Gillian Triggs's Human Rights Commission has an annual budget of $36,000,000.00.
Tony Abbott says we should get rid of the HRC. He's right.
The Federal Budget papers tell us:
The Australian Human Rights Commission (the Commission) is Australia’s national human rights institution that provides independent and impartial services to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, and address discrimination.
The Commission works to build understanding of and respect for rights in our community. Its role is to conduct education and awareness-raising about rights and responsibilities, contribute to the prevention of discrimination and human rights breaches within society, and provide access to justice in relation to alleged discrimination and breaches of human rights.
The Commission has identified three strategic priorities for 2015–19 of tackling violence, harassment and bullying; working with business to improve productivity and promote best practice in respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms; and building awareness of rights and freedoms across the community and encouraging a culture of respect and responsibility that values dignity.
They can't have too much work on because they're diversifying.
Triggs has 111 staff. One of them is the Kate Jenkins. Kate was appointed Sex Discrimination Commissioner after Turnbull intervened to can Tony Abbott's choice in 2015.
Not only is Kate Jenkins a sexual discrimination guru.
Kate is also the last word on Top Gun Fighter Pilot selection.
Since 1992 women have been treated equally with men as applicants for selection as fast jet pilots.
Same standards, same course, all they have to do is pass.
None have made it.
Gillian and the Girls Brigade couldn't have that.
In January 2015 they popped over to Defence with a proposal to review the whole process of fighter pilot training and selection.
Their aim? "To discover the cultural barriers women face in trying to be fast jet pilots in the RAAF".
All based on the belief that it must be a boy's club where women are excluded on purpose.
Check the terms of reference - there's nothing about physiology, testosterone, aggression, killer-instinct, psychology, in fact nothing at all that looks at whether or not we're actually getting the best fighter pilots.
I'd have hoped the question that should be answered daily is do we have the best fighter pilots and the highest standards.
Ours must be always better than our enemies and ready to take the fight up to them.
But in the post-Gillard era with Turnbull at the helm we don't get that.
Just a search for excuses as to why none of them are women.
After Defence gave the Human Rights Commission the nod to go ahead with the project the RAAF faced just on 18 months of clipboard wielding Girls' Brigade sticky-beaks.
The "what about cultural barriers for women jet fighter pilots" inquiry generated the meetings, letters, emails, requests and general busy-bodying reflected in this log of activities.
Last year Defence received this "groundbreaking, seminal report".
What did it find?
"Action is needed on a number of structural and cultural fronts to remediate the problem". You know, the problem.
The problem that dare not speak its name but which can only be remediated with more interference from the activist tut-tutters at the Human Rights Commission.
The true purpose of this social engineering exercise is revealed in Jenkins's cover letter.
I look forward to collaborating with you as the Air Force builds on its positive reforms to create a diverse and inclusive workplace.
I hope the generals tell the human rights commission to go jump.
I want the ADF to be a potent lean mean killing machine.
War is an ugly business. But for us invasion and takeover is worse.
I want hard, decisive warriors who will close with our enemies and kill them without hesitation.
Good luck with getting that to go hand in hand with diverse and inclusive.
To get a hard-nosed, high-morale team of the world's best warriors ready to kill our enemies people with CVs like this should be infrequent visitors - and our warriors should be protected from them.
PS - If you have ever worked with a fighter pilot (yes I'm thinking of you Bruce Mouatt) you will understand the role of ego in the job.
A fighter pilot killed in action finds himself in heaven. He's ascended to a mess full of former colleagues - all breasting the bar and talking about dog fights with their two hands (right is always us the good guys) showing the positions of the aircraft in various manoeuvres.
He does the rounds of the room, and knows just about everyone - except for one visitor to the mess sitting at the end of the bar and watching in rapt attention.
"Who's that bloke?" he asks an old mate.
"Oh him? We let him visit. That's God, he only thinks he's a fighter pilot".
For the second time in a few weeks a victim of child sexual abuse by predatory homosexual men is being hung out to dry - declared persona non grata according to the zeitgeist.
First up it was Larry Pickering's appalling remarks in which he said Islam has at least one positive element - throwing homosexual men from rooftops. I think it's an awful thing to say, but I understand Pickering's feelings better now that I know of the horrible abuse he suffered from predatory men as a child.
The more notorious case is Milo Yiannopoulos, the former Brietbart editor who endorsed the child sexual abuse he suffered from two men commencing when he was 13 as a favourable and positive experience.
I wrote him off when I heard that. A child cannot consent to sexual activity. It's always illegal, criminal and entirely without redeeming elements.
Milo's not my cup of tea (sorry!). But the savagery with which he's been pulled apart and the price he's paid for revealing the way he coped with the violation of his childhood by predatory criminals is so disproportionate that it bears discussion.
Last night I spent a little over an hour listening to Stefan Molyneux discuss the complexities and contradictions that make this topic so uncomfortable.
It was time very well spent for me.
I hope you get something out of it too.
Thanks to Underminder for the tip on this.
A bill aimed at Bill Clintons was presented to the Arkansas state legislature on Thursday. If passed it will strip Clinton's name from the Little Rock international airport.
Here's the bloke behind it. He explained why he's doing it in language you'd have to call plain-speaking.
"You have a president who was impeached for having an affair with an intern in the Oval Office and then disbarred.”
And here's the bill:
Turnbull refuses to condemn Lakemba Mosque Friday tirade against Israel and "unacceptable" Australia
Here's an Australian church service in an Australian tax-free place of worship.
The video is published by the Lebanese Muslim Association - another tax-exempt heavily government funded religious charity group.
Lakemba Mosque’s Imam Sheik Yahya Safi delivered the sermon yesterday - in Arabic, the language of the Koran. If you speak Arabic, the Sheik starts about 40 minutes in after the wailing stops.
And he used all of those tax exempt religious facilities to hammer Israel, PM Netanyahu and Australia's "unacceptable" approach to Israel.
Now if Pauline Hanson, Corey Bernardi or another public figure got stuck into Muslims the way this bloke got stuck into Israel, Netanyahu and Australia, Turnbull would be racing out of the blocks to condemn them. So what's he said about the poisonous Sheik?
No comment. Malcolm stand up to them. Make it uncomfortable for them to preach hate. Or get out of the way and let someone who can run the show
Lakemba imam criticises closer trade links between Australia and Israel
Despite a raft of lucrative opportunities for Aussie exporters — including tighter links agreed between Mr Netanyahu and NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian yesterday — Lakemba Mosque’s Imam Sheik Yahya Safi said the PM’s visit was unacceptable to the Muslim community .
Speaking in Arabic to a packed mosque during his Friday sermon, Sheik Safi condemned Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s description of Israel as the region’s only democracy, claiming it had hurt Islamic nations from the moment of its founding.
It had a “black path” then and still did now, he said.
He said Mr Turnbull’s welcome was seen as incomprehensible and unforgiveable to the Muslim community, saying: “We as a community would like to express our disappointment in the Turnbull government and its unacceptable response to Israel.”
Earlier this week, Mr Netanyahu met with his Australian counterpart and indicated his nation was keen to do more trade with Australia.
“I think the opportunities are vast,” he said. “Our trade is a billion dollars. It should be at least double or triple that.”
Mr Turnbull’s office declined to comment on Sheik Safi’s remarks.
Mr Netanyahu is the first Israeli leader to visit Australia.
The Mohammedans lapped it up.
A president who attacks media that makes critical remarks about him does not understand what democracy is about.— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) February 24, 2017
What then to make of an Australian Prime Minister who makes demands with menaces that media organisations not investigate or report on a personal matter involving allegations of criminal behaviour.
Seriously, she had Milne sacked and cowed Fairfax into large scale lies to support her.
Why the one way outrage?
Talkback host Michael Smith told to sign gag order
BROADCASTER Michael Smith must make an undertaking not to broadcast material from an interview with Bob Kernohan, former president of the Australian Workers Union, before he returns to air on Sydney's 2UE.
Smith was suspended on Tuesday as Fairfax Media and 2UE management investigated material to be aired in Smith's interview with Mr Kernohan, including allegations of misappropriated union funds.
Yesterday, 2UE management issued Smith with a document requiring his undertaking not to broadcast material from the interview unless the station has evidence to support any claims that will be made.
"If he signs the document, he'll be back on air tomorrow (Friday)," said Fairfax's head of radio, Graham Mott. "If he doesn't we'll have to reconsider our positions."
Fairfax Media chief executive Greg Hywood had no qualms over the suspension. "That was Graham Mott's decision, which I fully support."
The afternoon host remains indignant about the neutering of his questioning of alleged misallocation of union funds by Bruce Wilson, with whom Julia Gillard had a personal relationship before she entered politics.
"This country's pretty screwed up if decent, working people can't turn to a free and open media to have their say," Smith said last night.
Mr Mott said the station was still investigating the claims.
8am call that put Julia Gillard's old news on front page
APPROACHING 8am last Monday, John Hartigan was walking into his office after a session of boxing, stairs and weights at a park in Sydney's inner-city Glebe when his mobile phone rang. It was Julia Gillard.
"I presume you know why I'm calling," the Prime Minister said.
Hartigan, chairman and chief executive of News Limited, had no idea. He soon did, as the Prime Minister voiced her displeasure at the publication that morning in The Australian of a column by Glenn Milne, which revived 16-year-old allegations about Gillard's one-time relationship with former unionist Bruce Wilson.
According to Hartigan, Gillard put a series of demands that she wanted addressed in 15 minutes. The deadline was later pushed back to 9am.
As well as a public apology and the Milne article being taken offline, she wanted a commitment that the allegations never be repeated again in The Australian. This demand was later extended to all News Limited newspapers and their websites.
"She said they were very damaging accusations," Hartigan said. "She wanted some action and she wanted it quickly."
Hartigan told Gillard he would speak to Chris Mitchell, The Australian's editor-in chief.
Mitchell was at his Manly property on Sydney's northern beaches reading the morning newspapers and drinking tea when Hartigan called and asked him to ring Gillard.
When Mitchell rang and spoke to the Prime Minister, he said, she was "apoplectic". He had been on the end of verbal sprays from Paul Keating, he said, but "they were nothing compared to this".
Asked yesterday for comment regarding the accounts given by Hartigan and Mitchell, a spokesman for the Prime Minister released a one-paragraph statement last night that read: "Those accounts of the conversations are false and inaccurate. Considering what The Australian has already published this week, that's hardly surprising."
According to Hartigan and Mitchell, for an hour on Monday morning there was a flurry of phone calls, emails and texts between them, Gillard and lawyers, including News Limited's chief general counsel, Ian Philip.
Hartigan said he had six conversations with Gillard during this period, as well as exchanges of text messages and emails.
Gillard had telephoned Hartigan two days earlier after being alerted to a blog post by Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt headlined, "A tip on something that may force Gillard to resign".
"On Monday, I'm tipping, a witness with a statutory declaration will come forward and implicate Julia Gillard directly in another scandal involving the misuse of union funds," he wrote.
While not detailing the statutory declaration, he said: "I suspect a friend of mine in the media will be authorised to release it first."
Gillard apparently believed Bolt's "friend" was Steve Price, as they work together at Melbourne radio station MTR.
In fact, the reference was to Mike Smith from Fairfax Media, who was intending to broadcast an interview with the author of the statutory declaration last Monday.
"She brought to my notice that she had information that Andrew Bolt or Steve Price or both were likely to publish assertions that were first made public in 2007 and she was very concerned by this because she said, when they were raised at that time, they were wrong and inaccurate and damaging," Hartigan said. He reported back to Gillard later that day that Price and Bolt were not planning to publish the allegations.
"I gave her an assurance that, were something to be published, we would give her an opportunity to respond before it was published," he said.
Hartigan had made inquiries at the Herald Sun and Daily Telegraph. He made no inquiries to The Australian because he said Gillard had not nominated the newspaper.
According to Hartigan, Gillard said on Monday: "This has broken the deal we had."
Hartigan rejected the claim, insisting The Australian did not cover his original undertaking.
On Friday, Milne had been contacted by 2UE's Smith to "check the veracity of the material" in the statutory declaration written by Bob Kernohan, a former president of the Australian Workers Union.
On Sunday, after Bolt raised the Kernohan allegations on his TV show, Milne decided to file a column that argued that Gillard's problems with the Craig Thomson credit card scandal were about to get worse as union elements demonstrated she was "implicated albeit unknowingly in a major union fraud of her own before she entered parliament".
The unproven allegations, in political terms, are ancient, and have been rehashed numerous times by critics of Labor and Gillard over the past 16 years.
In 1995, Jeff Kennett's former deputy, Phil Gude, used privilege to air the allegations in the Victorian parliament when Gillard was an ALP Senate candidate.
In 2001, then state Liberal MP Geoff Leigh quoted from a statutory declaration signed by Mr Kernohan on the previous day to again use parliamentary privilege to attack Gillard.
In March 2006, The Australian published a story stating that senior ALP figures critical of Gillard's perceived attacks on then Labor leader Kim Beazley had dredged up the allegations.
A Victoria Police spokesman said a "thorough police investigation" was conducted into the alleged misappropriation of union funds when it was raised during 1995 and 1996. It was decided no further police action be taken.
The current version of Mr Kernohan's statutory declaration - which essentially repeats the claims Gude and Leigh aired - is circulating on a raft of anti-Gillard websites. It is dated August 11, 2010, days before the last federal election.
In the Monday column, Milne, who interviewed Gillard about her relationship with Wilson during the 2007 election campaign, repeated his old news story that said: "As a solicitor acting on instructions, she set up an association later used by her lover to defraud the AWU. But she has strenuously denied ever knowing what the association's bank accounts were used for."
Describing the 2007 article as the "most heavily lawyered article" he had been involved in writing, he added a paragraph beginning: "What the lawyers would not allow to be reported . . ."
Mitchell, who was not working on the Sunday, said the column was not sent to lawyers before publication.
He said the column should have been legalled, particularly given it contained the above-mentioned paragraph. According to Mitchell, a furious Gillard told him she believed Bolt and Milne had worked together to circumvent her understanding with Hartigan and get the allegations back in the public arena.
"She believed Milne was in league with Bolt and we had published this because Bolt and Milne had cooked it up between themselves to get it in the paper," Mitchell said. "The irony is that it was Fairfax (through 2UE's Smith) that started it all."
Bolt said yesterday he had "zero contact with Glenn Milne". "There is no vast right-wing conspiracy against the Prime Minister," he said.
By 9am on Monday, Mitchell had emailed a suggested form of apology to the Prime Minister, which Gillard agreed upon. Her demand that the allegations never be repeated in any News Limited publication was rejected.
Milne's column was removed from The Australian's website and replaced with an apology.
"The Australian published today an opinion piece by Glenn Milne which includes assertions about the conduct of the Prime Minister," it read.
"The Australian acknowledges these assertions are untrue. The Australian also acknowledges no attempt was made by anyone employed by, or associated with, The Australian to contact the Prime Minister in relation to this matter. The Australian unreservedly apologises to the Prime Minister and to its readers for the publication of these claims."
The combination of these events ensured the issue burst into the daily media news cycle.
The Fairfax-owned The Age in Melbourne published a front-page article by Tony Wright that included repeating what Milne had written in his column about Gillard and Wilson. It got attention on TV, radio and blogs.
For a moment, it even overshadowed the Thomson affair, as Gillard's attempts to douse an old story served to inflame a new one.
To convict GILLARD for conspiring with Wilson, Blewitt and others a jury will need to be convinced she knew what WILSON was really up to - or that she was wilfully blind and ignored important facts.
Her consciousness of guilt will be proven in a few ways.
A proper reading of the course of condut of the parties from 1989 to 1995 leaves little room for an innocent explanation for her part. That is looking at each event in sequence, rather than as a separate occurence.
Also weighing against her will be the cover-up, different versions of events GILLARD has given and her false denials of matters now proven.
Commissioner Heydon extended two major concessions to GILLARD in his heavily caveatted recommendation she face no criminal charges.
Firstly, he dealt with the criminal acts as separate occurrences, not as a course of conduct.
Secondly he allowed her the benefit of a confected doubt on the enabling criminal act - the incorporation of the AWU Workplace Reform Association.
In his report on the matter Commissioner Heydon said:
......the creation of a new legal person as a result of dealings with a senior official of the State of Western Australia was not some mere inter partes dealing between Bruce Wilson and other persons having no general significance. It affected the public at large.
We know what Gillard did, drafting the objects and filling out the Application and Certificate to accompany the Application. We also know she "argued the case" for incorporation after the initial Application was deemed ineligible. (We can now add to that her use of false documents at the Royal Commission in the Ray Neal letter and the purported memo to Blewitt setting out the Rule 3A change).
Commissioner Heydon says GILLARD could have one of two alternatives in relation to the many false statements and deceptions in the application material put to the Corporate Affairs Commissioner.
- failed to notice; or
- deliberately ignored them.
Those false statements and deceptions relate to:
- The requirement for an association to exist before it resolves to seek incorporation
- The fact BLEWITT could not have been "duly authorised" to apply for incorporation
- The absence of minutes or resolutions authorising incorporation
- The absence of any suggestion the association had more than 5 members - and her own statements that she knew there was no existing association.
Heydon says if she failed to notice, she was careless but not criminal.
If she deliberately ignored the matters described, she was party to Ralph Blewitt’s deceit. That is she is guilty of the offences upon which WILSON and BLEWITT have been referred for prosecution.
Generously, Heydon found a sliver of doubt to excuse her culpability and gave her its benefit. But he had precious little evidence to support his position.
The best exculpatory material Heydon could muster to support his finding that she was careless and simply failed to notice the false statements and the law is this:
She had the reputation, merited or not, of being very left-wing. Robert Kernohan claims that William Shorten said on numerous occasions that he despised her ‘because of her links to the Communist Party’. People with a left-wing reputation are usually keen to preserve it by avoiding involvement in fraudulent conduct. If she had known of Bruce Wilson’s and Ralph Blewitt’s frauds, it would have been an act of insensate folly to have gone along with them. It is quite improbable that she committed that act of folly.
But Gillard wasn't just conspiring with Wilson and Blewitt. This project had Bill Ludwig's imprimatur and his complicity as a co-conspirator. She had the green light from Ludwig for doing what she did. Given that Ludwig was notorious for retaining (Hawke) and installing (Keating) prime ministers at the time, the fact of his involvement must have been a significant confidence boost.
So putting to one side the left-wing-reputation-to-protect defence how does Heydon's "failed to notice' opinion stack up?
To avoid conviction, GILLARD will have to convince a jury that her participation in creating these two documents was innocent. As Heydon said, she will have to convince the jury that she failed to notice the printed words on the form she helped to fill in.
Remember if she saw and read the words but ignored them (eg "the person duly authorised" etc) she is party to the criminal offences.
The jurors will probably get to hold these two documents. So put yourself in a juror's position. Do you believe GILLARD failed to notice the certificate and application contained almost exclusively false statements?
Even with the protection of a left-wing reputation, I can't see how a person could write detailed information on a form, get it in the right space on the form and "fail to notice" the printed English text around it.
One last point on consciousness of guilt.
For years Gillard's stock standard answer on this matter was "I provided legal advice as a lawyer".
In fact her role went way beyond the innocuous sounding "provided advice". GILLARD "attended to the incorporation" of the association with all its deficiencies. And she created an extensive range of documents.
But while the Exit Interview remained a tightly held secret and no physical evidence was available to connect her to anything other than giving "advice", Gillard was able to deflect inquiries and cow and threaten media proprietors into retractions like the following.
On 11 November 2007 Glenn Milne's famous 'young and naive" story ran in News Ltd's Sunday newspapers.
It must have worried Gillard in the run up to the election of the Rudd Labor Government.
Gillard had her staff get straight on the phone to senior News Corp editors. The later editions and the online versions contained this retraction:
And that was the last the matter was heard of in the main stream media until I interviewed Bob Kernohan in late August 2011.
Gillard falsely denied involvement in the incorporation. She falsely claimed "it's all on the public record". And she terrorised News Ltd and Fairfax to the extent neither entity would run the story.
But as part of the $25K legalling process prior to authorising Bob Kernohan's interview for broadcast at 2UE, I had obtained an entire copy of the Cambridge Affidavit and the Exhibits attached to it. All of those documents were reviewed by Fairfax's external defamation lawyer Bruce Burke.
I also engaged Paul Westwood, Australia's leading forensic handwriting and document analyst. My suspicions were raised by the two sets of writing on the material you see above.
I asked contacts in Canberra to send me copies of her handwriting. One known example was a condolence card with the word Australian written on it. My producer printed the PDF copy out and glued it to a piece of cardboard so we could line it up under the handwritten "Australian" on the form. After that, Paul Westwood was just a formality.
I will never forget Bob Kernohan's tears of relief as he dropped to his knees overwrought with emotion the instant he saw the words line up.
For years Bob had been the victim of the Gillard/Ludwig/Shorten smear campaign. With the handwriting analysis there was now a physical link and concrete proof that she'd done more than just offer some advice.
Gillard didn't give advice as a lawyer on how this association might incorporate. There was no external client - Gillard was a conspirator, a part of the scheme. She didn't act on a strict retainer, she did whatever it took to create the unlawful vehicle through which the Thiess secret commissions were channelled to Wilson, Ludwig and herself to pay for her "under the table" work.
So how do you think she'll fare with a properly instructed jury when she tells them, "Yes, that's my writing on that form, I just failed to notice all the printed writing around it. How careless of me"?
Personally, I don't like her chances. There's more to come from me soon too.
Every touch leaves its trace.
James O'Keefe is going after the mainstream media in the same way he went after Hillary Clinton's campaign.
He's received a leak of 100+ hours of recordings from internal CNN meetings.
The audio discloses bias, activism, overt support for Obama and dishonesty.
Here's a link to his website where you can listen for yourself - I've mirrored some of James's material including the audio player below.
Congratulations to James and his team, this is an important initiative.
Project Veritas Releases Over 100 Hours of Audio From Inside CNN
James O'Keefe Offers $10,000 Award for Content Which Exposes Media Malfeasance
Anonymous Source Within CNN Provided Audio to Project Veritas
More Audio Yet to be Released in a WikiLeaks Style Dump
Project Veritas released 119 hours of raw audio in a WikiLeaks style dump, with over 100 more hours still yet to be released. The audio was secretly recorded in 2009 by an anonymous source inside CNN's Atlanta headquarters who we are identifying as Miss X. The tapes contain soundbites from current and previous CNN employees Joe Sterling, Arthur Brice, and Nicky Robertson, as well as numerous others. Project Veritas is also offering a $10,000 award for content that exposes media malfeasance. The tapes show CNN's misrepresentation of polling data:
Miss X: "I read a CNN poll that was taken on June 26 and 28th, and I know that the hearing for the case, the fire fighters case was on the 29th, so the poll was done right before it, and those are still the poll results we're reporting, so I asked someone in DC who does the poll results about why we hadn't updated it, and said there were a few newer polls from last week and the week before and there's CBS news polls and a Rasmussen poll, and he said we don't use Rasmussen, and I said does CNN plan to do another poll if we're only using that. He said we're not going to be doing another poll, those are the results we'll be using. So I don't see how that's reporting all sides because that poll said hold for release until Friday the 10th."
Arthur Brice: "Who did you talk with?"
Miss X: "Paul [CNN's Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser]."
Arthur Brice: "Yeah, he's your director. Yeah, he's pretty high up in the food chain. I agree. I think it's dishonest to use outdated information if new information shows something that is in variance with what you're reporting. It's just, it's dishonest."
The same apathy towards reporting accurate poll numbers was seen in the way CNN released inaccurate poll numbers about Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor.
Miss X: "This wasn't released until two weeks after. So can we say a newly released poll?"
Joe Sterling: "No, you can't say that. You can't say that at all. This isn't a newly released."
Miss X: "But it says newly released on Friday."
Joe Sterling: "I know, how did we write about this? Did we write a wire about this? "I don't think we stand to change how people think of her [Sotomayor]. Geez, I mean if someone picked this up it's not going to change - it's not going to change anybody's opinion."
Richard Griffiths, who is now CNN's Vice President and Senior Editorial Director, was caught explaining that the role of a journalist is to "aid the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."
"If we are journalists, what is our role as a journalist? What is the fundamental role as a journalist, for us to do? "Tell a story. Tell what's going on. There's a secondary corollary to that, right? Aid the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. To a degree, right? Is that not part of the traditional role of a journalist. It's actually one of the things I can be most proud of as a journalist. You know we try to show the ugly side of humanity so we can do something about it. It's hard, very hard."
In the secretly recorded tapes, CNN's liberal, anti-Republican, and anti-Fox News bias is clear. "Fox News, I think Fox News is unbearable. It's horrible," said Nicky Robertson, who was at that time the CNN Assignment Desk Editor. Joe Sterling, who was then the News desk editor for CNN's online venue 'The Wire' was also recorded speaking profound liberal bias.
"That issue, climate change, I mean science is pretty much on board and there are a few dissenters. There's no debate. It's like you know, born-agains saying there's a debate over, you know creationism, and all that stuff. There is no debate."
"Project Veritas is determined to expose malfeasance, corruption and wrongdoing," said Project Veritas founder and president James O'Keefe. "We want to become a destination where citizen journalists can come forward, work with us and make a real impact. That's why today, we're announcing a $10,000 award for anyone that comes forward with legally obtained materials exposing media malfeasance. If you have hidden audio recordings, video tapes or documents inside of a news room or media institution, and the material is good enough, I will pay you $10,000."
Sign up here for updates as this story unfolds:
We are serving these audio files on the Amazon S3. Currently the audio player which plays these audio files is experiencing a very heavy load, so it may time out or not load. Please bear with us and the audio files will load more easily over the next few hours as traffic slows down.
Rules to receive the up-to-$10,000 award from Project Veritas - Project Veritas only offers awards for valuable video or other media types which was legally obtained. It is important for the submitter to follow all local, state and federal laws while obtaining video or other media for submission. - This Project Veritas award is for submitted pieces that expose media corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct deemed valuable after review by the Project Veritas editorial staff. - Project Veritas will protect the identifies of individuals submitting material to the fullest extent allowable by law.
This is Borobi the Koala, official mascot for the Gold Coast Commonwealth Games.
Borobi means Koala in the Yugembeh language - that's the aboriginal tribe on the Gold Coast.
Here's the blurb from the Games
And this is Jack Aird. He thinks he owns the Koala. And he thinks it's disrespectful to Aboriginal people to use the Koala as a mascot.
Fortunately Jack has a solution. He knows how to make the disrespect disappear. He can advise on how properly to use the Koala as the Games mascot.
Jack wants money.
What is currently offensive to aboriginal people can be made inoffensive if the price is right.
Most unseemly Jack. Vulgar.
I preferred Fatso the fat-arsed wombat myself.
Indonesia can do what it wants - but we are clowns for funding this sort of government.
We should lodge a protest.
What does Indonesia think would happen? It might get Jew germs?