Saturday 27th of August 2016

Recent Comments

by Gus Leonisky on Sat, 2016-08-27 11:58


Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has urged the Federal Opposition to meet him in the "sensible centre" to fix the budget deficit and avoid angering the Australian public.

Key points:

  • Turnbull to address LNP's conference in Brisbane
  • Will promise "negotiation and compromise"
  • PM to urge colleagues to focus on jobs, health and education, amid debate on gay marriage and Racial Discrimination Act

He also called on his party to focus on "bread and butter" issues, amid debate about same-sex marriage and the Racial Discrimination Act.

Mr Turnbull addressed the LNP's conference in Brisbane, three days before the resumption of Federal Parliament.

In his speech, he promised there would be "negotiation and compromise".

"I urge Bill Shorten, Labor and all the parties to do the same — meet us in the sensible centre," he said.

"To act otherwise would badly misread the mood of the vast majority of Australians who want us to work together to secure their future."

The Coalition will introduce an omnibus bill, which is set to have $6.5 billion of budget savings Labor included in its costings in the lead-up to the July 2 election. [What the ABC does not mention was the 6.5 billions in Labor's budget was to go to the EDUCATION Gonski scheme while the $6.5 billion Liberal (CONservative) budget saving are made to provide tax cuts to "businesses", as a trickle down which, for all intent and purposes, NEVER WORKED.]

It follows a renewed focus by the Federal Government on budget repair, with Treasurer Scott Morrison warning of a divide between the "taxed and the taxed-nots" in a speech in Sydney on Thursday.

Mr Turnbull also defended the decision to hold a double dissolution election on the reintroduction of the Australian Building and Construction Commission.

by Gus Leonisky on Sat, 2016-08-27 09:39

Prediction: If Hillary Clinton wins, within a year of her inauguration, she will be under investigation by a special prosecutor on charges of political corruption, thereby continuing a family tradition.

For consider what the Associated Press reported this week:

The surest way for a person with private interests to get a meeting with Secretary of State Clinton, or a phone call returned by her, it seems, was to dump a bundle of cash into the Clinton Foundation.

Of 154 outsiders whom Clinton phoned or met with in her first two years at State, 85 had made contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and their contributions, taken together, totaled $156 million.

Conclusion: access to Secretary of State Clinton could be bought, but it was not cheap. Forty of the 85 donors gave $100,000 or more. Twenty of those whom Clinton met with or phoned dumped in $1 million or more.

To get to the seventh floor of the Clinton State Department for a hearing for one’s plea, the cover charge was high.

Among those who got face time with Hillary Clinton were a Ukrainian oligarch and steel magnate who shipped oil pipe to Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions and a Bangladeshi economist who was under investigation by his government and was eventually pressured to leave his own bank.

The stench is familiar, and all too Clintonian in character.

Recall. On his last day in office, January 20, 2001, Bill Clinton issued a presidential pardon to financier-crook and fugitive from justice Marc Rich, whose wife, Denise, had contributed $450,000 to the Clinton Library.

The Clintons appear belatedly to have recognized their political peril.

Bill has promised that, if Hillary is elected, he will end his big-dog days at the foundation and stop taking checks from foreign regimes and entities, and corporate donors. Cash contributions from wealthy Americans will still be gratefully accepted.

One wonders: will Bill be writing thank-you notes for the millions that will roll in to the family foundation—on White House stationery?

By his actions, Bill is all but conceding that there is a serious conflict of interest between his foundation raking in millions that enhance the family’s prestige and sustain its travel and lifestyle, and providing its big donors with privileged access to the secretary of state.

Yet if Hillary Clinton becomes president, the scheme is unsustainable. Even the Obama-Clinton media might not be able to stomach this.


In any other context and in this one, especially, this is bribery.

by Gus Leonisky on Sat, 2016-08-27 08:28

South Australian Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has criticised the move by Greens leader Richard Di Natale to dump her from the high profile immigration portfolio.

Key points:

  • Nick McKimm replaces Hanson-Young as immigration spokesperson in Greens reshuffle
  • Hanson-Young "incredibly sad" to lose portfolio
  • Di Natale defends move, says Greens asylum seeker policy remains 'rock solid'


On Thursday, Senator Hanson-Young was demoted to the trade portfolio after nine years as the Greens immigration spokeswoman.

Tasmanian Senator Nick McKimm, a relative newcomer who entered the Senate last year, was given the immigration portfolio in a Greens reshuffle.

"I don't agree with it, I don't accept it," she told AM.

In her first interview since being forced to change roles, Senator Hanson-Young said she was "incredibly sad" to move from an area she had put her "heart and soul into".

Senator Hanson-Young argued against losing immigration, but failed to convince Senator Di Natale.

by Gus Leonisky on Fri, 2016-08-26 22:01


For the first time in US history, the corporate monopolies that dictate politics in Washington have huddled under one party umbrella. That umbrella is the Democratic Party. This has struck far less fear into the corporate media than the specter of a Trump Presidency. The White Nationalist billionaire has been deemed a pariah by US ruling class. To defeat him, the ruling class has instituted one-party rule through the abandonment of the Trump-occupied GOP.

Every four years, American liberals warn the general public of the dangers of a Republican Party Presidency. The Democratic Party leverages the imagery of a white supremacist apocalypse to forward its own candidates. As the liberal wing of the dominant class, Democratic Party candidates are marketed as "intelligent," "experienced," and "diplomatic." Presidential elections are thus nothing more than a glorified job interview with the ruling class where the Trumps and Clintons of the world battle and jockey for the necessary campaign cash to win the prestigious position of Commander in Chief of the US imperial system. 

Hillary Clinton has advertised herself as the perfect shelter from the Trump storm for the ruling class and anyone else fearful of his rise. Clinton has actively recruited refugee Republicans to her ranks. The campaign has called the recruitment drive "Together for America." Clinton is working hard to consolidate the entire ruling class under her campaign's umbrella. However, the consolidation of the ruling class under the Democratic Party did not begin with Hillary Clinton. It has been a decades-long process from which Clinton has emerged as its highest expression.

The last forty years have seen a gradual coalescence of the ruling class behind the Democratic Party. It has been determined by the profiteers and war makers that the Democratic Party is best suited to serve their interests under crisis conditions. After all, it was Democratic Party President Bill Clinton who deregulated the financial sector, monopolized the corporate media, and deindustrialized the economy for more profitable pastures through NAFTA. The next Democratic Party President, Barack Obama, followed Clinton's footsteps by instituting the largest wealth transfer in US history to the 1 percent

So it should come as no surprise that war-hawks and billionaires have flocked to Hillary Clinton's tent. Clinton has received endorsements from notable billionaires such as Warren Buffet, Mark Cuban, and Michael Bloomberg. She has also been given both blessings and donations fromSilicon Valley and Wall Street Hedge funds. Neo-con war enthusiast Robert Kagan also endorsed Hillary Clinton alongside prominent war-makers at a fundraiser led by "foreign policy professionals for Hillary Clinton." At the fundraiser, Clinton's policy of regime change in Libya and her commitment to deterring "Russian Aggression" were cited as the primary reasons why she has won over the war hawks to her tent.


When P J O'Rourke is prepared to support La Female Clinton, you know there is something wrong in the sewage pump. It is clogged up somewhere in the sarcastic bend of his right-wing shit...

Clinton is more to the right than GOP — despite letting "her" people "believe" in her "bona fide social promises", which of course NONE of the billionaires supporting her believe in —  nor do they believe she will achieve anything of her social rhetoric.

The support from the billionaires has all to do WITH WHIFFS OF WAR, IN WHICH HUGE PROFITS CAN BE MADE at the expense of other nations and to the detriment of American people. 

Mothers, La Clinton will send your sons to be killed in useless battlefields under the hypocritically tarnished banner of stars and tripes...


by Gus Leonisky on Fri, 2016-08-26 20:28


As India tightens regulatory norms, Monsanto has withdrawn its proposal to introduce next generation genetically modified cotton seeds into the country.

Seed giant Monsanto has decided to suspend the introduction of next generation genetically modified (GM) cotton seeds in India. Monsanto, in a statement acknowledged that the decision was prompted by differences with the Indian government over royalty fees and price caps.

"Our decision to suspend this introduction in India is an outcome of the uncertainty in the business and regulatory environment, which includes the regulation of trait fees and introduction of the draft compulsory licensing guidelines," a Monsanto spokesperson said in a statement to the Press Trust of India.

Monsanto planned to sell Bollgard II Roundup Ready Flex cotton seeds to India.


read more:


by Gus Leonisky on Fri, 2016-08-26 20:23

Russia will hold its own sports competitions for the team of Paralympic athletes, who were excluded from the Paralympic Games 2016 in Rio de Janeiro, President Vladimir Putin said. 

"I want to say to our Paralympians: of course, we will support you. We will organize special competitions where you will be able to show all your skills. Prizes for the winners will be the same as they would have been for the Paralympic Games," Putin said, Zvezda TV channel reports. 

Putin also stated that the exclusion of the 
Russian Paralympic team was an act of anti-humanism that became possible due to the interference of politics in sports. 

"We have witnessed how humanistic foundations of sport and Olympism can be brazenly violated by politics, how traits such as greed, and perhaps even cowardice, take precedence over the principles of Olympism," Putin said.

Earlier, Russian Sports Minister Vitaly Mutko told reporters that Russia would appeal against the decision to remove the Russian team from the Paralympic Games in Rio at a federal court in Switzerland, RIA Novosti reports. 

"We will file a lawsuit at a federal court in Switzerland. Individual lawsuits are also possible. This is absolutely a political decision, and we do not understand how an organization that should be engaged in the development of Paralympic sport can make such a decision," Mutko told reporters. -


See more at:

by Gus Leonisky on Fri, 2016-08-26 20:19


Tony Abbott would have no clues about intellectualism... nor about the word "public"...


In his show "redesign my brain", Todd Sampson shows an optical illusion with twins in various positions in a skewed room which as seen from a particular point, appear normal. This illusion cannot happen with normal stereoscopic vision. This is why the viewer cannot place both eyes through the viewing hole provided. Stereoscopic vision enhance understanding of distances. Giants with one eye only — cyclops — would fumble their way through the forest. People with one eye vision only, need to be tested regularly to ascertain their driving ability to judge distances and not be tricked as per the optical illusion above.

Even with two eyes it seems that Bolt is fumbling through the forest...


See also:


arguments, agreements and conspiracies...



and while mentioning cyclops above:




Blimey, do I collect too much crap...

by Gus Leonisky on Fri, 2016-08-26 20:00

The Coalition and Labor have agreed on the allocation of six and three-year Senate terms following the double dissolution election, with Lee Rhiannon of the Greens and Derryn Hinch from Victoria missing out on longer office.

The finance minister, Mathias Cormann, said on Friday that the first six senators elected in every state should be given six-year terms, and Labor senator Penny Wong has agreed.

“This is a function of how many votes and how many preferences you are able to attract,” Cormann told Sky News.

“If you are elected in the first six out of 12 it stands to reason that you were elected earlier, and as such you qualify for the longer period.”

Wong told Guardian Australia that Labor agreed with the Coalition’s proposal: “Labor will support the government’s proposal to allocate senators’ terms of office according to the order in which senators were elected in each state,” Wong said.

“This is consistent with the Senate’s previous practice following double dissolution elections and reflects the will of the voters.”

It means the last six senators in every state will be up for re-election within three years.

Malcolm Turnbull’s double-dissolution election meant the Senate needs to determine which senators are on a three-year term and which are on a six-year term, in order to fall back into the usual election pattern.

There are two counting methods available for the Senate.

The first, which has been used historically in double dissolutions, sees the first six of 12 state senators in every state receive the six-year terms and the remainder appointed for three years.

read more:

by Gus Leonisky on Fri, 2016-08-26 08:09


Those questions are deeply contentious, partly because of the contradictory impulses of the Saudi state.

Yet at the same time, “they’re our partners in counterterrorism,” said Mr. McCants, one of three dozen academics, government officials and experts on Islam from multiple countries interviewed for this article.

Saudi leaders seek good relations with the West and see jihadist violence as a menace that could endanger their rule, especially now that the Islamic State is staging attacks in the kingdom — 25 in the last eight months, by the government’s count. But they are also driven by their rivalry with Iran, and they depend for legitimacy on a clerical establishment dedicated to a reactionary set of beliefs. Those conflicting goals can play out in a bafflingly inconsistent manner.

Thomas Hegghammer, a Norwegian terrorism expert who has advised the United States government, said the most important effect of Saudi proselytizing might have been to slow the evolution of Islam, blocking its natural accommodation to a diverse and globalized world. “If there was going to be an Islamic reformation in the 20th century, the Saudis probably prevented it by pumping out literalism,” he said.



read more:


In his very carefully crafted article of the New York Times, Scott Shane tread lightly on the Saudi hypocrisy while still explaining how the contradictions in the proselytising of Wahhabism works. It is more than a religious culture but a large tribal containment of Sunni Arabs under one roof while fighting other Muslim nations for influence and territory. The West carving of the "Ottoman Empire" from the nineteenth century onwards has pitted Iran versus the Saudis with a few breakaway nations such as Lebanon and Turkey which also play a double game, depending on who is in power. 

At this stage, the Saudis with the help of the Americans are trying to subdue Syria to a Wahhabi regime. The other side made of Shia and Alawites mainly, was slowly loosing under the onslaught — while being blamed in OUR media for the huge damage (millions displaced and 500,000 dead) despite the ISIS mercenary and other Sunnis (Wahhabi/Salafi) being the culprits —  until the Russians came in, throwing a spanner in the cosy coalition of US-Saudi-ISIS. Despite claiming to fight ISIS, the US and the Saudis HAVE used ISIS to destabilise the Syrian government. 

The US hypocrisy is nicely matched by the Saudi hypocrisy.



Read also:


See also: a dirty US war...


and 2007 prophecies from the Murdoch press:

Unfortunately, his vexed calculations are representative of a large current in the region, and the problem goes far beyond suspect arithmetic. As the sun sets on the Sunni Arabs' de facto Middle East empire, the sectarian fault lines that have been obscured by Arab nationalist politics are starting to widen, and everyone, Sunnis and non-Sunnis alike, is getting nervous. Iraq is merely the first tremor, and the Sunni-Shia divide there is only one of many. To name just a couple that have been in the news in the last month:In Egypt, Sunnis have turned on their Copt countrymen for a perceived slight to Islam, and in Syria the ruling Alawite sect may be girding itself for a fight to the death with that country's Sunni majority.


by Gus Leonisky on Fri, 2016-08-26 07:10


A group of Federal MPs and former military chiefs is ramping up calls for an inquiry into the decisions that led to Australia joining the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, with some pushing to change the war powers invested in the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Key points:

  • Prime Minister and Cabinet can decide whether to send troops to war
  • Call to broaden powers so parliament must also vote on decision
  • Some MPs and former military chiefs also want inquiry into Iraq War


Currently, the Prime Minister and Cabinet can decide whether or not to send Australian soldiers to war, but some want to broaden those powers to a parliamentary vote.

Just a month after Britain handed down the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War, there are also calls for Australia to hold a similar investigation.

Britain's seven-year inquiry found the UK joined the US-led military action before peaceful alternatives to war had been exhausted.

Labor MP Mike Kelly, a distinguished former Army Veteran, says now is the right time to revisit Australia's role in the conflict.

"It's not too late. In fact I think some distance now behind us will give us an even better perspective and better opportunity to do that analysis properly," he told Lateline.


read from top...

See also: