Mangled Thoughts

Having summarised the failure of the Right to shred the Greens on the count of bogus science, Pt II attends their failure on the economics side of the fraud. It wasn’t simply a failure in economic argument, debate and polemics.

Liberal MPs, the IPA, and their link, David Kemp.

12 years in Federal Office, preceded by a decade in one of the crucial States in the Federation Australia, Victoria under Kennett, and the Right did not merely fail miserably to shred the Greens, their Great Lie, and bulldoze the bureaucracies raised to enforce the Greens’ totalitarian aims. No, they imposed an extensive range of Green’s demands and helped the Green’s promote their great lie. As for Kennett and McNamarra they almost beat the ‘watermelon red’ not Liberal former ministers, David Kemp, Malcolm Turnbull and Ian Campbell on such matters as imposing the ethanol fraud. They also rammed down a mountain of capital destroying, absolutist regulations to enforce compliance to the Greens’ cult of death.

The IPA, as advisers to Kennett and Howard Cabinets, demonstrated a contradiction. The IPA’s self-proclaimed forte is fighting regulation. They have over the decades consistently failed. Why? It requires sound economic theory to fight regulation. They are as defective in economics as are the CIS and the HR Nicholls Society. During the Howard years, they did not fight the economic measures of their rightwing pals in the Cabinet, to effect ruination of Australians to “stop global warming” and “protect the environment”.

The IPA’s efforts were given to working out the ‘right’ measures to ram down on Australians. There is a “governance issue” hanging over them. David Kemp and family owns the IPA. As “Minister for the Environment”, he was not merely “watermelon red”. Kemp was a zealot who foamed at the mouth when anyone dared to politely say, “it is all bunk, Minister”.

So, before further ado, we have already three reasons why the Right has served the Greens and their treacherous Leftist allies:

1. Idle “Liberal” Ministers, illiterate in science and economics. Their performance demonstrated these defects. The IPA blamed Howard for the defeat of the Liberal Party; they are free with the truth. Howard by instinct is genuinely Liberal, and he was only one Minister in a Cabinet stuffed with the likes of Minchin, Kemp, Turnbull and a rather long list of the same types.

2. Incompetent advisers in economics and science, who ran up the flag yellow. The IPA even spat on scientists who offered to do the work required, pro bono.

Cowardice, ah yes… While the likes of David Kemp and his IPA spat on genuine Liberals, scientists and economists, they and their chums in Cabinet, and the CIS trembled before the Left dominated press. Chinese acquaintances, who lived under the worst horrors of the Communist regime of China under Mao, are puzzled as to why these ‘freedom fighting” heroes of the Right are terrified of Lefitsts. These venerable acquaintances know all about starvation due to the sort of measures Kemp, Turnbull, and Campbell put in place, and Rudd is about to intensify and multiply.

3. Contradiction. It seems to have escaped the Right’s notice the measures Kemp is guilty of imposing are incipiently totalitarian. The IPA and CIS claim to fight for market freedom and liberty, yet supported that. In Parliament last week, Kevin Rudd set out a progrom that is not merely confined to capital destroying carbon taxation. The measures are extensive, and the force is appalling; they are set out below in “Continued”.

The performance of Rightwing MPs and the IPA has been nothing less than betrayal of their duties to the Howard Cabinet, the Liberal Party, and Australians. Thus, it is fitting who remains are: blubbering Brendan Nelson; polar ice-cap Helen Kroger; Nick “Howard did us in” Minchin; Malcolm “I’m only a poor little wealthy brat like Peter Garrett” Turnbull, who demands Government impose killer price rises on energy and other raw materials.

Turnbull: Shadow Treasurer, thirsts to be Prime Minister, and El Presidente Le Respublico Los Bananos Australiano. Instead, he should be slung out of Parliament and replaced with a genuine Liberal. Then, he and David Kemp must be booted out of the Liberal Party. They can join their fellow travellers, the Greens.

CIS gives master class on carbon taxes

The failures and cowardice of the IPA pales before the actions of the CIS. The CIS has made it plain, they fully support the aim of the Greens: economically raze Australians. Their position paper demanding imposition of carbon taxes demonstrates their capitulation to the Left. The ALP has used the very same arguments the CIS asserts as the way to impose the measures “costlessly”. Even funnier, last week, they stood up in Parliament and used another false proposition put by the CIS, John Humphreys, and their ‘defenders:

Income transfers can compensate modest income earners. Rudd’s pals did say in Parliament, they are studying, by how much, but have established they will have to be large.

There are two problems:

1.Transfers can be made only by impoverishing many others – robbing Peter to pay Paul, then Paul to pay Dixie. This from defenders of freedom and free markets!

2.Mr Jackson demonstrated in devastating papers, carbon taxes destroys capital . I laid out a large number of major cases which drove home this very impact.

Needless to say, there is no income to be seized and ‘redistributed’ when the generator of income, capital, is smashed. The CIS’ rebuttal was a fit of hysteria and calling Jackson, then Strider, Prodos, and others liars. They did not refute Jackson’s economic analysis. They had no rebuttal, so they conducted themselves as Leftist Quiggin, his fan club of juveniles do, and their chums in the media do, slimed those who have every good reason to reject their claims.

(Professor Sinclair Davidson joined in. He pretends to a thorough understanding of Mises and Hayek, as some of his ‘knowing” comments in some of his usual tripe in the IPA Review attests. His papers show he’s a blank on the Austrian school. Yet, he had the hide to smear Jackson, who is a distinguished exponent of Austrian economics. Why attempt to refute Jackson, when abuse will do. Professor Sinclair Davidson is a bloody disgrace.)

Notice the moral force of the actions of the CIS. They don’t give a stuff about the impact of carbon taxes on Australians. ‘Callous’, is a litote. Only the Greens, Kevin Rudd, Peter Garrett, and the leftist liars in the media are cheering them on. We can tell, because Rudd and his Cabinet of “Brown Pantalooned Morons” are using the very same arguments to not only excuse these devastating, totalitarian measures. Rudd and co are using them as the rationale for a wondrous expansion of ‘plans’ worthy of the defunct Soviet regime.

Here’s the rub, the CIS, as the IPA, ignored a mountain of evidence that had accumulated over a decade before their decision to support what the Stalinist Greens demand. Moreover, they ignored one horrific measure already in force in Australia, the food destroying fraud of ethanol production. Since, however, they hold carbon taxation is costless, they will no doubt publish a paper explaining this, and they will have their gun, John Humphreys write it. To help the CIS explain ‘costless carbon taxation’, we supply them a list of economic reading material they need to include (below). The material fully demonstrates why it can be so wonderful.

Conclusion of this article

There it is, ladies and gentleman, the Right has served the treacherous Left and their Stalinist pals in the Greens on two counts, science and economics. Oh, I am not saying they did so deliberately. They have done so because of their congenital defects.

It irks the IPA and the CIS that their mates are not in office, for they have been cut off the taxpayer kept gravy train. Rudd and Co have to funnel ‘transfers’ into Leftist ‘thunk and tanks’. Oh Rudd is, presumably, grateful to the CIS, and, hey, the CIS need not tighten their belts as much as the IPA has had to do (seems like the reason why they railed against Howard). The Peking based Peony Company can shovel a few millions their way via Mr. Yates in gratitude for all the fine work they did in encouraging Rudd to smash Australians into the ground.

Recommended reading

1. Helen “Fidelia Castro” Clarke has wrought devestation through her Green measures, having, for example, already razed forestry based production. Rodney Hide, began as a bureaucrat central planner (the orginal name for socialism) until the penny dropped, it issues only in misery.

New Zealand’s Right, who constitute the New Zealand National Party, detests Hide as much as Helen “Fidelia Castroina” Clarke and the New Zealand Labour Party do. Hide has tracked the devestation wrought by “Castroina” over the years on his site. However, “Fidelia” is about to blitz the trail for ‘costless’ carbon taxes:

Kiwi Climatology, WALL STREET JOURNAL ASIA, May 13, 2008. Kiwi farmers must be waiting in eager anticipation for the forthcoming CIS article.

Global-warming alarmists tend to understate the true costs of cutting greenhouse gas emissions. So give credit to New Zealanders, who seem poised to give the rest of us a real-life illustration of those costs…

2. Here is a “Christian gentleman”, who knows how costless carbon taxation is. We can tell, he is making a fortune out of it, in the form of ethanol,

Khosla’s Conspiracy, May 20, 2008, WSJ.

3. Oh, drat, here is entrepeneur extroadinaire, Mark Vaile, at it,

Government MPs plan to rip millions off in subsidies for ethanol producers, Brookesnews, 2005.

4. This cannot possibly be due to carbon taxes, the CIS and Professor Sinclair Davidson say so, so there:

The Biofuels Backlash May 7, 2008;

Even the environmental left, which pushed ethanol for decades as an alternative to gasoline, is coming clean. Lester Brown, one of the original eco-Apostles, wrote in the Washington Post that “it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that food-to-fuel mandates have failed.” We knew for sure the tide had turned when Time magazine’s recent cover story, “The Clean Energy Myth,” described how turning crops into fuel increases both food prices…

To create just one gallon of fuel, ethanol slurps up 1,700 gallons of water, according to Cornell’s David Pimentel, and 51 cents of tax credits. And it still can’t compete against oil without a protective 54-cents-per-gallon tariff on imports and a federal mandate that forces it into our gas tanks. The record 30 million acres the U.S. will devote to ethanol production this year will consume almost a third of America’s corn crop while yielding fuel amounting to less than 3% of petroleum consumption.

5. I suppose the uppity will indulge this, wounding the sensitivies of the Right, a fracas,

Food Fracas, By Lene Johansen,5/9/2008 American Prowler

Let’s not mention food riots. No, regulation has crippled food production and investment in it, before the impact of carbon taxes is factored in.

6. Surely, to follow the CIS, John Humphreys and Professor Sinclair Davidson, anyone who can write, “cap and trade is folly”, is either a clown or a liar…there’s one born every few seconds:

Cap-And-Trade Folly, Investor’s Business Daily, May 15, 2008. The conclusion must be describing Australia’s Right - no, just clowning around:

All this economic wreckage done in the name of reducing environmentally benign greenhouse gases by men who should know better — and likely do. But they have politics to think about, as well as invitations to Georgetown cocktail parties that probably are not being sent to GOP Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, who in his skepticism of global warming is performing a valuable public service.

7. CIS certainly has weight of numbers agreeing with their position:

The Biofuel Dilemma, By Ben Lieberman, The Heritage Foundation

Lieberman argues carbon taxes have proved successfully costless and have accomplished much of what the Green’s, the CIS, David Kemp, Malcolm Turnbull, Peter Garrett, and Kevin Rudd seek. Therefore, they can be responsibly rescinded now, before millions more around the world die from so much joy.

Oh, that is enough material for the CIS to digest, for the present. We shall supply them with fresh material I have to hand in another item.

Yes, Sir, I am looking forward to that CIS - Humphreys follow up paper. Better yet, it can be a joint paper, Humphreys and Professor Sinclair Davidson. Why don’t they go for the trifecta - a Humphreys-Professor Sinclair Davidson-Chris Berg joint paper, in which they will re-assert the Greens’ Great Lie is all true and why; and thus Carbon taxes are necessary, and why they are costless. It shall be a thrilling read, I can’t wait.

Rudd’s grand Soviet Era style planning:

Rudd has declared carbon taxes will also apply to cattle and sheep. It is not only carbon taxes he is about to impose. Moreover, his additional plans do entail extensive coercive measures. Read these additional shocking plans in, “Continued”. Oh, it does contain good news, for those spivs about town, Ron Walker and Hugh Morgan, who suppport carbon taxes because they want to steal billions per annum from taxpayers, courtesy of Rudd, via a ‘nuclear power plant’. It is itemised in Rudd’s Soviet style Plans, but listed as still under “Inquiry” - Rudd’s favourite expression to cover thuggery.

Source, Hansard, Federal Parliament, Senate:

(Continued)

The claim man causes climate change is a deliberate fraud. Originally pushed by the thugs in the Greens, why did Western politicians and bureaucrats accept the lie?

It was a good wheeze to justify empire building and ram down measures that are incipiently totalitarian in force. Rudd is building on what the “Watermelon Red” Rightwing former “Liberal” Ministers, Malcolm Turnbull, Ian Campbell and David Kemp established. The Right had over a decade in office and instead of eviscerating the charlatanism purveyed as ’science’, they proliferated it. They did their bit to corrupt science, and institutes engaged in pursuit of science and its impartation. The credibility of, for example, the CSIRO is shredded. This is what the Right also did, not only the Left, ably assisted by the CIS and the IPA.

With the general debasement of the function of schools (and not just under States’ and Federal ALP administrations) science was trivialised to, at best, as ‘another way of looking at truth’. What truth? The truth of charlatans and liars. Science cannot be imparted, and promising young scientists identified when science is locked into a pack of lies summed up in the garbage of ‘environmental science’. The “Liberal” Ministers oversaw the introduction of what is nothing less than an overt progrom of indoctrination into the Greens’ beliefs in schools. In Victoria, for example, school children berate parents ( thus they are also being turned into nasty little tyrants for good measure) for collecting firewood. Why? Here’s the sort of ‘reasons’ they give:

“They are homes of little animals”.

There was a day when a child would have been given a clip over the ear for both the insolence and the stupidity.

Who is the source of such infantile, moronic rubbish? The Greens. Who is drilling it into youngsters? Kommissars of not schools but brainwashing camps. It is understandable why so many illiterate, juvenile ignoramuses are ‘employed as teachers’. Bright adults would refuse to purvey such monstrous perversions; they would be punished for white-anting the progrom by teaching science.

A lecturer in Physics, an acquaintance, has no undergraduates to tutor. The reason is, the schools are producing raw talent in physics in fast diminishing numbers. Mr. Louis Hissink has observed the same of Western Australia - a dire consequence is the shortage of geologists. Now, these remarks encapsulate what the whole great lie turns on, exemplified by that monstrosity the IPCC. Let’s turn aside to other interesting observations.

Having mentioned even Wikipedia could not altogether ignore the hard truths about Bob Brown’s best pal, Chavez, there are limits to its capacity for truth. Wikipedia has smeared Britannica, and for good reasons and here is one of them:

Wikipedia’s Zealots

The Wikipedia page is entitled Naomi Oreskes, after a Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California San Diego…is mostly devoted to a notorious 2004 paper that she wrote, and that Science magazine published, called “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.” This paper…is nonsense.

….it was immediately challenged by science writers and scientists alike, one of them being Benny Peiser, a prominent UK scientist and publisher of CCNet…

when visiting Oreskes’s page on Wikipedia several weeks ago, I was surprised to read not only that Oreskes had been vindicated but that Peiser had been discredited. More than that, the page portrayed Peiser himself as having grudgingly conceded Oreskes’s correctness.

Upon checking with Peiser, I found he had done no such thing. The Wikipedia page had misunderstood or distorted his comments. I then exercised the right to edit Wikipedia that we all have…and advised Peiser that I had done so.

Peiser wrote back saying he couldn’t see my corrections on the Wikipedia page…

Someone called Tabletop was undoing my edits (who)…explained why. “Note that Peiser has retracted this critique and admits that he was wrong!”

Why can Tabletop speak for Peiser but not I, who have his permission?

Tabletop parried: “we have a reliable source to this. What Peiser has said to *you* is irrelevant.”

(Tabletop is) Kim Dabelstein Petersen. She (or he?) is an editor at Wikipedia. What does she edit? Reams…of global warming pages. I started checking them. In every instance I checked, she defended those warning of catastrophe and deprecated those who believe the science is not settled. I investigated further…

I checked the pages too, and yes, that is what they have done - suppressed science and promoted fraud. They are propaganda sheets.The Oreskes’ paper served one good job, it exposed the formerly respected science journals Science and Nature for suppressing papers which contradicted fabricated claims and papers supporting the Lie. The Telegraph happily published on the scandal, in 2005:

Leading scientific journals ‘are censoring debate on global warming’

Turning to another article by Lawrence Solomon,

How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming? The quest to establish that the science is not settled on climate change began before most people had even heard of global warming.

…1992 and the United Nations…Earth Summit in Rio. It was billed as — and was — the greatest environmental and political assemblage in human history. Delegations came from 178 nations…118 heads of state or government and 7,000 diplomatic bureaucrats. The world’s environmental groups came too…some 30,000 (of them)…7,000 journalists converged on Rio…

In February …to head off the whirlwind that the conference would unleash, 47 scientists signed a “Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming,” decrying “the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action.”

To a scientist in search of truth, 47 is an impressive number, especially if those 47 dissenters include many of the world’s most eminent scientists. To the environmentalists, politicians, press at Rio, their own overwhelming numbers made the 47 seem irrelevant.

Knowing this, a larger petition effort was undertaken, known as the Heidelberg Appeal…

(Next)The Oregon petition…an astounding 17,800 signatures…The petition drew media attention, but little of it was for revealing to the world that an extraordinary number of scientists hold views on global warming diametrically opposite to those they are expected to hold. Instead, the press focussed on presumed flaws that critics found in the petition…

Some claimed the petition had phonies. There was only one phony: Spice Girl Geri Halliwell, planted by a Greenpeace organization to discredit the petition and soon removed. Other names that seemed to be phony — such as Michael Fox, the actor, and Perry Mason, the fictional lawyer in a TV series — were actually bona fide scientists, properly credentialled.

Like the Heidelberg Appeal, the Oregon petition was blown away. But now it is blowing back. Original signatories to the petition and others, outraged at Kyoto’s corruption of science, wrote to the Oregon Institute and its director, Arthur Robinson, asking that the petition be brought back:

“E-mails started coming in every day…The writers were outraged at the way Al Gore and company were abusing the science to their own ends. “We decided to …

Solomon could be summing up the situation in Australia. Now this;

Monday, May 19, 2008

Dr. Arthur Robinson (OISM) to release names of over 30,000 scientists rejecting global warming hypothesis
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM)

As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science — including 9,021 PhDs, are not “a few.” Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not “skeptics.”

Here’s a site written by scientists, ICECAP - for example, this:

The simple truth is…our research at the University of Alabama in Huntsville does not support predictions of an impending disaster-the regulations proposed to date and promoted by the green agenda will have no measurable effect…May 13, 2008

What is not in dispute is climate change can occur as a regular physical phenomenon. Whether it is occurring now is a different question. What is rejected is the Greens’ claim that man produced Co2 emissions causes climate change.

The scientists are not sceptics in the pejorative sense that not only Peter Garrett has used to smear scientists but also the likes of Campbell, Kemp, and ABC’s ‘Science Show’ Robyn Williams. The overwhelming arguments against the Greens’ great Lie are not ‘consensus’; they are sound scientific arguments mounted not by some collective but by individuals engaged in science. Their objections run from solid theory. They include a very large number of Nobel Prize winners. The assertion the Greens’ lie is good science is an overt fraud and corruption of science, reflected in their capricious habits:

When the original Greens’ claim of man causes global warming by Co2 emission was smashed, they shifted the ground. They altered it to; man causes climate change through Co2 emissions. As this claim is being eviscerated for the lie it is, they are altering it again. They now simply assert, climate change is occurring and C02 is the mechanism. In other words, they have never even bothered to meet a primitive requirement in science, to put a valid, testable hypothesis. They merely assert their claim is established theory.

If it were theory, bye they bye, what exactly in physics is explained? Nothing; there is no explanatory power in their assertion. To make this plain, what laws of physics are involved? What laws of physics, which distinguished scientists have not fathomed, have the Greens advanced as the ground of their claims and, no less crucially, take the weight their claims requires? Zip, absolutely nothing. It is worse than a travesty of physics.

As for evidence, they have never produced scientific evidence indicative of events and interactions that might be suggestive of their claim and any laws involved. Computer modelling is asserted to be evidence. It is not. It is merely playing with written programmes. So, even the attempts of the IPCC to cover itself for the fraud they have perpetrated with good news ‘projections’ are entirely worthless -

NOAA: Global Warming Means Fewer, Not More Hurricanes (Monday, May 19, 2008)

It would be just as effective to consult the Delphic Oracle. Hmmm, it’s also why ‘economic modelling’ is rubbish. Computer modelling is a very expensive fraud committed against taxpayers.

The Greens’ lie is a grotesque violation of the laws of physics, corruption of scientific inquiry, perversion of the quest for truth in science. This is why Australians have to endure the likes of Tim Flannery, whose latest fantasy is to “change sky colour“. There I was, impressed “Professor” Garnaut could be one of the most deranged of Greenies In Australia. Is Flannery who takes the completely insane cake or has large slice of Brown’s apple crumble. “Pump the atmosphere with sulphur!” Flannery is totally deranged, as his other demands manifests. Ha, Bob Brown will be jealous.

Then, there is The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who blame fat people for the (ethonal caused) cut in food supply, and global warming.

If it were confined to the Greens and other madmen it would not be a problem, but it’s not. Politicians have proliferated it, with the propaganda machine called media, and brainwashing camps drumming it in day and night. It’s not these liars either, who are so much the worry as the fact they have succeeded with their disgusting efforts. It’s the voting man in the street parroting the inanities that is the realised danger - the sheer numbers of them who believe the Great Lie.

Anglers can be heard blaming ‘climate change’ if they don’t catch a fish. Drought! Why, ‘curse that Co2′. Storms, they are “wild weather” and this means Co2. It’s not simply the numbingly inane slogans littering everyday speech, it’s the fact that very many Australians accept ’something ought to be done about it’ that is the final straw. That, they are willing to accept all the punishment the increasingly totalitarian politicians and bureaucrats can dream up. It’s the final sign we are in deep shite.

The Right are as culpable for the systematic corruption as are the Greens and the ALP. They, after all, entrenched it in the course of over a decade in office. What an appalling record. The Right should stop pretending to the public and cease calling themselves Liberals, they are not and it shows also in - they have all but destroyed the Liberal Party too. It is testament to their intellectual sloth, laziness, and self-satisfied mendacity. Thus, Kevin Rudd and his Cabinet of “Brown Pantalooned Morons”.

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).