The policy you reference kicks in at $100 million. Anyone actually impacted by this proposed tax has money to burn. My heart does not bleed for them.

It’s because you have no dick.

I suspect she has a lot of followers, so I hope she keeps on writing about this stupid project.

Mmm…she wants it moved further up the road to a disused quarry site.

So, it’s not an in principle objection to the renewables scam.

It’s more…’Not next to my farm!’

Probably votes Teal.

Fatboy

Trump has been warning about American trade since the 90/s. And he’s been consistent.

The proposed tax on unrealised gains is purely envy driven. Not all assets are publicly listed and it would be a total nightmare in the private markets. You fat lesbian.

I imagine quite a few Brits are now wishing they’d turned out to vote:

Keir Starmer has broken a pre-election promise and scrapped the winter fuel allowance for millions of pensioners as part of an austerity drive to plug a £22 billion “black hole” in the government’s exchequer account at the Bank of England.

But at the same time he’s also found £12 billion to donate to international climate aid.

Peta Credlin:

Consider the big recent moves by the Albanese government. It’s blocked a $1 billion gold mine with a thousand jobs on the basis of secret Aboriginal cultural business – which the official Indigenous representatives say is fictitious. It’s allowed industry-wide bargaining (and strikes), told workers they don’t have to take their bosses’ calls after hours, and made casual work (with its higher pay) more precarious. It has allowed our hospitals to run critically low in essential IV fluids needed for surgery.

Plus, it’s given 3000 people from a terrorist-controlled war zone the right to come to Australia without any serious security vetting.

What sort of government does that?

As Australians, at different times, we’ve prided ourselves on being “the clever country” or “the Lucky Country”. Maybe we still are clever, as a people; and, sure, as a nation, we’re blessed in a way that many other countries are not. But there’s nothing clever about a government that’s eroding our national security, sapping our economic strength and damaging our social cohesion. And sooner or later, with a dumb enough government, even the most fortunate country in the world will run out of luck. As businessman Gerry Harvey warned on Friday, the Lucky Country is being ruined by excessive costs for energy, compliance and regulation.

It’s hard to credit that a relatively new government could get so much so wrong so quickly. But, contrary to the Prime Minister’s pre-election assurances that he represented “safe change”, a great deal has changed, nearly all of it for the worse.

Last Friday, the usually sensible Resources Minister Madeleine King unleashed a huge spray against Australia’s largest corporate taxpayer after BHP had the temerity to complain about a $1.3bn hit to their cost base thanks to the government’s assault on labour hire firms whose workers are rarely unionised.

Then there was the Treasurer Jim Chalmers. Instead of a speech to a big think tank, outlining what Labor might do to address out-of-control government spending, improve sagging productivity, and avoid the energy train wreck, he chose to pursue an undergraduate attack on Peter Dutton, labelling him not just “divisive” but “dangerous”, and of using a “dog whistle” on race. Meanwhile, Chalmers continues to use record high immigration to artificially maintain overall economic growth despite the fact that, in per capita terms, we’ve been negative for five quarters and there’s an acute lack of housing for half a million newcomers every year.

But it’s the government’s failure to deliver its promised cut in power bills of $275 per household per year that remains its most enduring demonstration of incompetence. Two years ago, Energy Minister Chris Bowen said that the “energy transition” would require the installation of 22,000 new solar panels every single day, and 40 large wind turbines every single month, until 2030 – plus at least 10,000km of transmission lines.

Nothing like this is happening yet the minister insists that “there’s nothing to see here” despite repeated warnings of looming blackouts and brownouts as reliable coal-fired power stations continue to close and gas is routinely demonised. Meanwhile, the government tolerates the green activist law-fare designed to shut down the fossil fuel exports on which much of our prosperity depends.

At “bush summit” meetings held around the country last week, locals complained about what the so-called green revolution was doing to their farming properties and communities. The government’s emission obsession is all upside for the inner-city voters whose piddly rooftop solar panels subsidise their power bills but don’t interrupt their views. While regional Australia is told they must be blanketed in thousands of hectares of large-scale solar, and native forests are felled for wind-turbines. And then there’s the massive transmission towers being forced on people’s land to take renewables power from the regions to the cities.

It used to be Labor’s war on our prosperity that disqualified them as a credible party of government. Bad though that is, it’s not as serious as the visas for votes scheme, where the Albanese government has issued tourist visas to people from a place where two-thirds of the population support terrorist group Hamas: without any due process, without security advice, and without, even, any formal announcement. For a fortnight now, the government has refused to say that supporting Hamas makes someone ineligible to come here on character grounds.

Gaza is a place where people have been schooled from early infancy that Jews should be killed and that the West is evil. Almost no one who comes here from Gaza will ever go back. But the notion that everyone Albanese has let in could sincerely make the Australian citizenship pledge is deeply implausible. After all, new citizens are required to declare their allegiance to a country “whose democratic beliefs I share” and “whose rights and liberties I respect”. How many pro-Hamas Gazans could credibly pledge that?

When even Egypt and Jordan refuse to take in Gazans on security grounds, why on earth should we?

A Group One track record of incompetence and wilful destruction.

Credlin again on the people monty detests, real women and the Tickle judgement:

I’ve now had the time to read carefully the sixty-page federal court judgment from Justice Robert Bromwich in the case of Tickle versus Giggle, a claim of unlawful discrimination when a females-only online App excluded a biological man who’d had gender reassignment surgery.

It’s clear that Gillard-era changes to the Sex Discrimination Act, billed as no more than “ending discrimination for LGBTIQ people”, have actually ended-up stealing hard-won gains for women and girls to have a “room of one’s own”.

That’s because “gender identity” was added as a ground of unlawful discrimination: Defined as “the gender-related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of a person (whether by way of medical intervention or not), with or without regard to the person’s designated sex at birth”.

Finding in Tickle’s favour, it is sufficient, the judge said that “Ms Tickle is recorded as being female on her updated Queensland birth certificate for her to be, at law, of the female sex”.

No. “Gender” might be something you can decide based on how you want to identify but sex is a matter of biological fact. You either have the XX chromosomes that define your sex as a woman or you do not, and no amount of hormones, surgery or birth certificate updates can change that.

With his judgment, we’re in uncharted territory where Gillard-era changes are trying to undo science because a vociferous and aggressive trans lobby is demanding that biological males claiming to be women should be allowed in our single-sex spaces. This makes a mockery of female equality.

Did this come about because MPs debated the issue and decided that anyone who claims to be a woman really is a woman; or because this question was openly put to voters and decided by an election or at a referendum?

Of course not. What we are saddled with now is something that’s been insinuated into law by stealth and parliament must now fix this mistake.

@MakisMD

NEW ARTICLE: IVERMECTIN should be given to ALL Advanced Breast Cancer patients – outperforms chemo Paclitaxel and kills Cancer Stem Cells!

A 2017 bombshell study by Mexican researchers should have changed how Breast Cancer is treated. Forever.

In the 2017 paper “Ivermectin as an inhibitor of Cancer Stem Cells”, researchers from Mexico City take on a theory that Ivermectin could annihilate Breast Cancer Stem Cells.

How long has it been known that Ivermectin can be used to treat cancer? Since 1996!

What are Cancer Stem Cells?

“Although the largest cell burden of a tumor is formed by the so-called bulk tumor cells, a small subpopulation of cells within the tumor has recently been identified, which presents a stem cell phenotype, due to the similarities to these cells have been called “cancer stem-like cells” (CSCs)”

“This cell population generally has the characteristic of unlimited self-renew” and is responsible for metastasis and recurrence

In 2009, MIT and Harvard researchers discovered that an anti-parasitic, Salinomycin, could reduce Breast Cancer Stem Cells by more than 100 fold compared to chemotherapy paclitaxel (Taxol), and inhibit breast tumor growth.

The Mexican researchers in this study searched for the molecule most resembling Salinomycin and after searching 1623 compounds, they found it – it was IVERMECTIN!

“Ivermectin preferentially inhibits the viability of Cancer Stem Cell – enriched populations compared with the total cell population. The opposite pattern was observed with paclitaxel treatment.”

Ivermectin also decreased expression of three “stemness genes” reported to be highly expressed in Cancer Stem Cells.

CONCLUSION: “In conclusion, results from the present study demonstrated that ivermectin preferentially targeted the stem cell population in MDA-MB-231 human breast cancer cells.

Ivermectin has been demonstrated to be safe, following treatment of millions of patients with onchocerciasis and other parasitic diseases, which makes it a strong candidate for further studies investigating its potential use as a repurposed drug for cancer therapy.”

The implications are staggering.

1. Ivermectin outperforms chemotherapy (paclitaxel)

2. Ivermectin destroys Cancer Stem Cells which are responsible for Cancer Treatment failure, metastasis and breast cancer recurrence.

3. Ivermectin destroys Cancer Stem Cells at a rate of over 100 fold compared to chemotherapy

4. Ivermectin also downregulates expression of “stemness genes” which are highly expressed in Cancer Stem Cells.

Bottom line: Every Advanced Breast Cancer patient should get Ivermectin to eliminate Cancer Stem Cells and reduce the risks of treatment failure, metastases and recurrence.

So why don’t they? I think we all know the answer.

Has any journalist investigated any funding behind the pro Palestinine/pro Hamas protests since Oct 7th? Thousand and thousands of Pali flags professional banners etc.

Those from Inner-West Sydney maybe familiar with the footbridge cyclepath that crosses the M4 at Homebush. When I crossed it on Friday evening going home at peak hour a large Free Palestine banner had been put up on the security fencing above the handrails along with two or more Pali flags. The two activists who manned the protest must have scaled the fence illegally to put it up.

I wonder how these buggers get away with it. As I went past I told them “why don’t you release the hostages?” I’m not much of an interventionist with these things but at least they would’ve heard a dissenting voice.

Very pleasant sunny morning at the rifle range this morning. Next to no wind.
Scored 372 on two cards. (8 targets 5 rounds in each, max score 50 for total 400).
Mrs Eyrie scored 377. One card each of 192, so there’s that. Worked on the rifles and all the gear and it is working for us. Great fun.

Simply lumping Brown and Bandt together in the ‘communist POS’ bucket probably doesn’t give a complete picture of what is going on.

I will never forget Brown saying, while still in parliament –

“One world government, one person one vote, what could be fairer.”

I doubt he was that naive. He might have had a gentler personality but he was closer to Bandt than you might think.

Just to highlight one important aspect of Brown’s philosophy.
The most basic of all rights is the right to free expression. Nothing else about human rights is feasible without free expression.
When it comes down to it, the authoritarian home is where you belong if you’re against free speech. And as someone once described it at the old Cat. Different rooms, but the same house.

The most basic of all rights is the right to free expression. Nothing else about human rights is feasible without free expression.

If we’re ranking them I’d suggest life, liberty and security of person morally and logically precede freedom of expression. They are necessary conditions for freedom of expression.

Lot of talk about whether Bob the poofta was a commie. It’s a meaningless line of thought. Bob the poofta was an elitist who hated average folk. He was responsible for Finkelstein because he thought average folk were too stupid and influenced by denialist propaganda about climate change:

Finkelstein, AGW and the Coalition – On Line Opinion – 24/7/2012

The labels don’t count if the effect on your life is the same; and the effect of bob the poofta’s influence would be indistinguishable from any commie.

Life. Without free expression our lives would be greatly hindered.

Liberty. Talk back against the state and your liberty is extinguished.

Security. How would it be possible to feel secure with free expression is restricted.

Life is pre-eminent because without it freedom of expression cannot be exercised by the individual, nor any other legitimate right for that matter.

This is self-evident.

As an illustration, aborted babies never get to exercise freedom of expression, thought, association and so on; the incipient exercise of those rights was taken from them when their right to life was extinguished.

Talk back against the state and your liberty is extinguished.

In that case your liberty was extinguished at law before you exercised your right to speak against the state. Even the Soviets went to the trouble of formally enacting the legislation that enabled the courts to send people to the gulags.

Thus, liberty and respect for it logically precedes free speech and is a necessary condition for it.

How would it be possible to feel secure with free expression is restricted.

It’s the other way around – security of person means the state can’t impose arbitrary punishments that restrict your liberty, including your liberty to speak. Again, security of person is the necessary condition for the unhindered exercise of free speech.

Bandt is a different sort of creature who is far closer to the levers power than Brown ever was.

Correct me if I’m wrong, as I haven’t checked, but didn’t the Greens under Brown hold part of the balance of power during the Lying Slapper years? That’s far closer to the levers than where Bandt is in a relative sense.

There are no rights.
Such a formulation is meaningless.
You could be granted “the right to life” by every government body from your local council to the United Nations, school children could be diligently indoctrinated in these rights, and countless people would still be murdered every day, killed in accidents and wars.
It’s meaningless gibble gabble.
It is the crap that people go on with to avoid the obvious: all the good things you enjoy come through the hard work and diligence of yourself and others.
You are safe from murder, to the extent that you are, because police are prepared to do their duty and keep the scumbags seperate from the citizens, and because you are smart enough to recognise dangerous situations and avoid them.

Can anyone tell me the difference between an ordinary share and a stapled security?
i.e. APA GROUP STAPLED (FULLY PAID UNITS STAPLED SECURITIES)
Thanks in advance.