Mangled Thoughts

Now They Want to Euthanize Children
“In the Netherlands, 31 percent of pediatricians have killed infants. A fifth of these killings were done without the “consent” of parents. Going Dutch has never been so horrible.”

“In the Netherlands, Groningen University Hospital has decided its doctors will euthanize children under the age of 12…” [See below]

This item picks up what Leftists fronts Animals Australia, and The Australian Catholic Study Circle for Animal Welfare, are pushing, as related in items immediately below this piece. What they are pushing is committed in Holland.

Jeff Kennett is pushing for ‘legalised euthanasia’. Derryn Hinch is too. Both claim it is a matter of compassion and mercy for those in pain. Hinch injects, whenever he raises it, another emotive and personal note, his mother. He stresses that if euthanasia was legal when his mother was dying and in considerable pain, he would have requested her be killed.

Now we have Leftist fronts, Animals Australia, and The Australian Catholic Study Circle for Animal Welfare, out to destroy pork food production asserting children are no more than piglets. This does means that children can be murdered. They are doing it in Holland. The second front is pushing this in the name of Christ, Trinity and Church.

Legal does not mean, however, lawful as in common law. It is Executive diktat over-riding law. It has not, apparently, occurred to either Jeff or Hinch why in Common Law, jurists treats suicide as what it is by definition, murder, albeit self-murder. Why, attempted suicide as attempted self-murder. Why, some-one else killing another, even if out of ‘compassion’, is dealt with as manslaughter or murder.

Neither has it occurred to them that ‘legalised euthanasia’ is an aim of the diseased Left. Coupled with it is the brutal truth of it as also a Statist measure. I am certainly not accusing these two of mendacity and malevolent intent in this matter - the diseased Left, yes, but not Hinch and Jeff. Their problem is intellectual idleness.

Until advances made in medicine, all due to free markets and raising of incomes due to capital accumulation through the 18th and 19th centuries and not socialist measures, the reason why common law jurists passed over unborn babies and the question of their rights was, the high rate of pre-natal death. Hygiene is one of the millions of innovations of entrepeneurs and not Statists and Leftists. It brought an end to both pre-natal, and high infant mortality rates.

My educated guess is the reason why until the 19th century, even into the early 20th century, many parents remained aloof from their children was precisely the high mortality rate. Indeed, into the early 20th century, despite the hygiene revolution - thanks to capitalism, parents were still apprehensive. Aloofness and remoteness disguised parental hopes and love.

None and short-life spans was a memory that still burned deep into the early 20th century. It is why young men they worked furiously at establishing themselves in a field, in their early teenage years. They still felt it an urgent race to succeed, prosper, marry and reproduce. Many still feared they would be dead by 40. One such man was Henry Cabot Lodge, who led a long and colourful life and died many decades later than he had anticipated as a youth.

The ambiguity of unborn babies and infants in common law, had nothing to do with the garbage of ‘person’ that Singer uses as one of his excuses for abortion and euthanasia. It had everything to do with: it was virtually nonsensical to deal with in common law the rights of the unborn and infants, even in themselves, let alone, for example, as heirs, given when it was highly probable they would die. Is it still an ambiguous matter in law for Jurists, not because they are callous and regard the unborn and infants as piglets, but for the sort of considerations involved? If it is, it is understandable why so.

Boosters of abortion and euthanasia have drawn on the ambiguity and thus lacunae in common law, but have been deceitful, to say the least, about why there is this lacunae. They are deliberately deceitful in this. The fraud compounds their deceit, since they use it as a major argument. One that they, and not only Hinch, press through playing the Emotion Harp. Kennett and Hinch are blind, because lazy and arrogant, to the intellectual fraud perpetrated by the Hard Left, and why they continue to perpetrate it.

Here’s a contrast to Hinch’s personalised and emotive ‘argument’. It involves telling details about why state ordered ‘euthanasia’ is evil.

Readers share Tracey Spicer’s death wish pain

Spicer related she nearly brought herself to killing her terminally-ill mum and, at the final moment did not.

…she held a pillow a foot away from her critically ill mother’s face, preparing to end her suffering by suffocating her…but could not go through with it.

“But as I looked down at the woman who gave me life, I knew I could not take hers. Collapsing to the floor, I sobbed like a baby. For the next few hours, I held Mum’s limp hand and said, over and over, ‘It’s OK for you to go’.”

Spicer states she had pestered hospital staff to assist her or kill her mother for her. They refused and it needs no stating as to why they refused, the bleeding obvious repugnance at it, oh and of course it is a crime. There it is, ‘legalised euthanasia’ entails the Executive trampling over decent men and women who would not volitionally even contemplate committing it. This is what Spicer attempted by badgering staff. It is certainly most likely of those in government hospitals, and why requires no explication either.

The same article contains the following anecdote:

Mitch of Tasmania…watch[ed] his mother die of cancer over 20 months.

“She used to say to me ‘They shoot horses, why won’t they put me down?’ If I left my sheep or cattle in the paddock like that, the RSPCA (no disrespect) must charge me and I would be in jail.
It was harrowing,” he said.

Man is not an animal. This is the fraud involved in the line, we put animals out of their misery, why is it a crime to do the same to humans’. With all due respect to Mitch, but expressions such as “put me down” reinforces the lie and in a deadly way, it is a slide committed by the man in the street, opening otherwise decent men and women to acceptance of what would be a genuine evil if imposed in Australia.

It is acceptance of a major leg of the Hard Left’s push for State ordered murder, man is nothing more than an animal, a brute beast, and therefore can be freely butchered.The French communists, and devoted to Stalin, took the same line, with this edge: social realism shows children can be hanged for criminal offences. Children!

Don’t forget, one of the lies on which Leftist mystagogy rests is the fiction man is nothing more than a beast - ‘the savage noble’ or ‘noble savage’. This is another reason why Hobbes, Rousseau and Sociology (man is a herd animal) are full of corrosive garbage [1].

On the question of words, ‘euthanasia’ is also a deception. It sanitises the truth of the matter, it is the killing of someone. Let’s assume it is merciful to do this to some in intolerable pain, the seriousness of it cannot be averted by resorting to a euphemism, ‘euthanasia’. The boosters of State ordered killing are thus engaged in another deceit.

One excuse given for abortion is physical imperfection. Again, this has been wrapped in emotive blackmail - ‘the child would suffer a miserable life and die early. Better to do it in now and try to conceive a sound child’. Both Taki and Charles Moore, writers for the Spectator and of the latter also an editor, fathered boys with the condition. Moore wrote of his initial apprehension. Both wrote of their joy in their boys, with Taki proudly writing of his son’s skiing and even prouder of him being a girl magnet. Here’s some others who have a thing or two to say about, parents:

Q&A: Judy Woodruff on life with disabilities (2008)

‘Legalised killing’, has another moral force. It breaks down morality, ‘it’s not me…the government authorised it and some one else did it’. This is the line taken, the response of enough Germans in the face of the National Socialist Executive’s enacting legalised killing and the consequent mass murders of Jews, cripples, homosexuals and anyone considered defective. A mixture of horror, shame and yet self-absolution. This is the line implicit in legalised killings, the “State enacted it, I ambsolved from my responsibilities as a free man”.

Best of all; how can mere beasts be responsible and culpable for anything at all? This, as the French communists, and today’s neo-Marxists, who are also causing great damage within the Church, is real ‘concrete, natural life’. It is not simply an assault on not only law, and freedom. It is what this attack on law is, a concentrated effort to overthrow morals. It has to be pointed out, private property, free markets, capital accumulation are the grounds and generator of much that is moral. Oh yes they are, despite what the neo-Marxist liars that have infested the St. Vincent de Paul Society say, noting these grounds of morality is also what they are attacking through their propaganda purveyed as theologically grounded material (their theology, is also inane, superficial, false drivel - but it cannot be but this in view of what they really stand for).

The legs of the Nazi Executive’s rationale for ‘euthanasia’ had been widely diffused and accepted by many long before they adopted it, and acted on it. ‘The legs…’ the very notions being asserted today by the diseased Left, and nonchantly parroted by the a-brainal “Right”.

It is no exaggeration at all to call ‘legalised euthanasia’ “State ordered murder”. To check, it is a major scandal, a dark, dirty business of “State” ordered murder in the Netherlands. Consider, for example:

In his book Seduced by Death, Herbert Hendin reported that one reason the Dutch people have not turned against their euthanasia law is that doctors and the media in Holland do not candidly report about the many abuses and violations of the law that occur with regard to their country’s euthanasia policy.

Dutch Euthanasia, By Wesley J. Smith

Death by Committee.What the Groningen Protocol says about our world, and where it might lead next.
by Hugh Hewitt

The Groningen Protocol is the proposal of doctors in the Netherlands for the establishment of an “independent committee” charged with selecting babies and other severely handicapped or disabled people for euthanasia. The original article provides some of the key details:

THe Dutch Executive has been working to legalise murder of children! E.g.:

From the above article, under the “Groningen protocol”:

Under the Groningen protocol, if doctors at the hospital think a child is suffering unbearably from a terminal condition, they have the authority to end the child’s life. The protocol is likely to be used primarily for newborns, but it covers any child up to age 12.

…the parent’s role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent’s wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so rests with doctors.

Now They Want to Euthanize Children
In the Netherlands, 31 percent of pediatricians have killed infants. A fifth of these killings were done without the “consent” of parents. Going Dutch has never been so horrible.

In the Netherlands, Groningen University Hospital has decided its doctors will euthanize children under the age of 12…

Which children? Those in pain, “and children who are seriously disabled.”

What are the ‘reasons’? Some major excuses also run by the likes of Singer and his diseased Leftist fellow travellers, and the brain-dead “Right”.

Dutch doctors have been surreptitiously engaging in eugenic euthanasia of disabled babies for years…

If the names Dutch, Netherlands, and Holland were omitted, it would be easy to swear on oath these reports are on Nazi Germany! For more chilling material, go, for example, here:

International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

In Australia, the diseased Left are running the same arguments the Dutch Executive and its willing accomplices have used to turn hospitals into State Ordered charnal houses. Deliberate mass murder. One of these Leftist fronts is the “The Australian Catholic Study Circle for Animal Welfare”. It is bad they call for destruction of food production in pig farms; this is heinous in itself, as is also the neo- Marxist aims the liars in the St.Vincent de Paul Society have so helpfully publicised on the much abused Society’s website.

The equation of man with animals, and children with piglets is a long way down the road to the commission of what the Nazi executive did, and the Dutch Exectutive is doing.

To Cardinal Archbishop Pell

Cardinal Pell, I repeat the request, have the “The Australian Catholic Study Circle for Animal Welfare” investigated. While you are at it, also the neo-Marxist thugs who have converted the ST.Vincent de Paul Society into a cover and gravy train for themselves.

You need guns to do this, because you are not armed for it, and neither are your subordinate bishops. They are not to be found in the likes of the CIS and IPA either. I recommend, for example, Mr. Gerard Jackson of Brookesnews. I also recommend you obtain another arm you do not have available, theology and a gun of a theologian. Get this right. It must be done, because:

They are wrecking the Church as well as betraying Australians. They belong to the diseased Left, Cardinal. Forget Catholic, they are not even Christians. They are anti-Christian, and much esle besides. They are lying bastards, Cardinal Pell.

[1] It is important to mention Hobbes, Rousseau , as two of the seminal influences that fuelled the myths and fictions on which socialism rests and its pseudo-scientific attempts at justification such as sociology. Hoche and Binding’s ideas that “became respectable in Weimar Germany and provided the Nazi’s with the intellectual reasoning for their war of extermination…” (Rupert Murdoch, anti-Americanism and Singer’s neo-Nazi views) were raised and advanced long before the Weimer period. A period spanning from at least the mid 16th to the 20th centuries, and were fused into a deadly cocktail in ‘philosophy’, ‘history’, and ‘theology’. Each field, in inverted commas because it was the degradation of each.

Theirs was no empty boast when they claimed to be the genuine German socialist party. Germans recognised this, and backed them because of it. Today, they chase Singer out of Germany as a scarifying echo of a past they rightly have no wish to recall.

The Nazis were devoted to the cult of nature and to it equated man and animals. They banned vivisections on animals. They had the Jewish people to experiment on.

Peter Singer equates animals with man and holds, to repeat the ‘right to life’ is decided by whether anyone is a ‘person’. By this rubbery word, ‘person’, he includes animals. Singer holds some have less ‘rights’ to live than piglets. That, State ordered murder of some is moral. Singer totally evades rights are grounded in property, including onself. There is a reason for this.

Singer’s notion of ‘rights’ has nothing to do with real rights and freedom, it has everything to do with justifying absolutism. The UN’s position is the same, the incipiently totalitarian definition of Rights. It must not be forgotten that:

In 1920 Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life was published in Germany. Authored by a Professor Karl Binding in collaboration with Dr Alfred Hoche, the book categorised those who were to be killed…

Hoche and Binding’s ideas became respectable in Weimar Germany and provided the Nazi’s with the intellectual reasoning for their war of extermination against the senile, the retarded, the disabled, etc. And it was the Churches that stood up against this tide of barbarism, not leftwing journalists.

in [Singer’s] own words: “What the Nazis did was a totally different thing. They called their program euthanasia but it was not euthanasia because it was not for the good of the infants involved.”
But murdering people for their own good was part of the Nazi euthanasia program, as Hitler’s decree of the 1 September 1939 authorising euthanasia made clear:
“Reichleiter Bouhler and Dr Brandt are hereby instructed to extend the authority of physicians designated by name in such a manner that those… as it is humanly possible to judge, incurably sick may, after the most scrupulous assessment of their state of health, be granted a merciful death.”
The Nazis argued that society had a moral obligation to relieve parents of the suffering and distress that severely handicapped children imposed on them. This statement destroys Singer’s criticism…

Singer was run out of German Universities, and was opposed by undergraduates of Harvard who are also cripples.

Singer “publicly lamented the collapse of socialism (communism), once again revealing the greens’ socialist ideology.” This quote is from an article that includes other telling quotes and something else; the unprincipled, camotose, cowardly “Right” and spineless company directors and executives who see nothing wrong with the Greens’ cult of death. Another quote is apt:

Speaking for the German greens, Carl Amery stated:

We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which the killing of a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year old children to Asian brothels. (Ibid., p. 169).

Mining Industry Caves in to Fanatical Greens

Regarding the Leftist front, Animals Australia, with others in suuport such as the Parkville, Melbourne based, “The Australian Catholic Study Circle for Animal Welfare”, their position is transparent - the force is unmistakeable. Equating piglets and children is not simply that children are the same as piglets. Children can be ‘legally murdered’. Those behind these fronts will deny it but, it is true.

The Animals Australia media campaign combines the above with another violent, direct abuse of children. It is aimed at getting at adults through children too, by the naked attempt to induce children to identify with piglets, and regard them as human too, while seeking to induce adults to view their children the same way.

Yes, this item recapitulates some points made in When advertising is propganda. Not, however, the full savagery of this disgusting propaganda and brainwashing effort. Yes, brainwashing - to manipulate those who listen to it, and see it on TV and in papers in to the above moral equivalence and into accepting their totalitarian lies as true.

Man is unique, and above all animals. This is what the diseased Left, including their pals who have penetrated the Church, are attacking, and supplanting with notions that are horrendous. Several things stand out:

1.The advertising agency responsible for producing Animals Australia’s propaganda campaign saw nothing wrong with it.
2. Media Companies saw nothing wrong with it in accepting the contract to transmit it.

The media companies did not react until they were flooded by complaints from the public. Then, only then did, it seems (I could be wrong on this - eg., is it still running on TV) have they pullede it.

The 3rd thing is, neither has the “Right” seen anything wrong with it. They have been a complete blank, matched by dumbness - total silence. Then, too many of them, beginning with Brendan Nelson, equate man with animals. So do the CIS and IPA - regulation and tax as the coercive measures to force people to behave the right way, the Watson position holding man as nothing but animals to be beaten and driven.

Truly disgusting. Another typical failure of the necrotic “Right”. Abysmal, truly appalling.

Cardinal Archbishop George Pell, concerned Catholics have mentioned whether you will investigate and take action against “The Australian Catholic Study Circle for Animal Welfare”? I happily agreed to mentioning the request in public. This treacherous, child abusing, diseased Leftist front is using the cover of the Church to push a position that is horrendous, and forget anti-Catholic, it is not even Christian. In the name of Christ, Trinity, and Church Cardinal! Enough reason to act, Sir.

I have underestimated Chavez’s existing close ‘diplomatic’ ties with Australia.

In, Bob Brown gave a candid speech in the Senate and Liberals failed to shred him for what he disclosed (Friday, May 16, 2008), we noted Bob Brown’s demand for re-establishment of diplomatic ties, and on a very close basis, entails headaches for ASIO and Federal Police. It turns out, ASIO does have a headache. Some Australian arms dealers, at least two, are supplying at least one of Chavez’s terrorist fronts, the Marxist cell FARC, with arms.

Fox news:

The Washington Post reports that Venezuelan officials set up contacts with Australian arms dealers and arranged for missile training in the Middle East, according to the documents, which were on computer hard drives seized by Colombia.

Venezuela’s ties to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, came under further scrutiny Thursday when Interpol said it had concluded that the Colombian government hadn’t tampered with the seized computers.

Interpol’s report bolsters Colombia’s claims that the computers contain evidence of meddling by Venezuela in its neighbor’s war with FARC. Venezuela has asserted the files on the computer are

Also reported here on World news, along with other items on Chavez and his terrorist cells.

In The Australian, here.

Bob Brown and the Greens want to ‘legalise’ narcotics. This would open the gates to Chavez in Australia. Bob Brown and the Greens are pals with a Stalinist junta, that funds and fuels terrorism around the world, and funds the Islamo-Fascists enemy of Australia and our allies. Why?

The Greens is, stripped of its facade of unholy beliefs, a Stalinist front. The KGB didn’t establish the Greens to play tiddlywinks with the West. It set up the Greens as a Cold War front to topple the West and pave the way for takeover by Stalinist regimes. In the Senate, though the old USSR and the Cold War are finished, Bob Brown laid out the Greens’ updated manifesto, and it did not recieve even a squeak of an objection from Liberal MPs. Neither did the ALP slam Brown and the Greens over this grievous scandal - understandably because it is stuffed with treacherous leftists, such as Ms. Irwin, who supports the terrorist rat-hole called the “Palestinian Territory”.

One reason the Liberals failed to attack Brown is laziness mixed with incompetence and ignorance. They can’t be bothered to even do an Internet search. Since last Wednesday, the Liberals have still not gone for Brown’s and the Greens’ jugulars over their support for their fellow Stalinist travellers the Chavez regime. I do not simply mean that they have not said a word in Parliament. They have not gone for Brown and the Greens outside of Parliament.

Types such as Brown and his Greens chums should be unrelentingly skewered and torn apart. The Right and their advisers wouldn’t say boo. Besides, they are afraid of the left dominated media. Secondly, the IPA, for example, not only published that complete fabrication, Islam and the Free Market (why? is still being asked) they published an apologia for the Stalinist regime of Cuba, in the May edition of the IPA Review.

It should be noted, unlike the disgusting Islam and the Free Market ( and a corrective paper by someone who has a thorough, scholarly grasp of the history of economics - Mr. Jackson does - must be printed), they have simply pulled their propaganda piece on behalf of the ruthless, Stalinist dictatorship. However, while readers cannot call it down from the Internet, the article is still in black and white in the hard paper copy of the IPA Review. I have the article before me and I will, soon enough, write on it and skewer the thuggery of the IPA Review in detail.

Andrew “Andy Pandy” Kemp, son of Kommissar David Kemp, wrote the disgusting item. “Andy Pandy” is the guy who wrote a disgusting piece for The “Spencer Street Soviet” Age, waxing lyrically about that evil mass murderer called Che Gueverra, and what a great pin-up guy he is.

Andy Pandy went on to muse, why don’t we idolise Hitler too? This is the moral compass of Andy Pandy Kemp and the IPA Review. So, having apologised for the Stalinst regime of Cuba, the stunning problem is, Chavez fully supports it , and this fact is for another item on Bob Brown, the Greens and their fellow Stalinist travellers the Chavez junta, which funds, arms and trains marxist and Islamo-fascist terrorist cells.

(It truly is risible the Right’s claim they defend free markets and liberty, when they apologise to thugs, for thugs, and as they do these things spit on real free market economists, and are terrified of the treacherous left dominated media).

Senator Bob Brown, head honcho of the Australian arm of the KGB founded Greens Party, gave one of his more revealing speeches in Parliament, Wednesday, 14th of May. It is almost incredible that he can outshine his usual candour when it concerns what he really stands for but he managed it.

In the speech, he waxed lyrically about his recent holiday. Brown was a guest of someone he admires. Brown’s host is a narcotics kingpin, admirer and pal of Fidel Castro and that Stalinist regime, and financier of terrorists. He also outlined the Green’s manifesto for world totalitarian rule.

Liberal Senators failed to shred Bob Brown for what he had to say. The reasons for their usual dismal performance are why the likes of Kevin Rudd, Peter Garrett, and Bob Brown hold seats in Parliament. Instead, we shall do the work Liberal MP’s cannot do and it shall be spread out over several days - a pleasure must not be indulged in haste.

Bob’s host was Hugo Chavez. Yes, that monster. Brown admires him and you can tell he does from his sycophantic high praise of that financier of terrorists. Why does Brown like Chavez? Chavez supports the Greens. That’s right, according to Brown, Chavez has embraced the Green’s cause and treats its Stalinist members as his best mates. Reverse the relationship to uncover the reason Chavez embraces the Greens.

Wrong! It’s not because Chavez believes in their mystic rubbish. He is as Kyoto compliant as a flea obeying a dog’s request that it remove itself forthwith. This leaves only the Green’s real aims and their success in the West in realising them. Chavez hopes for the demolition of the West and it is no secret. He sees the Green’s putting in a jolly good effort to this end. Perhaps there is a medal in the post for Brown, Garrett and chums; the Order of Chavez, and wow, first class.

What more is wrong with Bob Brown’s adoration of Chavez? It has to do with what must be, to follow Brown, a trivial detail. Chavez funds enemies Australian soldiers are fighting in the Middle East. Yes, that is correct. Chavez not only funds communist terrorists in Latin America. Bob Brown is pals with someone who trains and funds very violent and savage enemy of Australia, Islamo-fascist terrorists.

Taken together with the violence he has committed against Venezuelans, his criminalisation of free speech, matched by control of the media, and much else besides, Chavez seems an odd choice of friend. Not to the Greens, as their Manifesto makes plain. He’s on their wavelength.

In praising Stalinist Chavez, Brown fits in, typically, excoriation of Howard, Downer, the United States and President George Bush. He reviled Howard and Downer for closing down the Australian embassy in Venezuela. I suppose his resentment is because they did not invite him to lunch and generally toady to him, cooing in his ear “what a nice shoe shine boy you are Bob.”

Brown called for the re-establishment of intimate relations with Chavez and his band of killers. Well, this is welcome news, for Islamo-fascists and drug pushers. Mothers, fathers, siblings, and grandparents watching loved ones perish from addiction to narcotics, enmeshed in crime, and mixed up with dangerous criminals until they are dead, must be thrilled with Brown’s good news.

These poor Australians can take consolation in the knowledge Chavez is a major producer of narcotics and is killing children and teenagers on the streets. So too, can our American friends find comfort in the knowledge that Chavez does this because, as Brown says, he really is a decent guy.

Funny, isn’t it, there were some in the US, UK, and Australia who held the same esteem for Adolf Hitler, until WWII broke out. Mind, treacherous leftists, fully backed by Union thugs, were content with Hitler right up until he invaded Russia. But, hey, Adolf was a Greeny too. Not in name, but as an ardent nature worshipper, who blew away massive amounts of capital on ‘alternative energy’ schemes - to the chagrin of businessmen and Generals.

Australian servicemen can take consolation in the knowledge Brown’s hero and new found pal funds the monsters they risk their lives fighting. Our American friends must be thrilled too at the prospect of taking high tea with someone who wants them massacred. Here’s an interesting comparison:

…the incredible ignorant statement by Obama that FDR and Truman talked to our enemies…

Iran is one enemy, al-Qaeda is another. Talking to AQ is akin to madness and treason…

But there it is, in black and white, the evidence that this man would sit down with those who deserve no sit-downs.

[Obama:] “The other side can label and name-call all they want, but I trust the American people to recognize that it’s not surrender to end the war in Iraq so that we can rebuild our military and go after al Qaeda’s leaders. I trust the American people to understand that it’s not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but our enemies – like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.”

Obama wants to have meetings without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has publicly spoken of his desire to annihilate a key ally of the US, as well as Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and any number of thugs and tyrants. When did FDR, Truman, and Kennedy do that? Answer: never…

I really have to inform my Jewish friends, who survived the Holocaust, what big-hearted humanitarians Bob Brown and his new pal, Chavez, are. I presume they will be as chuffed as I am. Chavez is decent, for he is concerned for the welfare of our enemies. Preparing islamo fascists to massacre Jews is a considerate, charitable, awfully civil act. These kind gestures have touched me. I’m weeping, for all those who have been butchered by them and their backers - Chavez.

ASIO and the Federal Police must be chuffed at the prospect too. Saner heads might surmise they have enough on their hands dealing with the agents of other regimes, including Kevin Rudd’s ‘mastahs’ in Peking. They will enjoy their irritations exacerbated by Chavez’s agents running around Australia encouraging terrorist cells, treacherous leftists, and delivering diplomatic packets to drug pushers in the streets to pay for all this diplomatic goodwill.

What of the reciprocal? Oz diplomats serve in a wide range of countries with nasty regimes. Why spoil a bad thing by adding another called Venezuela? The strong impression is, many diplomats are rather keen on shutting down rat-holes, permanently.

To show what a lovely dictator Chavez is, here is some sound reading matter:

Olavo de Carvalho, South America’s resurgent left is a threat to liberty , also on Carvalho’ site, on this page.

Even Wikipedia cannot competely ignore the truth about Chavez and his regime, as its item sets out here.

Eric Driggs, South America: Carbon Copying Cuban Tyranny. (This article contains a bibliography, some linked, of analytical papers and newspaper articles lifting out matters that the reveal the brutality of the Chavez Regime.)

While Brown lauds Chavez, and marvels at how lucky the Venezuelans are to be under his jackboots, there are those who have an uppity view of paradise. There have been large demonstrations in Caracas, against Chavez. Chavez doesn’t mind. They are Chavez’s excuse for a bit of fun - putting down his uppity slaves with ruthless, murderous violence.

Living in Chavez’s holiday inn, Brown obviously didn’t have time for glum faces. Why ruin a fun holiday when he could smile along with Chavez. Chavez calls any Venezuelans who oppose him traitors, and deals with them accordingly.

No Liberal MP stood up and slammed Brown for his admiration of Chavez and his recommendations. None stood up to ensure it went down on the record why Howard cut diplomatic ties with Chavez and his band of totalitarian, drug peddling, terrorist supporting thugs. Not one of them.

Brown is not of fit and proper character to hold a seat in Parliament. Is his position on Chavez just reason to boot Brown out of Parliament for the disgusting, treacherous, totalitarian fanatic that he is?

Choice selections from Brown’s masterful speech in “Continued”.
(Continued)

A leading thug of Hamas bumped off in asshole city, Damascus, now:

Al-Qa’ida’s Pakistan kingpin killedCorrespondents in Islamabad
September 28, 2004

PAKISTAN’S security forces yesterday claimed to have delivered a “crushing blow” to al-Qa’ida by killing a leading terrorism suspect wanted over a failed bid to assassinate President Pervez Musharraf.

Amjad Farooqi, gunned down during a two-hour shootout in southern Sindh province on Sunday, had been running al-Qa’ida operations in Pakistan, officials said.

Faorooqi didn’t have much say in it:

“I will prefer death,” Farooqi, 30, is reported to have shouted when security forces surrounded his hideout in the town of Nawabshah.