring my flaws to the world – both the real ones and the fake news ones. No rational person would agree to such an interview. It was a suicide mission.

So I agreed to the interview.

Regular readers know I don’t experience embarrassment like normal people. I just thought it would be funny to have them write about how wrong I was… just as the election was about to prove how right I was.

The day I agreed to the interview, I told my girlfriend Kristina that I was going to be the subject of a “hit piece” in Bloomberg. When the writer asked to speak to my brother, for background, I told him it was a hit piece, but I invited him to do it anyway, just for fun. Obviously, no sane person would agree to be interviewed for hit piece on his own family.

So my brother agreed to the interview.

We’ll have a good laugh about it later today. He got framed as a gullible idiot for “believing” something my mom told us when we were kids.

Check the article here and see if you can spot the fake news and the places where context has been tweaked to make things look both true and misleading at the same time. I’ll tell you what you missed, if anything, after you read it. Compare your impressions to my Fake News Report Card below.

Here’s the Bloomberg article by Caroline Winter.

OK, now read the Bloomberg article and then go back to the original link at the top to read what he says about what she says. And I will confess that I could not get through the Carol Winter article, neither before I read what Adams wrote nor after. But you will get the point nonetheless.

How fortunate we are to have The Australian

I would just like to put in a word for The Australian in the midst of our mourning the passing of Bill Leak. He was the bravest cartoonist in the world but he could only have reached his audience because we are fortunate in having the bravest newspaper in the world here in Australia.

There are parts of its editorial line I may not agree with but I am a subscriber because it is only in The Australian that we can even hope to hear our side put into the public space.

They will not find another cartoonist like Bill Leak, and that is our eternal loss. But we still have the paper who was brave enough to run those editorial page cartoons, and for this we are truly blessed.

Towergate one day on

It’s not even possible to get consensus on whether it even matters whether Obama had done any of it. The thing about Watergate was that if Nixon really had been involved in a cover-up, this was a high crime and misdemeanour. No one had ever said Nixon had ordered the break-ins. On this, whether or not Obama can be shown to have ordered the bugs will be the lawyerly way this is conducted. And Obama is not, of course, the president any longer so it is only just an historical footnote. The issue of whether anyone anywhere near the Obama White House was involved in placing listening devices in Trump Tower while Trump ran for president is already being sidelined.

And for me, of all the issues that have been laid bare by Trump’s accusation, perhaps the most important is the lay of the media. One day later, this is the headline at Drudge:

DEMS SMELL BLOOD IN WATER

And these are the subsidiary posts:

WIRETAPS IN TRUMP TOWER?
PELOSI: ‘WE DON’T DO THAT’…
CLAPPER: ‘I CAN DENY IT’…
Flashback: Lawmakers Renew Calls for Clapper Perjury Charges…
Former Bush AG: Trump right there was surveillance…
Growing Furor…
Congress to probe…

This is Drudge which made the major difference in seeing Trump into the White House. It is now pursuing the Democrat line that even if there was surveillance, it hadn’t been ordered by Obama. And going further, as per Schumer, if there had been surveillance, then it’s even worse for Trump since it would mean there was credible evidence that Trump was a security risk. And you can see just how cool, as in frozen, Republicans are about pursuing this anywhere, as per the last story, which begins:

The Latest on President Donald Trump’s claim that then-President Barack Obama had Trump’s telephones tapped during last year’s election (all times EST):

12:45 p.m.

House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes says President Donald Trump’s allegations that the Obama administration wiretapped Trump Tower last year will become part of his panel’s investigation.

Trump has offered no evidence or details to support his claim, and Obama’s spokesman has denied it.

The California Republican says in a statement his committee “will make inquiries into whether the government was conducting surveillance activities on any political party’s campaign officials or surrogates.”

The committee was already investigating Russian interference in the presidential election.

Without offering evidence, Trump claimed in a series of Saturday tweets that former President Barack Obama had telephones at Trump Tower wiretapped.

11:10 a.m.

A Republican member of the Senate Intelligence Committee says he believes President Donald Trump’s unsubstantiated allegations that his predecessor ordered wiretaps of Trump Tower will become part of the committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

And etc. So the question will revolve around whether there is any evidence that whatever happened was ordered by Obama, not even whether it happened. As for the question of whether it had happened – and who would genuinely believe anything Obama says – there is nothing more frightening about the direction of American before us, with the establishment elites on both sides coming together. Trump may end up being done in by his belief that anyone within Washington or the media care about whether or not Obama tried to steal the election for the Democrats by finding and then leaking information using the national security surveillance apparatus. Some of us might care out here, but they do not.

This is Mark Levin laying out the case on Fox.

Ah, but did Obama order the wire taps? What a laugh! What a tragedy!

The non-existent evidence that Trump is a Russian mole

The article is titled, Trump Isn’t Sounding Like a Russian Mole and here are the telltale signs that might indicate he is.

Trump might for example acquiesce in a greater Russian presence and say in the Middle East. He might limit U.S. fracking, helping to prop up Putin’s oil price. He might seek to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles in ways that give Russia badly needed economic relief from an arms burden that daily pressures the country more, and that accepts a permanent parity between the US and Russian nuclear arsenals, leaving America perpetually hostage to a nuclear balance of terror with a much weaker Russia. He might slash military spending and procurement; rather than steadily building the gap between Russian and American military capabilities, he might slow down and allow the Russians and others to dream of catching up.

In other words, if President Trump really is a Putin pawn, his foreign policy will start looking much more like Barack Obama’s. Will the New York Times and the Washington Post really have the brass to call Trump a traitor for pursuing a mix of policies which came right out of Obama’s playbook?

More to the point:

Obama’s chosen anti-Russia policy mix was as weak and hesitating as such policy can be. The sanctions were a way of pretending to ourselves that we had a Ukraine policy more than offering an actual path to forcing Russia to disgorge its gains. Trump’s policies of fracking and big military build up are more anti-Russian without sanctions than Obama ever thought was practical or wise. . . .

Trump’s actual foreign policy hardly suggests a president in thrall to the Kremlin, and excessive dovishness is unlikely to be the besetting sin of the Trump administration. The more the media locks itself into the narrative of Trump the appeaser, the harder its job will become when the real difficulties of the Trump presidency begin to take shape.

Which leads to this conclusion:

America needs an intellectually solvent and emotionally stable press to give this president the skeptical and searching scrutiny that he needs. What we are getting instead is something much worse for the health of the republic: a blind instinctive rage that lashes out without wounding, that injures its own credibility more than its target, that discredits the press at just the moment where its contributions are most needed.

The left agenda in general and its media shills in particular are in the process of revealing just how hollow and shallow it all is. It can no longer be hidden, and with Trump turning out to be more sure footed than we ever had a right to hope, perhaps this really is a revolutionary moment in the history of the West.