NOW IT'S HILLARY'S TURN: EXPLAIN THIS 'COLLUSION' AND YOUR CASH, MADAM !

There was Russian bribery and corruption in the US political process, after all, but Hillary Clinton is the one that needs to do the explaining. So does former FBI director Robert Mueller (below), before he goes any further as special investigator into the wild allegations that it was Donald Trump

who colluded with Russia. 

This uranium deal stinks.

From the New York Post summary of a scandal the media Left is ignoring, while bearting up a fake one about Trump allegedly colluding with Russia to hack Hillary Clinton's campaign emails. 

It turns out the Obama administration knew the Russians were engaged in bribery, kickbacks and extortion in order to gain control of US atomic resources — yet still OK’d that 2010 deal to give Moscow control of one-fifth of America’s uranium. This reeks. 

Peter Schweizer (photo below) got onto part of the scandal in his 2015 book, “Clinton Cash”: the gifts of $145 million to the Clinton Foundation, and the $500,000 fee to Bill for a single speech, by individuals involved in a deal that required Hillary Clinton’s approval. 

The New York Times confirmed and followed up on Schweizer’s reporting — all of it denounced by Hillary as a partisan hit job.

But now The Hill reports that the FBI in 2009 had collected substantial evidence — eyewitnesses backed by documents — of money-laundering, blackmail and bribery by Russian nuclear officials, all aimed at growing “Vladimir Putin’s atomic-energy business inside the United States” in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. 

The bureau even flagged the routing of millions from Russian nuclear officials to cutouts and on to Clinton Inc. 

Hillary Clinton, again, sat on a key government body that had to approve the deal — though she now claims she had no role in a deal with profound national security implications, and during the

campaign called the payments a coincidence.

The Obama administration — anxious to “reset” US-Russian relations — kept it all under wraps, refusing to tell even top congressional intelligence figures. 

“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns,” one veteran of the case told The Hill. 

Yet the administration let Moscow move ahead — publicly insisting that there were no national security worries — and no evidence of Russian interference, despite many lawmakers’ concern at the time. 

The Way I See It.......there’s more: Until September 2013, the FBI director was Robert Mueller — who’s now the special counsel probing Russian meddling in the 2016 election. It’s hard to see how he can be trusted in that job unless he explains what he knew about this Obama-era cover-up.  Indeed.

The MYTH of the ''NOBLE SAVAGE'' Vindicates COLUMBUS !

Oct. 9 last month marks Columbus Day, a day to celebrate the life of Italian explorer Christopher Columbus who, sailing on behalf of Spain, “discovered” North America while searching for a new trade route to India in 1492, ultimately opening up the “New World” for exploration and settlement.

However, there are countless liberals who increasingly demand we, as a society, eschew celebrating Columbus Day and assert that the famed explorer was nothing more than an evil embodiment of Euro-centric white privilege and patriarchy that enslaved millions, and waged heartless genocide against the innocent and pure indigenous peoples who already occupied the lands of the New World.

According to The Daily Wire, that “genocide” was mainly the inadvertent introduction of a variety of infectious diseases that Eurasian peoples had largely built up an immunity to, but that indigenous peoples had never experienced, and were sadly decimated by — as Eurasian populations had once been before as well.

Setting that particular topic aside, the brain-dead liberals who demand we celebrate “Indigenous Peoples Day” instead of Columbus Day would have us believe that, prior to the murderous Columbus and his ilk arriving, the entirety of North America was one big, happy Utopia where everyone lived communally and got along with no troubles or conflict whatsoever.

The truth, however, is vastly different than that leftist revisionist history, according to historians interviewed by The Federalist. The indigenous peoples who populated the New World prior to the arrival of Europeans were arguably even worse than the hated white men who eventually conquered them, in terms of civility and wanton violence toward their enemies.

Indeed, far from things like slavery and genocide being introduced to the continent by Columbus and his successors, such acts of atrocity were already occurring widely among the various warring tribes of natives, who routinely enslaved, tortured, ritualistically slaughtered and even feasted upon their defeated enemies.

That’s right — many indigenous peoples practiced cannibalism upon those they had conquered and oppressed. Is that really what leftists want to celebrate? Don’t answer that.

“Long before the white European knew a North American continent existed, Indians of the Northern Plains were massacring entire villages,” explained George Franklin Feldman, author of the book “Cannibalism, Headhunting and Human Sacrifice in North America: A History Forgotten.”

“And not just killed, but mutilated,” Feldman added. “Hands and feet were cut off, each body’s head was scalped, the remains were left scattered around the village, which was burned.”

Tony Seybert, author of “Slavery and Native Americans in British North America and the United States: 1600 to 1865,” noted that the practice of slavery was already well-established in America prior to its discovery and subsequent settlement by the Europeans.

Seybert proceeded to explain that, upon the arrival of white settlers and the discovery by natives of their openness to purchasing slave labor, many native tribes were happy to sell their slaves to the new settlers and were eagerly involved in the slave trade that leftists condemn so vociferously.

Furthermore, aside from eating and enslaving their enemies, many indigenous peoples were also horrifically brutal to each other, slaughtering thousands for ritualistic purposes or merely to make a sadistic point that they had conquered their opposition.

According to the eyewitness testimony of a Jesuit missionary named Father Barthelemy Vimont, (below) who observed the Iroquois peoples in 1642, captives of the tribe had their fingers or hands cut off, were skinned alive and tortured for hours on end, then were scalped and mutilated in front of everyone.

To be sure, none of this is meant to broadly condemn the indigenous peoples of North America as a whole or to borrow a page from the left and falsely imply all European explorers were pure and innocent of their own accord, but to merely show human nature is the same as it has always been, all across the world and for all time, and no particular race or peoples have clean hands when it comes to committing atrocities against their fellow man.

The Way I See It........you should keep this colorful history of the violent, brutal indigenous peoples in mind the next time a leftist demands we hold them up as an ideal while tearing down Columbus and other European explorers and settlers.

Please share this article on Facebook and Twitter so everyone can see how the “indigenous peoples” held up by the left really behaved toward their fellow man.

FAKE CLAIM THAT GAY MARRIAGE WILL "PREVENT UP TO 3000 H.S. SUICIDE ATTEMPTS"

Peddling a dodgy survey result to boost a dodgy argument: "Five of Australia's most respected mental health groups have joined forces ... in favour of same-sex marriage, claiming the reform could prevent up to 3000 high school suicide attempts every year."  

Marriage is not anti-suicide program, and the claim is based on a very suspect American survey.

Here how Fairfax and the activists present the findings:

This claim draws on peer-reviewed research by some of America's top adolescent mental health experts, published in JAMA Paediatrics, that showed a strong correlation between same-sex marriage policies and high school suicide. The introduction of state same-sex marriage was associated with a 7 per cent relative reduction in suicide attempts.

The groups have combined these findings with statistics from the Australian government's own Report on the Second Australian Child and Adolescent Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing to arrive at the number of 3000. It found one in 40 of all 12 to 17-year-olds reported having attempted suicide in the previous 12 months - about 41,000 people.

But here is the crucial caveat from that American survey itself which they fail to add - a caveat which suggests their claims are completely unreliable and certainly exaggerated (my bolding):

Our study has some limitations. The main outcome is based on self-report, which is the standard approach to assessing suicide attempts, given that a minority of individuals who attempt suicide present to hospitals and that suicides are rare and often underreported.   

The analyses on the association between implementation of same-sex marriage policies and adolescent suicide attempts among those identifying as sexual minorities should be interpreted with caution given the limited data availability on sexual orientation (eTables 1 and 2 in the Supplement) and the potential for same-sex marriage to affect sexual minority identity.  

 We also could not control for unmeasured individual-level characteristics, including socioeconomic status, or for unmeasured state characteristics that may change over time, such as religious affiliation or acceptance of sexual minorities.  

Finally, our analysis does not allow us to understand the mechanisms through which implementation of same-sex marriage policies reduced adolescent suicide attempts. There is a need for further research to understand the association between sexual minority rights, stigma, and sexual minority health.

Four big caveats, in fact, and that's from the survey itself.

There is a fifth and more important one, however. The results are from an American survey.

 Those results are then extrapolated to Australia, where, I suspect, acceptance of gays is actually greater. It is that acceptance, rather than the legalisation of gay marriage, that surely helps the mental health of young gays.

In short, the claim today - that same-sex marriage "could prevent up to 3000 high school suicide attempts every year" - is emotional blackmail using high suspect evidence and exaggeration. Shame on the five mental health bodies stooping to these tactics - ReachOut, Headspace, Orygen, the Black Dog Institute and Sydney University's Brain and Mind Centre.

UPDATE

Even stranger. The claim the legalising gay marriage will cause a 7 per cent drop in suicide attempts - amounting to 3000 in a year - suggests high school students make 43,000 suicide attempts a year.

Is this remotely credible?

Let's go back to the original American survey:

Evidence from nationally representative 2015 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) data indicates that more than 29% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual high school students reported attempting suicide within the past 12 months, relative to 6% of heterosexual students.

And it said same-sex marriage caused a 7 per cent drop in "all" suicide attempts, rather than only by gay, lesbian and bisexual students.

You'd assume, of course, that it would overwhelmingly reduce suicide attempts by gay, lesbian and bisexual students, which translates to a reduction of more than 23 per cent in that cohort alone.

Now transpose these results to Australia, as the five mental health bodies have done.

First, they claim legalising same sex marriage would cause a drop in suicide attempts by all high school students of 7 per cent - or 3000 a year.

This assumes there are nearly 43,000 suicide attempts by high school students every year, or 117 a day.

The Way I See It.....that seems unbelievably high, since ABS records show we lost just over one child aged 19 or younger to suicide every second day. That's terrible, but suggests either that the claim of 117 suicide attempts a day is grossly exaggerated or that most attempts are actually just gestures and appeals for help or attention.

Let's also assume that the US study's breakdown of suicide-attempt cohorts applies here, too, and that 29 per cent of the suicide attempts here were by gay, lesbian, and bisexual high school students.

That then suggests gay, lesbian, and bisexual high school students in Australia make 40 suicide attempts every single day.

Can that be true?  Not really.....it's ludicrous !

ISLAM: the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing !

We hear the same tired, old, shopworn apologism from both Islamists and Islamophiles alike. "Islam is a religion of peace",  Muslims are the ones being singled out and persecuted (which makes you wonder why Buddhists, Satanists or Rastafarians don't garner such attention) and of course, terrorism isn't anything to worry about. It's just a minor irritant and comparable to falling out of bed, being stung by a bee or being crushed by a falling fridge - so ''we should all just get used to it and accept it as part of everyday life'' says London's Muslim Mayor Sadiq Khan.

Just take a Valium and let Islam and Sharia flow over you. Everything is okay and everything will be okay. It's almost like a scene out of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. And it's easy to be lulled into that belief that this is all being overplayed, things aren't so bad , all these stories of Islamic terrorism are just designed to fuel "Islamophobia".

 Until another week passes and there's another atrocity. Who can forget the horror of the Barcelona attack where Islamist lunatics with a hired van ran down families, killing dozens of people. Or the Manchester bombing where teenage girls were blown to pieces - again by an Islamist in the name of the religion of peace.

That's just two recent examples of a weekly drumbeat of terrorism in the West, and doesn't even cover the incessant terror perpetuated in the Middle East on Muslims and non-Muslims alike by Islamists from one group or another in the name of Islam.

Terrorism is the main export of Islam, its main contribution to the world. So when people call for open borders, a borderless world, either don't care or don't realise that for the majority (excluding the elites) the reality outcome will be less like Singapore or Switzerland but more like Sudan or Somalia. We're already seeing some of that in Europe and to a lesser extent here, crimes in the form of assault, robbery, rape, murder all on the increase. In the U.K. 1 in 7 prison inmates are Muslim yet muslims only make up 1 in 20 of the population.

 Governments are responding by increasing police powers and presence as well as the role of the armed forces - in effect much of the West is becoming a police state. But eventually even that will not be enough, or sustainable. As we see in Western Europe there are many areas in cities where even the police wont go, where state law isn't enforced and doesn't apply anymore. These areas are now Islamist strongholds,

This something we'll have to accept as part and parcel of multiculturalism and open borders. Hungary was harshly criticised when they said they were banning Islamic immigration and building a wall along the Croation border.(see photo above). Other Eastern European states said they would do the same.. They are still criticised by some but they will have the last laugh because they remember and know what Islam brings with it..

The Way I See It........is explained in 2 previous postings entitled ''Is 'Moderate Islam' an Oxymoron? Part 1 & Part 2''  Find them here:   http://back-doc.blogspot.com.au/search?q=moderate  and  http://back-doc.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/is-moderate-islam-oxymoron-part-2.html

DON'T BREAK OUT THE CHAMPAGNE JUST YET !!

By Larry Pickering: Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.

A very hard working lady friend of mine cleaned hotel rooms for a living and had asked to excuse herself from cleaning rooms that had been occupied by male homosexuals. The hotel had acceded to her request as the rooms were unbearably disgusting. Fecal matter was strewn from the bath tub to chairs and walls and the bedding was discarded rather than washed. 

Now, I can only go by what she told me and there might be some exaggeration involved, but the hotel used a bunch of blokes in hazmat gear to clean the rooms up. 

The proposed Bill to deal with this Yes Vote might create a few problems; for instance, can that hotel refuse admission to homosexuals known to the management, and if so, on what grounds?

Can a taxi cab refuse to take certain fares like it does now for drunks? Can a restaurant refuse patrons? Can a football team refuse a player’s registration due to the concerns of other players? 

Of course religion will always be cited as a reason. So if religion is used as a basis for objection why shouldn’t polygamous Muslims also be discriminated against, including Indians who are also apt to marry underage girls?

The stupidity of the High Court in its decisions over “dual citizenship” could extend to rulings governing “same sex” rights that will fall within or without or on the border line of this proposed legislation.

The Gay Greens are already claiming victory, but it could be a phyrric one, as legal decisions combined with PC are a looming nightmare and will not be as plain sailing as the gay brigade trusts it will.

                                   Have either of you two seen my Mom?

And you can bet bakers who refuse to bake same sex wedding cakes on religious grounds will be targeted by the gays so as to set examples of those who should be punished on grounds of discrimination.

Countries that have adopted forms of gay marriage are now feeling the damaging effects of turning social mores on their head. Parental rights regarding children are at stake and the Canadian Supreme Court has already ruled against parents’ concerns over the outrageous “Safe Schools” programs that teachers sympathetic to the minority gay movement are conducting.

Tasmania’s Archbishop, Julian Porteous, (above) has already been hauled before the anti-discrimination board for distributing a pamphlet stating the church’s view that marriage was between a man and a woman.

In London, a private Jewish school faces closure after failing three State education authority ­instructions to teach girls aged three to 11, about LGBT issues including sexual orientation and gender reassignment.

                           Alan Joyce has rainbowed over our iconic airline logo

After gay marriage was passed by referendum in 2015 in Ireland, Parliament almost immediately repealed laws that provided exemptions allowing the refusal of people to abide by gay laws ­on “religious, educational or medical ­grounds”. 

                         Even the Greens say gay marriage is... "just the start".

It seems that discrimination will only have the approval of legislators if it is against the religious or straight community. Any discrimination by the gay lobby is already seen as fully justifiable, worthy and legal.

A gigantic wedge is about to be driven between gays and straights... a wedge that was not previously there. 

If gay people keep telling you this debate is only about, “whether two people who love each other can get married”, you can be certain they are lying. There is a reason why they wanted the Marriage Act trashed,

… because what the cashed-up Gays insist on now is entirely incompatible with our existing Marriage Act. 

An Avalanche Of Global Warming Alarmism Is About To Hit !

With the United Nations Climate Change Conference starting on Monday in Bonn, Germany, we need to brace ourselves for an avalanche of global warming alarmism. We’ll be told that extreme weather, sea level rise, and shrinking sea ice are all about to get much worse if we do not quickly phase out our use of fossil fuels.

What will make this session especially intense is that this year’s meeting is being presided over by Fiji, a government that has taken the climate change fears to extremes.

Conference president Fijian Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama calls for 

''an absolute dedication to meet the 1.5-degree target,” the most stringent goal suggested by the Paris Agreement. In support of Bainimarama’s position, the COP23/Fiji Website repeatedly cites the frightening forecasts of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), stating, for example, “The IPCC recently reported that temperatures will significantly increase in the Sahel and Southern African regions, rainfall will significantly decrease, and tropical storms will become more frequent and intense, with a projected 20 per cent increase in cyclone activity.”

To make such dire forecasts, the IPCC relies on computerized models built on data and formulae to represent atmospheric conditions. Besides the fact that we lack a comprehensive ‘theory of climate,’ and so do not have valid formulae to properly represent how the atmosphere functions, we also lack the data to properly understand what weather was like over most of the planet even in the recent past. And, without a good understanding of past weather conditions, we have no way to know the history of its average condition—the climate. Meaningful forecasts of future climate change are therefore impossible.

An important data set used by the computer models cited by the IPCC is the ‘HadCRUT4’ global average temperature history for the past 167 years produced by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, and the Hadley Centre, both based in the United Kingdom.

Until the 1960s, HadCRUT4 temperature data was collected using mercury thermometers located at weather stations situated mostly in the United States, Japan, the UK, and eastern Australia. Most of the rest of the planet had very few temperature sensing stations. And none of the Earth’s oceans, which cover 70% of the planet, had more than the occasional station separated from its neighbor by thousands of kilometers.

The data collected at weather stations in this sparse grid had, at best, an accuracy of +/-0.5 degrees Celsius, often times no better than +/-1 degree. Averaging such poor data in an attempt to determine global conditions cannot yield anything meaningful.

Modern weather station surface temperature data is now collected using precision thermocouples. But, starting in the 1970s, less and less ground surface temperature data was used for plots such as HadCRUT4. This was done initially because governments believed that satellite monitoring could take over from most of the ground surface data collection. But satellites did not show the warming forecast by computer models. So, bureaucrats closed most of the colder rural surface temperature sensing stations, thereby yielding the warming data desired for political purposes.

Today, there is virtually no data for approximately 85% of the Earth’s surface. Indeed, there are fewer weather stations in operation now than there were in 1960.

So, the HadCRUT4 and other surface temperature computations after about 1980 are meaningless. Combining this with the problems with the early data, and the fact that we have almost no long-term data above the surface, the conclusion is unavoidable: it is not possible to know how the Earth’s climate has varied over the past century and a half. The data is therefore useless for input to the computer models that form the basis of the IPCC’s conclusions.

The Way I See It in fact, there is insufficient data of any kind—temperature, land and sea ice, glaciers, sea level, extreme weather, ocean pH, etc.—to be able to determine how today’s climate differs from the past. So, the IPCC’s climate forecasts have no connection with the real world.

This will not stop Bainimarama and other conference leaders from citing the IPCC in support of their warnings of future climate catastrophe. No one should take them seriously.

NOTE:  This information comes from Dr. Tim Ball who is an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba. Also, Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition.