EPIC QUAIL | Daily Telegraph Tim Blair Blog

EPIC QUAIL | Daily Telegraph Tim Blair Blog

Misogynist menu mythology sweeps the planet!
Here’s the Daily Mirror:

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has hit back after an opposition party fundraiser menu featured a dish named after her that offered “small breasts” and “huge thighs”.
The menu was used at a dinner in March for Mal Brough, an opposition candidate for the September national elections.

Wrong. The menu was produced privately by the restaurant’s owner as a joke and was not used at the fundraiser. The National Post:

Gender has again taken center stage in Australia’s bitter and drawn-out election campaign after a menu at an opposition fundraiser featured a series of sexually derogatory names for dishes based on Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Wrong. Those dishes did not feature on any menu at the fundraiser. The BBC:

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has said a menu for an opposition party fundraiser that made crude comments about her body was “grossly sexist” …
The menu was for a dinner for Liberal National Party candidate Mal Brough.

Wrong. The menu was not for Brough’s dinner. Fairfax’s Jacqueline Maley:

Anyone who doesn’t believe that many of the attacks Gillard has sustained are sexist is in pure denial.
Take one look at the latest and get back to me – the menu for a Mal Brough campaign Liberal party fund-raiser …

Wrong. The menu was not for a Liberal party fundraiser. Chicago’s Scott Paulson:

Prime Minister Julia Gillard of Australia is unquestionably disgusted by the Opposition, Liberal Party’s sexist antics of which she has been targeted. In a bashing of Gillard, a menu displayed at a fundraiser for Mal Brough …

Wrong. The menu was not displayed. AFP:

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard on Wednesday accused the opposition of a pattern of misogynist behavior, branding a menu for a party fundraiser “grossly sexist and offensive” after it featured a quail dish named after her that offered “small breasts” and “huge thighs.”
The menu was used at a dinner in March for Mal Brough …

Wrong. The menu was neither featured nor used. The Guardian‘s Katharine Murphy:

The Australian prime minister has again been forced to confront sexism in the country’s politics after it emerged that the menu at an opposition fundraising dinner offered “Julia Gillard quail … with small breasts, huge thighs and a big red box.”

Wrong. No menu at the dinner offered such a dish. News Ltd’s Andrew Bolt:

The day after Gillard’s speech, we learned one Liberal candidate, former minister Mal Brough, had held a fundraising dinner featuring an appallingly sexist menu mocking the size of Gillard’s breasts and thighs.

Wrong. (Bolt, solitary so far in this list, has already apologised.) Fairfax’s Judith Ireland:

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott is standing by Liberal candidate Mal Brough, despite calls for the former Howard minister to be disendorsed after his fund-raiser used a menu that made lewd jokes about the Prime Minister’s anatomy.

Wrong. The menu wasn’t used. Fairfax’s Tony Wright:

By Wednesday, Gillard had the enemy square in her sights, thanks to the revelation that former Howard government minister Mal Brough had thrown a fund-raising dinner in March with Joe Hockey as honoured guest, the menu so overcooked with sexism and idiocy that it’d make an undergraduate waiter spit in the soup.

Wrong.  Sexist and idiotic that menu may have been, but it wasn’t part of Brough’s fundraiser. The Hoopla‘s Mary Delahunty:

Mal Brough’s crude menu of thighs, breasts and worse …

Wrong. It wasn’t Brough’s menu. As sdog points out, Julia Gillard’s misogyny quail is another plastic turkey, and for much the same reason: news organisations and reporters have established a conclusion ahead of all possible evidence. Without timely corrections, inaccuracy becomes reality.

PM spouts a load of femi-nonsense even she couldn’t possibly believe | Daily Telegraph Miranda Devine Blog

PM spouts a load of femi-nonsense even she couldn’t possibly believe | Daily Telegraph Miranda Devine Blog

No one in the adoring crowd of feminist hacks seemed to mind that Gillard doesn’t practice what she preaches. Labor women are demanding a woman be installed in Martin Ferguson’s vacated safe seat of Batman to satisfy the party’s quota system. But, instead of supporting aspiring MP Mary-Anne Thomas, the Prime Minister has thrown herself behind factional warlord Senator David Feeney, one of the “faceless men” who installed her into Rudd’s job.

Gillard’s rallying cry to feminists had nothing to do with women’s rights. It was about shoring up her position, telling the Labor blokes to back off. It’s her shield against being knocked off. You know, the way she knocked off Rudd.

The scolds and screeching harridans of Emily’s List have emasculated Labor’s men. This is the real cause of the paralysis in the Labor party. No man is willing to confront Gillard for fear of being branded a misogynist.

A trade unionist from the good old days of Labor once told me Emily’s List was a cancer in the ALP, and now it’s terminal. They might as well hand the whole party over to Women for Gillard.

NSA leaker: are there serious cracks in Ed Snowden’s story? | Jon Rappoport's Blog

NSA leaker: are there serious cracks in Ed Snowden’s story? | Jon Rappoport's Blog

First, I’m not doubting the documents Ed Snowden has brought forward. I’m not doubting the illegal reach of the NSA in spying on Americans and the world. 

But as to how this recent revelation happened, and whether Ed Snowden’s history holds up…I have questions.

Could Snowden have been given extraordinary access to classified info as part of a larger scheme? Could he be a) an honest man and yet b) a guy who was set up to do what he’s doing now?

If b) is true, then Snowden fits the bill perfectly. He wants to do what he’s doing. He isn’t lying about that. He means what he says.

Okay. Let’s look at his history as reported by The Guardian.

In 2003, at age 19, without a high school diploma, Snowden enlists in the Army. He begins a training program to join the Special Forces. The sequence here is fuzzy. At what point after enlistment can a new soldier start this training program? Does he need to demonstrate some exceptional ability before Special Forces puts him in that program?

Snowden breaks both legs in a training exercise. He’s discharged from the Army. Is that automatic? How about healing and then resuming Army service? Just asking.

If he was accepted in the Special Forces training program because he had special computer skills, then why discharge him simply because he broke both legs? 

Circa 2003 (?), Snowden gets a job as a security guard for an NSA facility at the University of Maryland. He specifically wanted to work for NSA? It was just a generic job opening he found out about?

Also in 2003 (?), Snowden shifts jobs. He’s now in the CIA, in IT. He has no high school diploma. He’s a young computer genius?

In 2007, Snowden is sent to Geneva. He’s only 23 years old. The CIA gives him diplomatic cover there. He’s put in charge of maintaining computer-network security. Major job. Obviously, he has access to a very wide range of classified documents. Sound a little odd? Again, just asking. He’s just a kid. Maybe he has his GED by now. Otherwise, he still doesn’t have a high school diploma.

Snowden says that during this period, in Geneva, one of the incidents that really sours him on the CIA is the “turning of a Swiss banker.” One night, CIA guys get a banker drunk, encourage him to drive home, the banker gets busted, the CIA guys help him out, then with that bond formed, they eventually get the banker to reveal deep banking secrets to the Agency.

Snowden is this naïve? He doesn’t know by now that the CIA does this sort of thing all the time? He’s shocked? He “didn’t sign up for this?”

In 2009, Snowden leaves the CIA. Why? Presumably because he’s disillusioned. It should noted here that Snowden claimed he could do very heavy damage to the entire US intelligence community in 2008, but decided to wait because he thought Obama, just coming into the presidency, might make good changes.

After two years with the CIA in Geneva, Snowden really had the capability to take down the whole US intelligence network, or a major chunk of it? He had that much access to classified data?

Anyway, in 2009, Snowden leaves the CIA and goes to work for a private defense contractor. Apparently, by this time, he knows all about the phony US war in Iraq, and yet he chooses to work for a sector that relentlessly promotes such wars. Go figure.

This defense contractor (unnamed) assigns him to work at an NSA facility in Japan. Surely, Snowden understands what the NSA is. He knows it’s a key part of the whole military-intelligence network, the network he opposes.

But he takes the job anyway. Perhaps he’s doing it so he can obtain further access to classified data, in advance of blowing a big whistle. Perhaps.

Snowden goes on to work for two private defense contractors, Dell and Booze Allen Hamilton. In this latter job, Snowden is again assigned to work at the NSA.

He’s an outsider, but he claims to have so much sensitive NSA data that he can take down the whole US intelligence network in a single day. Hmm.

These are red flags. They raise questions. Serious ones.

AWU insists its Julia Gillard must stay | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

AWU insists its Julia Gillard must stay | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

As more and more people are thankfully starting to say, the MEDIA is what should be targeted next, for its disgusting and unrepresentative adherence to the evil and outdated dogma of communism and hatred of the mainstream Australian population which it demeans at every turn.

We need to identify which faction of the media pushed this latest kruddslide story and mark them as supporters of the waxgoblin, likewise note which of their ilk push the hardline cultural marxism and soul sickness of gillard.

» Snowden job? - Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

» Snowden job? - Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

All I’m saying is that this whole thing may be exactly as it seems.  I just don’t know what it seems to be.

I will reserve judgment until more facts are known about Snowden, and what he actually revealed.
Update 11:15 p.m.: Well, you don’t say. Former CIA Officer: Officials Considering NSA Whistleblower’s Case ‘Potential Chinese Espionage’:

Former CIA case officer Bob Baer revealed on CNN Sunday evening that intelligence officials were possibly considering Edward Snowden’s case as Chinese espionage, after Snowden came forward this afternoon from an undisclosed Hong Kong location.

“Hong Kong is controlled by Chinese intelligence,” Baer said. “It’s not an independent part of China at all. I’ve talked to a bunch of people in Washington today, in official positions, and they are looking at this as a potential Chinese espionage case.”

“On the face of it, it looks like it is under some sort of Chinese control, especially with the president meeting the premier today,” Baer said. “You have to ask what’s going on. China is not a friendly country and every aspect of that country is controlled. So why Hong Kong? Why didn’t he go to Sweden? Or, if he really wanted to make a statement, he should have done it on Capitol Hill.” ….

“We’ll never get him in China,” Baer said. “They’re not about to send him to the United States and the CIA is not going to render him, as he said in the tape, is not going to try to grab him there.”

“It almost seems to me that this was a pointed affront to the United States on the day the president is meeting the Chinese leader,” Baer said, “telling us, listen, quit complaining about espionage and getting on the internet and our hacking. You are doing the same thing.”

America in the Midst of a Coup d'Etat - The Rush Limbaugh Show

 

America in the Midst of a Coup d'Etat - The Rush Limbaugh Show

I was reminded this morning, we had a sound bite of Maxine Waters back on February 3rd of this year. She was on a TV show, some network, TV One. It was a show hosted by Roland Martin, who used to be, may still be, a personality at CNN. He was interviewing Maxine Waters, and every time she speaks, you know, we have a good laugh about it because clearly she's insane. And we nevertheless will play the sound bites. Her natural existence is such that she gives away the game. She will give away what the administration's all about. She will give away the fact that they want to nationalize all these companies. And she did it again on this Washington Watch with Roland Martin show back on February 3rd of 2013. He said to her, "The reality is like anything else: You'd better get what you can while he's there, because, look, come 2016, that's it."

WATERS: Well, you know, I don't know, and I think some people are missing something here. The president has put in place an organization that contains the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life. That's going to be very, very powerful. That database will have information about everything on every individual in ways that it's never been done before.


RUSH: See, she gives it up. Now, I remember playing that sound bite, and we made a big deal about it at the website, Rush 24/7, and we thought, "Well, it's just Maxine being Maxine." But in this case now going back, looking at it in hindsight, what in the world was she talking about? At the time we thought she was talking about all of his high-tech campaign advancements. But maybe she wasn't.

“The EU Stands for Everything That is Wrong in Europe” | Gates of Vienna

“The EU Stands for Everything That is Wrong in Europe” | Gates of Vienna

A demographic catastrophe is about to happen.

During the past three decades, so many people rooted in a culture entirely different from Europe’s own Judeo-Christian and humanist tradition have entered Europe that its heritage, its freedoms, its prosperity, and its culture are in danger.

The signs are there for all to see.

Look at the names people give to their children. Mohammed is today the most popular name among newborn boys in many French, Belgian and Dutch cities. Mohammed is even the most popular name among all newborns in England and Wales.

Look at Europe’s inner cities. Visit Europe and you will see that they have come to resemble Northern Africa and the Middle East. They have become areas ruled by Islamic Sharia law. Only last month, a Dutch newspaper reported that a neighborhood barely two miles from our parliament building in The Hague is now a Sharia zone.

Islamic areas also border the EU headquarters in Brussels. And less than 10 miles from Westminster, the mother of all parliaments, a British soldier’s throat was slit by Islamic murderers.

Paris, the capital of France, is surrounded by largely Islamic suburbs. And so are other cities. The French authorities have even drawn up a list of 751 so-called “sensible urban areas,” where it is dangerous to go, especially for native Frenchmen. These are the lost territories of the French Republic, even though a staggering 5 million people, or 8 percent of the total French population, live in them.
Even soldiers are no longer safe in Europe’s streets, as the recent horrible events in Britain and France have shown. But neither are Jews. Anti-Semitism has risen, and keeps rising the more Islamic immigration we get.

Indeed, my friends, after Nazism and Communism, another totalitarian ideology is threatening Europe: the evil ideology called Islam.

In Europe, we are experiencing that the more Islamic a society becomes — even when the majority of Muslims are moderates — the less free and tolerant it will be.

Atrocities, similar to the recent bombing in Boston, where Islamic immigrants massacred innocent onlookers at the marathon, occur in Europe as well. In my own country a few years ago, Theo van Gogh, a film maker critical of Islam, was butchered in the streets of Amsterdam.

Today, hundreds of young Islamic inhabitants of our countries have flocked to Syria to wage jihad there. They will return as experienced jihadists, trained in urban guerrilla warfare. But while you in America are still able to do something about it, while you can control and close your borders, while Congress can vote legislation to protect American citizens, we in Europe have been robbed of this possibility by the European Union.

And there is not only the threat of terrorism or violence; there is also the phenomenon of non-violent jihad. The rise of Islam means the rise of Islamic sharia law in our judicial systems. In Europe, we have sharia wills, sharia schools, sharia banks. In Britain, they even have official sharia courts.
Europe is gradually Islamizing. People who criticize Islam, such as myself, are threatened by Al Qaeda and dragged to court by Islamic and leftist groups. There is not just me, there is the journalist Lars Hedegaard, the author Salman Rushdie, the cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, and many others.
We criticize Islam and we will keep on doing so, because it is a dangerous ideology. It is intolerant, it is violent. And, worst of all, it cannot be reformed. It cannot because it believes that the Koran is a book written directly by Allah himself. And it cannot because it calls on Muslims to follow Muhammad as the role model for their personal life. There could not be a worse model than this man, who was a warlord, a terrorist, and a pedophile.

While most Muslims are moderate people, those who think that they have to follow Muhammad’s example are not. That is exactly the reason why the more Islamic a country becomes, the more unfree and violent it will be.

Europe needs to be protected against this new totalitarian threat.

That is why I say: No more immigrants from the Islamic world! My party wants to close our borders to immigration from Islamic countries.

And ever more people support us.

A poll, which we commissioned ten days ago, shows that 77% of the Dutch do not see Islam as an enrichment for our country, 68% say there is more than enough Islam in the Netherlands already. A majority of the voters of all the major parties in my country — even the voters from leftist parties — agree with these two principles.

The poll also showed that 55% of the Dutch want a stop on immigration from Islamic countries, 63% want no more mosques, 72% see a relationship between Islam and the recent terror attacks in Boston, London and Paris, 72% want a constitutional ban on Islamic Sharia law.

Ordinary people in Europe want three things.

One — They want their politicians to tackle the problem of Islamization and mass immigration. They want to control their own borders.

Two — They want to restore their national sovereignty. They do not want their countries to become provinces of a pan-European superstate.

Three — They do not want their money to be used to pay for mistakes made elsewhere. They do not want a transfer union where they have to pay higher taxes to bail out other countries, whose leaders were either corrupt or incompetent.

Poll after poll show that ordinary Europeans do not want their democracy to be subverted. Last April, a pan-European poll showed that a clear majority of the population in the major EU member states no longer trust the EU as an institution. Even in Germany the number has reached almost 60%.

This week a Gallup poll showed that for the first time in history in the Netherlands as many people want to leave the EU as stay in. A few years ago, this was unthinkable.

The strength of Europe is its diversity. Europe is not a nation; it is a cluster of nations, bound by a common Judeo-Christian and humanist culture, but with different national identities.