Trump and his appointees variously called autism an “epidemic” and a “horrible, horrible crisis.”
This view is so foolish as to beggar belief.
www.thebulwark.com
paracetamol is not prescribed.....it is mass consumable supermarket product even given to infant
People can abuse any drug, who knows what drug abuse causes to embryos. Moderation in everything.
Two points:And NOW @SirRumpole after gloating that @wayneL blocked him, he has yes BLOCKED me
View attachment 209350
Well we are asking the same thing now, after the globalisation movement of Governments in the 1980's, what came after that.
Thanks for only contributing invectives.
Donald J. Trump understands two things: first, that much of what has been happening in the modern West is economic and societal suicide; and second, that there’s no office in the world with more power to change it than the US presidency. And on Tuesday at the UN in New York he made it patently clear that he’s not going to die wondering whether he could have made a difference.
Whether it’s using tariffs to force policy change, occasionally using US military force to devastating effect, or telling the world – bluntly – what it very much needs to hear, he is deploying every instrument in a president’s power to reorient his country and the wider world in what he thinks is a better direction.
His speech to the UN was devastating to the climate activist ecosystem that has enjoyed 30 years of grifting courtesy of taxpayers that it has bludgeoned into submission and the indoctrinated generations that grow in its woke funding pipeline. I doubt there has ever been a more powerful public denunciation of what Trump regards as the two most insidious failures of modern public policy: namely, destroying energy sovereignty in an attempt to combat climate change; and allowing barely controlled mass migration, notionally because of the economists’ Ponzi scheme of “any growth is good”, but in reality because governing elites in the West have become morally queasy about their own Judaeo-Christian foundations.
Trump’s speech wasn’t so much a salvo as it was a bunker-busting bomb at the very epicentre of a global governance structure that is crippling Western civilisation.
It was a direct repudiation of the two policy directions that have been at the heart of the left’s agenda; that have been partially accepted even by much of the mainstream right; and that have massively accelerated over the past decade, especially in the Anglosphere, and including in Australia under the Albanese government.
Perhaps it’s because our Prime Minister senses that his US counterpart is the antithesis of almost everything he holds dear and is working towards that it has taken him so long to arrange any face-to-face contact; in contrast, with his apparent greater comfort with the current leadership of communist China.
First, climate change. Trump skewered the UN on the consistency of so-called expert scaremongering that has become increasingly hysterical over time but rarely accurate. He pointed to the UN’s own 1982 declaration that “by the year 2000, climate change would cause a global catastrophe”. First, he said, it was “global cooling will kill the world, we have to do something, then they started saying global warming will kill the world, so then it started getting cooler, so they called it climate change. And so that way whether it goes higher or lower or whatever the hell happens, it’s climate change. It’s the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world, in my opinion.”
Directly addressing the current leaders of the EU, Britain, Canada and Australia, Trump said: “And I’m telling you if you don’t get away from the green energy scam, your country is going to fail.”
Whack!
President Donald Trump addresses the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly.
Second, and as if he hadn’t already pulled off enough of a rhetorical king hit, he continued on the subject of mass immigration: “And if you don’t stop people that you’ve never seen before, that you have nothing in common with, your country is going to fail. I’m the President of the United States but I worry about Europe. I love Europe. I love the people of Europe, and I hate to see it being devastated by energy and immigration. This double-tailed monster destroys everything in its wake and they cannot let this happen any longer. You’re doing it because you want to be nice, you want to be politically correct and you’re destroying your heritage.”
Pow!
Because this was a precision assault on the two great political pieties of our time, there will be a furious reaction. But because what Trump is saying is essentially true, just possibly this could be the wake-up call the West needs. We can but hope.
As Trump said: “I just want to repeat that immigration and the high cost of green renewable energy is destroying a large part of the free world and a large part of the planet. Countries that cherish freedom are fading fast because of their policies on these two subjects. You need strong borders and traditional energy sources if you are going to be great again.”
Because what Trump has said is so totally at odds with the animating instincts of the Western political establishment, there will be a renewed and even more concerted effort to ridicule the man and to destroy his presidency. Initially, at least, this speech will feed the narrative that Trump is a Neanderthal throwback. But because the so-called green transition is going so badly in all the countries that are taking it seriously and because there are few citizens, particularly in the Anglosphere, who aren’t asking themselves “How is this happening to my country?”, Trump’s speech will resonate.
Anthony Albanese, Penny Wong and Anika Wells attend the opening of the 80th Session of the UN General Assembly.
In the short term, it will present a dilemma for Anthony Albanese, whose government has presided over three years of historically high immigration and who has just announced hyper-ambitious economy-wrecking and society-changing emissions reductions targets for 2035. Almost inevitably, he will say that the problems the President highlighted don’t apply to Australia, even though they clearly do. Given he has only just secured a formal meeting with Trump on October 20, Albanese will not want to jeopardise it by directly disagreeing with the President’s blistering critique of what is Australia’s current policy direction, no less than that of Britain and Europe. And he won’t want to have AUKUS cancelled on the spot by a President disgusted by the weakness of his Australian interlocutor. But whatever the public pleasantries, Trump’s message is at odds with our Prime Minister’s entire public life, and that has grave potential consequences for our US alliance.
But it’s also at odds with much of the Liberal Party, too, and the British Conservatives. After the previous Coalition government initially scrapped the carbon tax and declared that the emissions obsession was over, the Liberals reversed course under Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison, eventually adopting net zero on the grounds that it would be damaging to our international standing and harmful to chances of regaining teal seats not to take climate change seriously.
Not only has lurching left failed to make a scrap of difference in teal seats but it also has cost the Libs credibility with conservatives, as the recent 27 primary vote in Newspoll makes plain.
And while the opposition’s disastrous defeat was mostly due to its lack of policy fight, Labor pinning the Trump-lite label on Peter Dutton didn’t help because the Trump style doesn’t often play well outside the American heartland. The Coalition base, already restive at Sussan Ley’s lack of policy direction, will be further fired up by this latest Trump broadside, even though his MAGA movement won’t directly translate into successful politics here, given our somewhat different culture, institutional structures and voting system. But the challenge for the Coalition is to take his message in his words and recraft a platform that’s radically different to the current Labor-lite offering focused on the potent beachheads of energy and immigration.
Still, a fortnight after global conservatism was rocked by the public execution of Charlie Kirk, Trump’s response has been an eviscerating attack on everything Kirk was trying to stop.
Make no mistake, like the man or not, this is a speech for the ages.
According to screeching and fulminating Democrats, free speech in America is under threat. This is hysterical nonsense. As a public service, I will explain to them why their claims are baseless.
So pay attention Democrats and other excitable left-wing types. Let me begin by reminding you there is no such thing as free speech absolutism in a democracy.
For example, governments not only have the right but also the responsibility to outlaw speech that incites violence. The left’s joyous reaction to the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk is proof US President Donald Trump must act to restore order.
The government has been clear about what is and is not permissible. As Attorney-General Pam Bondi said last week, “There’s free speech, and then there’s hate speech”.
She is correct. Hate speech is not free speech. The left’s rabid animus towards Trump and Republicans in general threatens to destroy social cohesion and has emboldened violent and anti-democratic ideologues.
Trump himself was the subject of two assassination attempts last year.
Make no mistake. This is not a free speech crisis. It is a hate speech crisis caused by the left’s attempts to usurp the democratic process.
For those Democrats incensed about Bondi’s distinction between hate speech and free speech, I refer you to the words of Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a former Democratic National Committee chair.
“We all have a responsibility to denounce hate speech in any form before the consequences become deadly,” she wrote in 2016 following a mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida.
But Democrats are selective about condemning violence. When the US House of Representatives moved a resolution that deplored Kirk’s assassination and honoured his “life and legacy”, 58 Democrats voted against the motion.
Contrast that lack of bipartisanship with the House’s 424-0 resolution in June condemning the assassination of a Minnesota Democratic state representative and her husband and the wounding of a state senate colleague.
One of the Democrats who opposed the Kirk motion was California representative Maxine Waters. You might remember her. In 2018 she called upon her supporters to “absolutely harass” members of Trump’s cabinet in public, whether they be “in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station”.
This is a mentality that bullies and intimidates those who refuse to acquiesce in left-wing ideology. Consider when in 2022 pro-choice protesters published online and descended on the private addresses of conservative justices during the US Supreme Court’s review of the Roe v Wade precedent. Despite these activities breaching laws prohibiting intimidation of judicial officials, White House press secretary Jen Psaki refused to condemn the protests.
As part of his administration’s plan to combat hate speech, Trump should consider commissioning an expert panel with inquisitorial powers to ascertain why this phenomenon is endemic in the Democrats. The inquiry should also cover issues such as why party members and supporters are so easily led, particularly their susceptibility to identity-based grievances and material envy.
There is also the issue of the so-called progressive media’s fostering and running cover for left-wing extremism, as evident by the reaction of its prominent members to Kirk’s assassination.
To address this, Trump must establish an independent statutory authority – let’s call it say the Public Interest Media Advocate – to ensure reporting is fair and impartial. In conjunction, Republicans and their supporters should lead a sustained campaign to discourage hate speech in journalism by forcing an advertising boycott of left-wing media organisations.
And spare us the ridiculous claims that Disney’s (brief) suspension of comedian Jimmy Kimmel was a “retaliation” against free speech and proof the US has entered a “modern McCarthy era”. Kimmel had, at the very least, recklessly and falsely implied that one of the “MAGA gang” assassinated Kirk. This was misinformation that vilified all MAGA members. Misinformation is not free speech.
Nothing in the First Amendment prevents a private sector employer from sanctioning an employee who engages in hate speech. And too bad about leftist outrage over Republicans urging others to report those who celebrated Kirk’s murder to their employers. Words have consequences.
I have a suggestion for those ostracised and shamed for publicly welcoming Kirk’s death. Post lengthy messages on social media acknowledging your wrongdoing. Tell the world you have reflected on your conduct and now realise how much hurt you have caused. Declare that you will educate yourself and learn from the experience. Apologise profusely and say you will do better in future. Will it save your career? No, but your self-abasement serves as a warning to others.
Enough with the complaints about destroying people’s livelihoods. If you do not want to be accused of engaging in hate speech, start by not doing something that involves hate speech. Any questions?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I can hear the protests already. My apologia is a combination of partisan hackery, fallacious reasoning, hypocrisy writ large, selective stereotyping, and censorious opportunism, you say? Not at all. This is about ensuring tolerance and social cohesion by holding to account those who incite violence and cause offence. Have I got the narrative down pat?
Enough of this insufferable pretence. Bondi’s plan to “absolutely target” the utterers of so-called hate speech was an abuse of office. A US Attorney-General who does not understand the First Amendment is unfit for the role.
Such was the backlash to these remarks that Bondi has ‘clarified’ her statement, claiming she was highlighting “Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence”. Give it up. You lose all credibility as a defender of libertarian principles when you employ that arbitrary and subjective term.
Reassuringly (but not surprisingly), conservative media organisations, Republican figures and even MAGA influencers were among the loudest in calling out Bondi. But ask yourself this question. How many on the left would have done the same if it were a Democrat Attorney-General who acted so?
Having gleefully used the resources of the state for many years to impose their militant ideology on conservatives, Democrats have discovered the laws and policies they championed can also be used against them.
If only someone had warned them.
Surprise Surprise I believe he is right. Mass immigration has destroyed cultures that had developed over hundreds of years. Green energy should be the supplement not the main drive.
Literally read the study. No one cares about tds idiots running out and bleating to score points.
That kind of looks fake...
Had to double check:
www.politifact.com
Hello and welcome to Aussie Stock Forums!
To gain full access you must register. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds to complete.
Already a member? Log in here.
