Andrew Bolt's blog, 17/6/17; Destroying his own profession; Using Bolt logic to defend Pell fails to impress; Bolt applies media PR to his actions in Carlton in the same way;

Peta Credlin deemed too controversial to address Liberal function | Australia news | The Guardian

Proposal to have Sky News commentator speak about party values overruled on basis it would be unhelpful
Kroger's Choice?

RED SYMONS A RACIST? SERIOUSLY?

Red Symons is now accused of racism by an outrage industry that loves venting and doesn't do context. He's asked an Asian guest: "What’s the deal with Asians? ... Are you yellow?" And more. Bad luck for Red is that he's from the ABC, which means no side will defend him. But I will. It's that context thing...    

  Is Symons a racist? It depends whether or not he believes the systems and social structures we have put in place distinguish and prejudice people according to race and it depends if Symons takes them to be the norm and defended. I'm prepared to a do say Andrew Bolt is a racist and Symons isn't and that has little or nothing to do with his radio show. I'm prepared to say the ABC is less racist than News Corp. The ABC questions the way we live both socially and culturally Bolt and News Corp less so. Essentially the podcast being referred to has little to do with racism or vilification.

The denial of a stolen generation, the denial that our institutions treat indigenous people according to their race and the denial that opportunity is racially structured is being racist. These denials are what make Bolt a racist the denial of history and how our social structures have precluded equal opportunity is racist. I don't know Symons well enough but I'll start from a base that says he's not. I've no doubt at all that Andrew Bolt is. 

 

PRIEST: I WAS WITH PELL AND KNOW HE'S INNOCENT

ABC reporter Louise Milligan peddles an implausiby lurid claim: that Cardinal George Pell caught two choir boys drinking altar wine and made them give him oral sex.  One boy denied it, a senior chorister told me it couldn't have happened, and now the priest who always accompanied Pell at that church says it was impossible, too.

Bolt's first line of defense is Pell's "reputation". Pell's reputation is of such high standing it's impossible he could do anything of the sort that he's been accused of. The reputations of elite men like  Dominic Strauss-Kahn and Bernard Madoff were the very reason they felt  untouchable and could do whatever they wanted. Reputation is what all elite rogues hide behind. However  it's hardly a defense against due process which demands equality in the eyes of the law. Particularly in the eyes of British Law. Reputation  only becomes a mitigating factor in sentencing. But then Bolt doesn't believe in our legal system as much as he believes in rule of justice by the elite.
The reason you can't trust " a boy." an indigenous person or the poor, what well of wisdom does that spring from? Is Bolt projecting? Was he a lying little prick when young?  We know he is a liar he was convicted for being one. Further he claims  he was educated at Adelaide Uni when he wasn't and is now using their brand and IP as his. We know he was a fantasist when a young man describing himself as a " minder of a belly dancer " He was ready  to swear on a stack of bibles that she wasn't his ex- fiance or was supporting him at the time, Was he on the dole ?

 It's reputation that Bolt attacks the reputation of Peter Foster whose daughters were raped.  The reputation of the police and the reputation of anyone pursuing an examination of the facts  are being besmirched by Bolt who has a reputation lower than a snakes belly. It seems Bolt's defense of Pell is tp destroy the reputation of not just others but our whole institutional process of inquiry.

What becomes essentially more curious is why News Corp is giving this case so much attention and Bolt the platform? Why is so much attention being given to the investigation process when charges haven't even been laid yet?  The police or the DPP haven't even issued a statement. It really does remind me of the Strauss -Kahn incident and how much media pressure and PR was applied to prove that the man couldn't possibly have been guilty. More so when Berlusconi was accused and how much the media was used to try to show he was really an unblemished rogue. How currently Fox in America is branding all other MSM as fake news in protecting Trump.

All Bolt is managing to do with his efforts is suggest that Pell does have something serious to hide after all, The Australian hasn't spent the any investigative time or effort the police have. Yet can without a shadow of a doubt say Pell is innocent. All their efforts are merely commentary and from the bleachers at that.  Media men like Bolt have spent a lot of effort hypothesizing a defense for Pell but haven't investigated anything. It's maybe time to ask another legitimate question whose money is paying for this media PR and why? I'm sure that's a greater mystery  particularly when it comes to the finer details such as the money trail.
"Meanwhile, what hope of justice for Pell who has been treated as guilty from the start by a media that has treated rumors as evidence, allegations as fact and falsehoods as true?"Bolt
If charges are laid and a case against Pell was, in fact, being prosecuted would Bolt be as brave  as he seems to attack the court with such gusto? Given the police can't bring contempt charges against him he can be a blowhard and is. Bolt would collapse like a house of cards if this was now being pursued in court! He wouldn't do a Derryn Hinch and go to jail for Pell.
Let me do what Bolt generally does when prosecuting the guilt of Islam  and how he comes to the conclusion that Waleed Aly, his media mirror opposite, is dangerous. What Bolt does has little in the way of logic or reason it's just a bigots cry to provide to garner some emotive doubt. By collecting evidence from around the world on Catholic priests and forming a list list of transgressions as Bolt does  Muslim crimes.  One  it might make us consider that all Catholic priests are dangerous  and therefore Pell is. After all it's how Bolt proves Waleed is dangerous because he's Muslim. Well if Pell is innocent then so is Waleed Aly along with most Muslims because guilt by association has never been regarded as evidence except by bigots, racists and a lynch mob.

. Angelo Balducci and Ghinedu Ehiem were involved in a homosexual prostitution racquet in the Vatican.

In March, 2010, two part-time Vatican employees, one of whom was an attendant to the Pope were accused of being a part of a homosexual male prostitution ring. Given, that the Vatican considers homosexuality an abomination, both employees were relieved off their posts briskly, one of whom has been arrested.

American priest abused over 200 deaf children.

Pope Benedict was accused of covering up on the behalf of an American priest who had allegedly abused over 200 deaf children between 1950-1974. Archbishop Edward Cousins gave the accused, Lawrence Murphy a leave of absence. As of March 2010, there were four outstanding lawsuits against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee in the case.

 

 

 

 

WHO LET IN THE BROTHERS FOR LIFE?

The Qaumi family were refugees from Afghanistan. Now two brothers have been sentenced to decades in jail for shootings and murder by their Brothers For Life gang. How did such a troubled family get let in? And now a government study tells us to be culturally sensitive to refugees who bash their wives, too.

Bolt proves me right again. In an Assimilated society crime should be far less than in a Multicultural one Bolt offers no proof that's in fact  the case. Crime in a Multicultural Society can be expected to be Multicultural Bolt denies that.  However he can't seem to explain why crime in Australia tends to be the most prevalent among those Australians that have been here the longest and those from the dominant culture. He doesn't mention that new arrivals are the least likely to be criminal.  Yet he lists  crimes committed by Muslims and refugees and declares multiculturalism guilty by association.

However, Bolt defends George Pell denying his own system of logic applies here. I can list individual cases of priests committing crimes globally as Bolt does Muslims and apply Bolt logic to suggest Pell it's evidence of Pell's guilt and further that Catholicism is as much a danger to Australia as Islam.

Bolt then turns to psych reports to justify why Afghans shouldn't be allowed in. Couldn't the psych profiles of Risdale and other of pedophile priests be used in the same way?

 Bolt uses a little statistics poorly,  collects some empirical evidence and uses it  poorly to arrive at his racist and ethnically biased prordained conclusions. However he denies the same if applied to George Pell and cries foul.

OAKES IS RIGHT. THE JOURNALISTS ARE HYPOCRITES

Laurie Oakes pillories the journalists whingeing that he reported a leak from the Press Gallery ball - Malcolm Turnbull mocking Donald Trump: "Here is the press gallery saying the one event the journalists are not allowed to report on or get leaks from is one they host themselves. It is so hypocritical. It makes me sick, quite frankly”.

 What's the fuss? The Americans have taken it with good humor but Bolt's bleating. World leaders are all mocking Trump not just Turnbull but Bolt is making it out to be exclusive. When the world mocked Abbott it was for good reason the same has occurred with Trump. So in the case of Oakes, all that was leaked was good old Aussie humor.

"It makes me sick quite frankly" That's Bolt attacking his own simply because he had no cause to attack Malcolm which he initially did. Two faced Bolt lauded Abbott's policy of secrecy regarding detention centers and branded staff as left-wing activists when they attempted to reveal the truth about what was happening behind the barbed wire fence. The same was done to those who complained about George Pell Bolt symbolically threw rocks at their heads while advertising the fact that Pell had questions to answer. Hypocrisy's  ownership in media is owned by Bolt if there was an award for it, he'd be the Caviar of the Hypocrisy Mile. The Floyd Mayweather of the hypocrisy ring. Bolt's been convicted of lying, defaming and hiding behind a wall of lawyers. He's smeared the profession he once started in as a cadet frankly no wonder he feels sick.  

 

TURNBULL'S NEW LABOR PARTY

Former Labor minister Carl Scully says Malcolm Turnbull told him he joined the Liberals only because Labor wouldn’t have him. I believe it, with Turnbull wanting a new carbon tax plus higher taxes to pay for Labor’s NDIS. He’s now reportedly even offering the Greens $5 billion more spending on  Labor’s Gonski plan.

Gosh, Andrew Bolt applied to work for the Labor Party and they accepted him. It goes to show just how much more Australian the Labor Party is if the can accept Bolt. So apparently Turnbull wasn't rejected by Labour he chose not to join. However given  UN agency ranks Australia 39 out of 41 countries for quality education and Bolt's kids are educated is it any surprise Bolt doesn't want to see the next generation of Australian kids education improved? He's been there don that and doesn't want to pay for others. Shock Horror "The Turnbull government is set to spend billions of dollars to pass school funding reforms next week." Bolt  Thank God a Conservative isn't PM we had the experience of Abbott Mr. Nope. Despite the fact that the wealth gap of the 20% and the rest has increased proportionately more Bolt doesn't want to put his hand in his pocket.