Monday, 11 February 2019

Andrew Bolt's Blog,12/2/19; Australian government has destroyed the trust in the Hippocratic Oath; Bill Shorten needs to admit to Australian values; The type Islamophobic Political Campaign one can expect from the Liberal Party;





Refugees in PNG suffer from 'untreated' injuries five years after Manus Island riots

 LNP declared the Hippocratic Oath that doctors take an "activist" plot too dangerous for our National Security Doctors just can't be trusted to provide accurate diagnoses of medical conditions. The Minister for Homeland Security can. Scott Morrison insists Peter Dutton is more reliable than the AMA in making the medical calls. (ODT)

Modern Hippocratic Oath holds the underlying values of medicine in a ... 

The oath upholds timeless ethics and values, but it has changed since Hippocrates first wrote it 2,500 years ago.


A modern Hippocratic Oath keeps original values in place while meeting the needs of our advanced medical practices and societal values. 
Scott Morrison has publicly trashed The Hippocratic Oath for Conservative redefinition of Australia's of Progress in effect handing medical decisions in this case to Peter Dutton. (ODT)


Image result for Image of real Australia
25m

The only mistake made today is seems to be Morrison's, Dutton's and Media unwise Andrew Bolt's. Bill Shorten needs 75 votes and Morrison will be the first to lose a Bill to be passed in the lower house in 90 years. THEY LOST

The humiliation is, in fact, Morrison's who has appointed Peter Dutton, the worst ever Health minister, as the head doctor for the nation and have him make emergency diagnoses by committee on patients. Imagine if your child had appendicitis and this process was in place. Morrison wants the standing death warrant retained.
 It's Bolt, and the Right-Wing self-declared critics of compassion that declare the Hippocratic Oath doctors take makes them hostile to National Security. Yes and that's why the AMA has likened Manus and Nauru to Auschwitz which proves the point they can't be trusted.  With Dr Dutton in charge, who knows nothing about oaths other than Hypocritical ones, and Andrew Bolt the Goebbellian fearmonger telling us that those on Manus and Nauru are all "deplorable" what hope? He turns to the unsourced rumour claimed by News Corp from ASIO as. Bolt uses language denied in International law." illegals" to make his point when they, in fact, are "asylum seekers. Everything Bolt is referring to here is intended to generate fear and once again shroud Australia with the darkness we felt in 2013 with the arrival of Abbott.
As for Bill Shorten, he's not doing what Bolt says he is so Bolt's editorial is all fearmongering bullshit not based on fact but isn't that normal? 
There have been shootings taking place all over Melbourne somewhere deaths have occurred none have been mentioned by Andrew Bolt the Goebbels of right-wing MSM media as none have been committed by South Sudanese, Lebanese, Muslims or any other group Bolt chooses to disparage and vilify. It really shines a light on who this man is and who he represents very much a minority white alien group in Australia who are over-represented in our current government and cut across our class system who see the nation the prism and leftover misguided myths of a white nationalist colonial past. A past that doesn't exist in any suburb of Melbourne that's for sure. It's also reflected in the fact that Andrew Bolt isn't cheered welcome or applauded in public.





Racism
This is not a hoax, but it is instead the beginnings of the ultra -Conservatives political campaign leading up to the 2019 Federal Election. To call it a hoax is to say it's just a prank an unintended joke in bad taste that's gone wrong. When in fact it's serious Islamophobic message intended to divide and drive a wedge into the politics of the area. It's the sort of campaign that was seen in Cronulla in 2006 and championed back then by the likes of 2GB and encouraged by Scott Morrison. To call it a hoax is to hide its real intent. Is Ch9 now owners of the Age become just another News Corp and joined the Murdoch Party? (ODT)

'Misleading': Fake sharia law council letter circulating in city's south-east

 


 


Image result for Image of a debate

NO CONSERVATIVES NEED APPLY

You must be of the Left to be the new host of Q&A. No conservatives need apply with the allegedly impartial and taxpayer-funded ABC: "Virginia Trioli, who typically hosts the show when Jones is on a break, is a possibility. Annabel Crabb, Julia Baird and Hamish MacDonald, all of whom have guest-hosted the show, are also options.”
4m

The impartial taxpayer-funded ABC whose budget and purse are controlled by a hostile Conservative government have at every time been reviewed and proved to be operating within the rules established much to the chagrin of Murdoch supporters and the IPA of which Minister Mitch Fifield is a member. For all Andrew Bolt's wailing and frothing at the mouth, the ABC actually does provide programs where ideas are debated rather than preached as they are on the Bolt Report. The problem with Bolt he's got his back so hard pressed against the wall everybody that not standing there with him is of the left which makes his show columns and commentaries entirely predictable and repetitive like old dogs he brings them out for a walk every now and then but none new. It's why his weekend began Friday and has extended until today. After all, the Bolt Report is really just an autocued reading session unlike Q&A and The Drum  

 

HOW COULD THIS GREEN JUDGE SIT ON THIS CASE?

This is astonishing: "The Chief Judge of the NSW Land and Environment Court who blocked a coal mine due to factors including climate change founded the group of activist lawyers for whom he last week ruled in favour." Justice Brian Preston co-founded the Environmental Defenders Office NSW in 1987 and last week ruled in their favor.  
12m

  Judgment (law) In law, a judgment is a decision of a court regarding the rights and liabilities of parties in a legal action or proceeding. Judgments also generally provide the court's explanation of why it has chosen to make a particular court order.

How naive is Bolt to suggest opinion is on what judgements are based? Must all prosecutors believe defendants are guilty and all defence lawyers think their clients are innocent and choose their cases accordingly, no? They argue and debate points of law, and it's that on which cases are judged.  If Bolt ran his argument in front of those practising law, he'd be ridiculed and rightly so. 

When Mordecai Bromberg found Bolt guilty it wasn't because he was a lefty but a respected and competent judge of the law. Bolt could have appealed but his legal team advised him not to, and Bolt was too gutless to finance an appeal on his own. 

The judge in the Land Environment Court had to also be a lefty according to Bolt for no reason other than that's the conclusion Bolt wants. Are all judges appointed to our courts left-wing chosen for their political motivations and not their knowledge of the law? Bolt would have you believe so except in the very few cases where right-wing judges preside and he'll call that justice and make no further mention of it. 

" Judge Preston did not mention his links over the past 30 years to the EDO when he ruled in its client’s favour last week." Bolt is taking up  Murdoch's Daily Telegraph's Opinion to suggest a continuing and active relationship still exists between the judge and the Green group to which he once belonged over 30 years ago. Notice Bolt hasn't the balls to say all of this himself but lets the DT do it for him.

The Paris Agreement is a legally binding contract Australia made, and Bolt wants to be torn no matter the cost it seems now that's "extraordinary".  He tells Australia to flout the law and not abide by it or our International reputation for keeping our word.

Yes, Bolt is gutless he always leaves a formal "get out" clause for himself in these situations, and he does so here

"I should add:" he says

The Telegraph is not suggesting any bias on the part of Judge Preston...Bolt, as he moves to a PAYWALL, excuses himself for the bias indicated by the DT. Gone is the Paris Agreement central to Judge Preston's decision and it's replaced something else altogether. Australia's CO2 contribution as unimportant to the whole ignoring the fact that we are a part of the planet. Yes, it's Bolt's  "me" and denial of "we" approach that needs to be applied to everything as far as Bolt is concerned. That the judge didn't call any scientists in condemns him in Bolt's eyes. The fact that Judge Preston wasn't required to take scientific evidence escapes Bolt. As the Judge, he took the legal and binding Paris Agreement into account, and in light of that, the Coal company's wishes were in breach of that contract which was all he needed in the eyes of the LAW to decide no.

I refuse to Advertise The Bolt Report but if anyone wants to watch Bolt spit out Fox News and fake opinion for the purpose of playing media Whack-a-Mole in a preachers format read off an autocue then your welcome

 

'Hugely significant': Why this judge just ruled against a new mine on climate grounds

No comments: