Australia: One year on, Rudd blows the budget, spend spend spend

Government blows the budget on its anniversary Tony Abbott
News.com.au
Thursday, November 20, 2008
How quickly can Kevin Rudd blow Peter Costello’s economic legacy? This week’s headline-grabbing splurge was $300 million for local government.
Most councils should be able to find good uses for individual grants averaging just over $500,000. But this is the same Labor Party which attacked the Howard Government’s local grant scheme as “regional rorts” and declared during the election campaign that the irresponsible spending spree must stop.

In the past few weeks the Government has spent half the current year’s surplus in Christmas bonuses, committed an extra $3 billion to the car industry and promised an unlimited free guarantee for interbank loans and bank deposits. None of these measures were accompanied by rigorous costing or ongoing reform. Already this year’s surplus is down 75 per cent on the budget night figure to about $5 billion. As well, the Government is planning to commit $20 billion of Costello’s $70 billion in accumulated surpluses towards infrastructure projects that the states are too broke to pay for.

It took Premier Carr about a decade (helped by some creative accounting) finally to run NSW into deficit. Mr Rudd looks like managing this feat in his first year. Government spending makes sense if it helps Australia to avoid a recession but we could easily end up losing a decade’s accumulated reserves with very little to show for it.

Whilst I agree with the points made by Tony Abbott, It must be noted that Australians voted for a return to the days of high interest rates (high of 18% average 12.5% home loans 22.5% investment property loans) high unemployment 12%, Australian Council Of Trade Unions (ACTU) controlled work places, awards and conditions for those lucky enough to have a job, and to run the economy down back into a 96 billion dollar deficit as per the Hawke Keating lagacy of the last Labor federal government to run Australia.

Someone said "great civilisations are not destroyed they simply commit suicide", Australians have simply decided that life under Howard was simply too good and perhaps Kevin 07 could make it even "more gooder" still, or suicide.

According to the latest surveys by those who constantly told us how bad the Howard government was these last 12 years, Australians have never been worse off than they have been these last twelve months under Kevin 07 running his time for change agenda , unfortunately I believe that things will have to get a lot worse before those who voted for "time for change", Kevin 07 and the ACTU aka suicide will realise what they have brought upon themselves and their fellow Australians, we should all hope that when this time arrives that there is indeed a chance to reverse the damage inflicted by Kevin 07 and the "time for change" agents of the UN's cabal of International Socialists.

Dear Leader Kevin Rudd one year on.

Hello my loyal constituents,

Can I just say, thank you for celebrating with me the first anniversary of my Government.

And you know something? As I travel the world, I passionately believe you got it right when you voted for me, for an education revolution, for new directions, new leadership, fresh ideas, fresh thinking, and several of my other cliches.

What are some of my favourite achievements? The bottom line is this:

• Hosting the 2020 Summit, starring Cate and 999 other "average" Australians – I found it so rewarding that I took decisive action and announced at least 168 more reviews, committees and inquiries.
• On the question of taxpayer-funded travel, I'm lapping it up. In just 12 months I've spent the equivalent of almost two months overseas!
• Fresh ideas like our unlimited bank guarantee, and telling those who consequently can't access their non-bank savings to "go to Centrelink".

My challenge to you is this: visit my memorabilia website at www.RUDDSHOP.com (where the buck really does stop with me) and show your heart-felt appreciation for 12 long months of Labor.

Your Dear Leader,

Equality Loons: When they are done with business your bedroom will be next

The Coercion Of Tolerance At eHarmony

By MICHELLE MALKIN
Friday, November 21, 2008

Congratulations, tolerance mau-mauers: Your shakedown of a Christian-targeted dating Web site worked. Homosexuals will no longer be denied the inalienable "right" to hook up with same-sex partners on eHarmony. What a landmark triumph for social progress, eh?

New Jersey plaintiff Eric McKinley can now crown himself the new Rosa Parks — heroically breaking down inhumane barriers to Internet matchmaking by forcing a law-abiding private company to provide services it was never created to provide.

"Men seeking men" has now been enshrined with "I have a dream" as a civil-rights rallying cry of the 21st century. Bully for you, Mr. McKinley. You bully.

Neil Warren, eHarmony's founder, is a gentle, grandfatherly businessman who launched his popular dating site to support heterosexual marriage. A "Focus on the Family" author with a divinity degree, Warren encourages healthy, lasting unions between men and women of all faiths, mixed faiths or no faith at all.

Don't like what eHarmony sells? Go somewhere else. There are thousands upon thousands of dating sites on the Internet that cater to gays, lesbians, Jews, Muslims, Trekkies, runners, you name it.

No matter. In the name of tolerance, McKinley refused to tolerate eHarmony's right to operate a lawful business that didn't give him what he wanted. He filed a discrimination complaint against eHarmony with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights in 2005.

To be clear: eHarmony never, ever refused to do business with anyone. The company broke no laws. Their great "sin" was not providing a politically correct service that a publicity-seeking gay plaintiff demanded they provide.

For three years, the company battled McKinley's legal shakedown artists — and staved off other opportunists as well. The dating site had been previously sued by a lesbian looking to force the company to match her up with another woman, and by a married man who ridiculously sought to force the company to find him prospects for an adulterous relationship.

This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a rib-eye, or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services. But rather than defend the persecuted business, the New Jersey attorney general intervened on behalf of the gay plaintiff and wrangled an agreement out of eHarmony to change its entire business model.

The company agreed to offer not only same-sex dating services on a new site, but also six-month subscriptions for free to 10,000 gay users, pay McKinley $5,000 and fork over $50,000 to New Jersey's Civil Rights division "to cover investigation-related administrative costs." Additional terms of the settlement require eHarmony to:

• Post photos of same-sex couples in the "Diversity" section of its Web site as successful relationships are created using the company's same-sex matching service.

• Include photos of same-sex couples, as well as individual same-sex users, in advertising materials used to promote its same-sex matching services.

• Revise anti-discrimination statements placed on company Web sites, in company handbooks and other company publications to make plain that it does not discriminate on the basis of "sexual orientation."

• Commit to advertising, public relations and marketing dedicated to its same-sex matching service.

• Retain a media consultant experienced in promoting the "fair, accurate and inclusive" representation of gay and lesbian people in the media to determine the most effective way of reaching the gay and lesbian communities.

I have enormous sympathy for eHarmony, whose attorney explained that they gave in to the unfair settlement because "litigation outcomes can be unpredictable." The recent mob response to the passage of Proposition 8, the traditional marriage measure in California, must have also weighed on eHarmony management's minds.

But capitulation will only yield a worse, entirely predictable outcome: more shakedowns of private businesses that hold views deemed unacceptable by the Equality-at-All-Costs Brigade.

Perhaps heterosexual men and women should start filing lawsuits against gay dating Web sites and undermine their businesses. Coerced tolerance and diversity-by-fiat cut both ways.

Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc

Update on Rudd's internet censorship laws

Latest news regarding Rudd's internet censorship laws.

Somebody Think Of The Children - Latest Censorship News

NSW Parliamentary E-Brief on mandatory filtering

Posted: 21 Nov 2008 06:56 AM CST

The NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service has put together a briefing on the government’s filtering proposal which is available to download as a PDF here. It reads:

At this stage, the Rudd Government proposal would restrict blanket mandatory ISP filtering to the illegal RC content, based on the ACMA’s ‘black list’ of prohibited websites. The details are unclear, but it seems adults would be able to ‘opt out’ of the filtering of other levels of ‘prohibited content’, containing material that is either offensive or unsuitable for children.

It also examines the state of filtering in other countries often used as examples by Senator Conroy.

With the limited exceptions of Germany and Italy, mandatory ISP level filtering is not a feature of any of the countries reviewed. In place, rather, are voluntary ISP filtering schemes designed to prevent accidental access to a defined list of illegal sites containing child pornography. However, in the UK the position seems to be that the internet industry is encouraged to participate in this scheme, under threat of regulatory intervention should it fail to do so. The line between mandatory and voluntary participation is not clear-cut.

The Internet Industry Association clarifies that statement at ZDNet:

…While the authors said that Italy had imposed mandatory filtering, it was “in fact subordinate legislation — not law per se. It gives effect to an agreement that was previously reached by ISPs and the relevant regulator. To that extent, Italy has not enacted mandatory ISP filtering, either.”

The IIA added that Germany’s regulation of search engines was implemented by agreement.

So when you voted for Rudd and his fellow socialist Nazi's, you thought they were just going to screw the people who don't believe in Socialism ?

When you trade your freedom for social welfare there is a price to pay, freedom FROM information is just one of the freedoms you have to surrender, just wait till they start on the newspapers,CD's magazines,movies and television programs Rudd and his fellow Nazi Socialists find unacceptable.

Socialism IS what Socialism DOES

Americans BEWARE Australian internet to be CENSORED by Australian Labor Party

Rudd's Internet censorship, and now Rudd's Body Image "Code" to be introduced.