BREAKING NEWS FROM COFFS COAST

The NSW Government may release its vision  for the development of Coffs Harbour waterfront in 2017.

Discussion is underway with several NSW Government departments to create one trnure for all public land at the Coffs Harbour waterfront.

There has  been uncertainty for some time about plans for the Jetty precinct including public – private development and commercial leases.

Coffs Harbour MP Andrew FRaser said he hopes a new plan for the harbour can be drawn up in 2017.  He said previous blueprints for the important area havw failed to attract community support.

“What’s happened in the past has been development of the Jetty has been an imposition on our community by Government,” Mr Fraser said. What we hope to do in 2017 is have community discussions, workshops, maybe some draft plans so people can comment.  My attitude has always been  you must take the people with you.

“In the past what has been proposed has been overdevelopment, and people haven’t liked it”.

Mr Fraser said the current discussions include several  government departments including Premier and Cabinet and Primary Industries.

“That’s happenong at the moment and I would hope sometime in the New Year we will have an opportunity to have a plan drawn up for the future of the Jetty  he said.

“Not something that has been put before,” but something that I hope will be exciting and meets with public approval.”

 

dDD a utt

Its a scary thought that Mr Abbott has people who think similar to him, in terms of the refugee situation. It is noticed that one of the new slogans is ‘WE CAN DO BETTER.’
Says it all really.
Phil Croft

On Sunday, 27 November 2016, 6:54, CoffsOutLook <noreply+feedproxy@google.com> wrote:

Coffs Outlook

Dutton eyes Tony Abbott’s role as far right leader
Posted: 25 Nov 2016 05:31 PM PST

Dismissing Peter Dutton as a buffoon would definitely be a mistake. Photo: AAP
ANALYSIS Paula Mathewson
It would be an easy mistake to relegate Immigration Minister Peter Dutton to the same category as serial ministerial muddler, Attorney-General George Brandis.
Like his fellow Queenslander Senator Brandis, Mr Dutton has stumbled from misspeak to pratfall ever since being given responsibility for one of our nation’s most sensitive and important portfolios.
Remember boom-gate, when Mr Dutton demonstrated an awareness of his surroundings no doubt developed during his earlier life as a police officer, making crass private jokes about “Cape York time” and rising sea levels that were captured by a boom microphone being held in plain sight just above his head?
Then there was the bungled plan for jackbooted Border Force officials to spot-check visas in Melbourne. And the sympathetic text message describing a journalist as a “mad f***ing witch” that Mr Dutton meant for disgraced colleague Jamie Briggs but sent instead to the woman in question.
Not to mention his nonsensical but inflammatory claim made during the lead-up to the July federal election that illiterate and innumerate refugees were stealing Australian jobs, while at the same time languishing on the nation’s unemployment queues.
And then there is Mr Dutton’s latest commentary on the “disadvantages” of immigration, with the claim that the Fraser government’s generous refugee program in the 1970s should be blamed for homegrown extremism within the local Lebanese community.
Yes, it would be all too easy to dismiss the Immigration Minister as a buffoon and a fool. But to do so would be a mistake.
For while these actions and comments appear to most observers as those of an inept and intolerant man, they are a clarion call to one select group: namely the Tony Abbott faction within the Liberal Party.
The heir apparent
As the convenor of the Monkey Pod lunches patronised by the arch conservatives that make up this faction, Peter Dutton not only fancies himself as leader of the group but also the presumptive heir to Tony Abbott’s mantle.
Before Malcolm Turnbull regained the Liberal leadership, the previous immigration minister Scott Morrison was the conservatives’ favoured son.
But Mr Morrison fell out of favour with the right when he failed to rally Liberal colleagues to vote for Mr Abbott during the leadership tussle.
Having excommunicated Mr Morrison, the right’s succession planning was thrown into disarray.
However it appears the younger members of the Abbott faction wasted no time angling for former Western Australian treasurer and now federal Social Services Minister, Christian Porter, to be groomed as the next conservative prime minister.
But as credentialed as he is, Mr Porter might not yet have enough gravitas to convince his colleagues that he’s ready for the ultimate promotion.
This is important because the arch conservatives are seriously beginning to think the top job (and a triumphant return to cabinet) is back within their grasp.
Depending on the polls
Support for the government, as measured by opinion polls, is now as bad under Mr Turnbull as it was under Mr Abbott. Yet there appears to be no appetite within the Australian community for Mr Abbott to be returned to the leadership.
If the Labor Party remains dominant in the opinion polls next year, with Mr Abbott and his cronies fomenting dissent and the PM seemingly incapable of stopping government MPs from running amok, the Liberals may again feel compelled to do the unthinkable, which is to switch leaders.
With Mr Porter still on training wheels, Mr Dutton appears to be entertaining delusions that he is the man to step into the breach.
Considered in this light, it’s easy to see the former plod’s tough-man antics are an audition for the right’s leading role.
This is what makes it necessary but also difficult for Mr Turnbull to discipline his Immigration Minister.

The PM risks alienating the far right if he publicly criticises Mr Dutton. Photo: AA
By failing to denounce Mr Dutton’s anti-immigration dog-whistling for what it is, the PM further fractures what little hope remains in Australian moderates and progressives that he will reconnect with his inner humanitarian.
Yet if Mr Turnbull spoke of Mr Dutton in anything less than glowing terms, the PM would further alienate the Liberal arch conservatives and potentially strengthen their support for Mr Dutton as an alternative prime minister.
Paula Matthewson was media adviser to John Howard in the early 1990s and then worked for almost 25 years in communication, political and industry advocacy roles. She is now a freelance writer and communication strategist. Paula has been tweeting and blogging about politics, the media and social media since 2009 under the pen name @Drag0nista.
You are subscribed to email updates from CoffsOutLook.
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States

THE NATIONAL ELECTRICITY MESS IS AN EXAMPLE WHY VOTERS HAVE LOST FAITH IN POLITITIONSS

The NEM has become the National Electricity Mess, nee Market – more broadly, power mess – a national embarrassment.
The market is clearly failing and its management rules are archaic. Major players are gaming the system, exploiting the consumer by “gouging” excessive prices and profits, while supply is no longer guaranteed. Genuine reform is being undermined by incessant, irresponsible, short-term, partisan politics. It cannot just be patched up. Reform must begin with a blank sheet of paper, preferably with bipartisan support.
‘Clean coal’ makes a comeback
New technology means coal will play a role in electricity generation long into the future, says Malcolm Turnbull. Courtesy ABC News 24.
It was based on the British system of some 20 years ago, which has since been jettisoned. It didn’t contemplate renewables, storage, or disseminated distribution. The current political debate is riddled with opportunistic, often factually incorrect, political comment and point-scoring. Yet, reform is fundamental to our essential “transition” to a low-carbon society.
It stands as another classic example of poor, short-term, government – no forward thinking or planning. It has been accepted for decades that our ageing, coal-fired, now mostly privatised power plants will, indeed must, close, as fundamental to this essential transition, to be progressively replaced by renewables. But there has been little or no planning. Extreme weather events are now exposing the structural weaknesses, resulting in blackouts, or “load shedding”, and excessive prices to consumers. Indeed, rising power prices, and restricted supply, are already threatening the viability of many industries.
The power crisis in South Australia has underlined the nation’s energy policy woes.
It is largely pointless to attempt to apportion blame, as there are many faults, many are at fault. A major issue has been the exaggerated benefits of renewables, wind and solar. While the reduction in emissions and price are mostly indisputable – when the wind is blowing, mostly at night, and the sun is shining, for a few hours a day – the system is left to cope with the morning and evening peaks in demand, the so called intermittency.
These peaks are mostly met by drawing on coal-fired supplies, or increasingly, by open cycle gas turbines (OCGT), that can significantly reduce the overall emission reductions and price advantages of renewables. Indeed, it can be the case that emissions from OCGT generation, used to balance out the intermittence from renewables, creates more emissions, and at a higher retail price, than if the renewable energy source didn’t exist.
So, renewables have been allowed to develop, indeed have been subsidised to do so under the Renewable Energy Target (RET), leaving the NEM to pick up the slack, and consumers the cost.
The solution is cost-effective heat and battery storage, to spread wind and solar capability over a day, the technology for which is only about one or two years away. A reasonable policy response, apart from incentivising the development of storage technologies, would be to mandate that all new wind and solar projects to have effective storage (or their own OCGT backup) and all existing wind and solar farms to be retrofitted with storage within a specified period, not unreasonable given the subsidies they have enjoyed.
There is also a reasonable prospect, over a similar timeframe, for the development of cost-effective, solar thermal to provide 24/7 base load power, ultimately at a cost per kWh competitive with coal.
Mostly for political reasons, given the significance of the coal industry to our economy, and particular regions, the Turnbull government has recently sought to rekindle interest in coal, by notionally supporting “clean coal”, and suggesting the need for a new “ultra-supercritical” coal-fired power plant.
By “clean coal” it means carbon capture and storage, but this is unlikely to be commercially viable, even if it can be done at scale, without a carbon price of about $100 a tonne. It is also highly unlikely, unless government funded, that a new, ultra-supercritical, coal-fired plant would be built, as it would cost about $3-4 million per MW, and take about four to five years to build.
Another major weakness of the NEM is that AGL and Origin are generators and retailers. As such, they have been able to operate old coal-fired power plants, not having to cover capital costs that have already been written off, while being able to charge excessive retail margins, and also exploit the generosity of the RET.
Of course, combined cycle gas fired power plants represent a “transition” possibility, but with the mess that is the gas market – with most gas committed to export, and restrictions on conventional and unconventional gas exploration and development –the rapidly rising domestic gas price is killing the prospect and further threatening a host of gas dependent industries.
In many respects it is already too late to minimise the near-term impacts of the collapsing power sector on power prices and supply, as coal-fired power plants close (the next Hazelwood on April 1), gas prices continue to rise and weather events compound.
It stands as a clear example of just why the electorate has lost faith in our politicians and in our political system.
John Hewson is a professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, and a former Liberal opposition leader. He has business interests in the development of storage and solar thermal technologies.

Malcolm Turnbull has dug himself into the same hole that did for Tony Abbott

There was a moment this week that summed up the Turnbull government’s predicament. It occurred just before Treasurer Scott Morrison revealed that any savings from the welfare cuts in his “omnibus” bill would be directed to funding the NDIS.
“We need to have a competitive tax system in order for our companies who employ millions of Australians to remain competitive,” he declared, citing the Reserve Bank governor in support.

Malcolm Turnbull has made his views clear on whether there’ll be company tax concessions.
This was Morrison’s way of spruiking the government’s proposed business tax cuts. Which might have been fine had it not been placed immediately before he announced he’d be relying on welfare cuts to fund care for the disabled.
Translated into the crude language of politics, it becomes something like, “We’d like to tax companies a bit less, so if we’re going to help disabled people, young unemployed people are going to have to pay for it.”
Or, translated into the language of Nick Xenophon: “Pitting battling Australians against Australians needing disability support services is dumb policy and even dumber politics.”
Perhaps that’s a little unfair, given the government later clarified that it did not intend to hold disabled people to ransom, and would find an alternative way to fund the NDIS if necessary. But that only raised an even more befuddling question. If that was true, then why mention the NDIS at all? Why haunt this omnibus bill with an irrelevant spectre?
Advertisement

Suddenly, the government was in a hole it could only keep digging. A day later, confronted with the bill’s impending death, Morrison argued that the result of all this obstruction could only be greater debt, or raised taxes.
In normal circumstances that’s just a statement of the obvious. But in these circumstances, it sounds like a determination to make struggling individuals pay taxes that companies won’t. It is precisely this opening through which Opposition Leader Bill Shorten drove his truck this week.
“The leadership of this nation has got to make a choice about taking from a family on $60,000 or $70,000 a few hundred dollars a year, or giving a $50 billion tax cut to large corporations,” he said.
Whatever the government does from here, that will be the play. It doesn’t matter that Shorten once supported business tax cuts himself. It doesn’t matter that the companies that would feel the most immediate tax relief would be small businesses, not the multinational corporations Shorten revels in pointing at. And it doesn’t matter that the family benefits now being targeted is the kind of middle class welfare Labor tried in government to reduce, to enormous howls of protest from the Coalition.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has manoeuvred himself into a similar corner to his predecessor Tony Abbott. Photo: Andrew Meares
What matters is that, today, any cut the government proposes will immediately be measured against its tax cuts for business. And the government will lose that contest.
It will lose because the benefits it points to are abstract, trickle-down benefits of the “jobs and growth” variety. This is not the political moment for such ideas. This policy is one of the past 30 years of economic orthodoxy: that doing right by business means doing right by everyone.
Finance Minister Mathias Cormann: categorically stated the government had no intention of changing capital gains tax concessions.
But the world is presently in revolt against this doctrine. Right now, it’s more inclined to believe that any savings business makes will go towards enriching those at the top, not rewarding those at the bottom. That’s what happens when people see continued economic growth but stagnant wages. And it’s especially true when the available modelling suggests the gains of these company tax cuts are paltry for such a large investment: a long-term boost to national income of less than 1 per cent. Measured against the kinds of productivity measures people intrinsically like – say, education, health and childcare – the electorate’s preference is obvious. Especially when 50 billion is such an intimidatingly large number.
Malcolm Turnbull must know this. “Fairness is absolutely critical,” he declared as a new Prime Minister in November 2015.
“Any package of reforms which is not and is not seen as fair will not and cannot achieve the public support without which it simply will not succeed.”
At the time this was a clear reference to the failed Abbott government, which impaled itself upon its debut budget. Now it reads like he’s commentating on his own policies. Turnbull has manoeuvred himself, far less sensationally, into a very similar corner to Abbott.
Abbott’s unshakeable sin of unfairness was built around proposed GP co-payments and the denial of unemployment benefits to young people, while proposing almost nothing that would target the wealthy.
It doesn’t help Turnbull that his omnibus bill is partly a vehicle for exhuming some of Abbott’s “zombie measures” that were never officially dumped.
Neither does the government’s steadfast refusal to consider even modestly trimming other concessions such as negative gearing or capital gains tax. It flirted briefly with the former, and quickly moved to deny reports this week it was considering the latter. It’s true Turnbull can at least cite his action on superannuation tax concessions for the wealthy in a way Abbott couldn’t. But with each of Turnbull’s attempts at reform, this increasingly seems a fig leaf that can’t quite cover his nakedness. As it stands, this government is becoming defined by business tax cuts that seem so out of tune with the season. They were the Turnbull government’s central policy offering at the last election. Now they’re its central problem.
Waleed Aly is a Fairfax Media columnist and a presenter on The Project.

 

MADONNA vs TRUMP COULD SHE FINISH UP IN JAIL?

She’s Giving Away FREE TRIALS Only Until Sunday At Midnight!

Donald and Melania Trump were ready to launch a fantastic new business that would make them millions of dollars. Unfortunately for them, Madonna swooped in and revealed their massive secret for FREE!

Donald Trump is absolutely furious.

This exceptional solution to wrinkle-free skin was discovered after years of pain-staking tests and research at the Trump’s expense.

In an innocent slip of the tongue, Madonna let everyone in on the secret that she has known for quite some time.

When asked about about how her skin looks so youthful recently, Madonna told us that she uses a special product that’s “one fifth of the price, and five times as effective as what you buy in the shops”. People would pay a high price to get rid of their wrinkles without having to take on the risks of surgery, but Madonna let it slip for free.

A close friend revealed that Madonna stubbornly refused to let comapnies charge a MASSIVE amount of money for a secret many celebrities already knew. They use this product which Madonna states is better and cheaper than all high street brands.

As a mother of 4 and at nearly 60 years of age, Madonna is looking better than ever! She looks even more radiant and youthful than she did when she was years younger!

Although it angered Trump and other companies such as L’Oreal, it makes people like us very happy because Désir Brillance Revitalizing Moisturizer is amazingly effective and much cheaper than its competitors!

Upon more research, we’ve discovered that many Hollywood actresses – have been secretly using this incredible “elixir of youth”, Désir Brillance Revitalizing Moisturizer too.
Celebs have also been raving about Désir Brillance Revitalizing Moisturizer – they confess that it is their secret to youthful skin! Until recently it was a secret reserved for high paying private clients such as celebrities and royals only…

“Countless aging celebs admit they avoided surgery and look 10 years younger using Madonna’s Désir Brillance Revitalizing Moisturizer”
Madonna’s big skincare secret was revealed to her from her Doctor, whilst working with a team of anti-aging researchers. They discovered a breakthrough product that literally took 10 to 20 years off a woman’s appearance in just a month. The shocking part is that it is 100% safe, and costs next to nothing! Madonna’s “miracle” age reversal solution is a duo combination of key ingredients found in Désir Brillance Revitalizing Moisturizer.

COWPER ,IT SEEMS THAT ROB OAKSHOTT IS FAIR DINKEM

 

Bellingen Golf Club

Roboakeshott1The first of many #Oakey4Cowper Team meetings in preparation for #ausvotes 2019 took place in Bellingen today. The case for change in Cowper

seems that  grows stronger every news cycle.
patriciasworldCongratulations Rob !!yes rattle the Members cage ,I’m proud of your enthusiasm 💐👏👏👏
Log in to like or comment.

Luke seems to have gone missing in action
57 likes
21w
roboakeshott1The first of many #Oakey4Cowper Team meetings in preparation for #ausvotes 2019 took place in Bellingen today. The case for change in Cowper grows stronger every news cycle.
patriciasworldCongratulations Rob !!yes rattle the Members cage ,I’m proud of your enthusiasm 💐👏👏👏
Log in to like or comment.

THE STORIES BEHIND SOME EVERYDAY EXPRESSIONS

AT SIXES AND SEVENS
This phrase probably derives from dice games, and seems to have developed from a 14 century idiom set on cinque and sice. S originally the numbers were not six and seven but five and six,and the expression was used in connection with the elements of chance and luck in human life, rather than disorder or disagreement.
There is a far more colourful theory of the origin of the phrase, though its historical accuracy is questionable. Two of the Livery Companies (originally the craft Guild) of the City of London had a longstanding quarrel over their order of precedence. The Skinners and Merchant Taylors both founded in 1327, ranked sixth and seventh in priority among the guilds, but which was sixth and seventh? in ceremonial processions, the two groups were at sixes an d sevens over the right to he sixth position, and the ensuing fights no doubt had the whole parade at sixes and sevens. In 1484 a settlement was eventually enforced by the Lord Mayor of London and his aldermen: the officials of both guilds were to entertain each other annually to dinner and the companies were to take turns year by year at sixth position in processions.

BETWEEN THE DEVIL AND THE DEEP BLUE SEA
Britain’s history as a sea faring nation has left its mark on modern English language. Dozens of common idioms have their source in shipboard life during the age of sail: in the same boat, at the helm, to run a tight ship, on the rocks, to keep things on an even keel, and so on.
Slightly less obvious are the phrases on the wrong tack (referring to an upwind course) to know the ropes referring to the rigging of s sailing ship) and to give someone a wide berth (or to give him some leeway or to steer clear of him). Sometimes the link to sailing has become fairly obscure. To describe someone as broad in the beam, for example, is to refer in fact to the beam of a ship – that is its point of greatest width.
Hard and Fast generally applied these days to a rule, was said of a ship that was stuck fast through being stranded. And touch and go probably originally meant coming near to being stranded- to scrape the keel in shallow water. The phrase by and large too is nautical in origin- to sail by and large in a sailing ship was to sail at a slight angle to the wind. Perhaps this was a “by and large”a safe and effective way of sailing the direction of an oncoming wind, the phrase came to be used in this more general sense. To sail close to the wind, by contrast was more risky business – it was to steer as near to head on as possible to the oncoming wind. Hence the general sense of the expression today to take risks, or to verge on the irregular or illegal. The risk was that a slight shift in the wind might suddenly press the sails back against the mast, causing the ship to lose it stability and be taken aback, or taking the wind from its sails – two more nautical expressions that have passed into general used . If everything is going well, you might say tat all is plain sailing; that is navigating by means of a simple plan chart, based on the assumption that the earth is flat or a plane. If things go badly, you,on the other hand, you might be on your beam ends – the beams were the diagonal struts across the ship , to buttress the keel so when a ship was on her beam ends, she was tilted over on her side and wAS in danger of capsizing.
Rather less reliably, the two phrases the devil to pay and between the devil and the deep blue sea have been raced back to the days of sail. When anticipating trouble, people sometimes say”There’s going to be the devil to pay. A longer version of the idiom, rarely heard these days is “The devil to pay and no pitch hot”, suggesting a lack of preparation for some important task. The devil here is seam between the planks on the side of a ship. And to pay such a seam is to smear it with tar.

I hope you have enjoyed the above after all we are all boat people of sorts!! \

Hugh Ed.

Dutton eyes Tony Abbott’s role as far right leader

Home » All Local News » You are reading »
Dutton eyes Tony Abbott’s role as far right leader
Author November 26, 2016
Dutton eyes Tony Abbott’s role as far right leader
2016-11-26T11:31:24+00:00
No Comment

Dismissing Peter Dutton as a buffoon would definitely be a mistake. Photo: AAP
ANALYSIS  Paula Mathewson
It would be an easy mistake to relegate Immigration Minister Peter Dutton to the same category as serial ministerial muddler, Attorney-General George Brandis.
Like his fellow Queenslander Senator Brandis, Mr Dutton has stumbled from misspeak to pratfall ever since being given responsibility for one of our nation’s most sensitive and important portfolios.
Remember boom-gate, when Mr Dutton demonstrated an awareness of his surroundings no doubt developed during his earlier life as a police officer, making crass private jokes about “Cape York time” and rising sea levels that were captured by a boom microphone being held in plain sight just above his head?
Then there was the bungled plan for jackbooted Border Force officials to spot-check visas in Melbourne. And the sympathetic text message describing a journalist as a “mad f***ing witch” that Mr Dutton meant for disgraced colleague Jamie Briggs but sent instead to the woman in question.
Not to mention his nonsensical but inflammatory claim made during the lead-up to the July federal election that illiterate and innumerate refugees were stealing Australian jobs, while at the same time languishing on the nation’s unemployment queues. 
And then there is Mr Dutton’s latest commentary on the “disadvantages” of immigration, with the claim that the Fraser government’s generous refugee program in the 1970s should be blamed for homegrown extremism within the local Lebanese community.
Yes, it would be all too easy to dismiss the Immigration Minister as a buffoon and a fool. But to do so would be a mistake.
For while these actions and comments appear to most observers as those of an inept and intolerant man, they are a clarion call to one select group: namely the Tony Abbott faction within the Liberal Party.
The heir apparent
As the convenor of the Monkey Pod lunches patronised by the arch conservatives that make up this faction, Peter Dutton not only fancies himself as leader of the group but also the presumptive heir to Tony Abbott’s mantle.
Before Malcolm Turnbull regained the Liberal leadership, the previous immigration minister Scott Morrison was the conservatives’ favoured son. 
But Mr Morrison fell out of favour with the right when he failed to rally Liberal colleagues to vote for Mr Abbott during the leadership tussle.
Having excommunicated Mr Morrison, the right’s succession planning was thrown into disarray. 
However it appears the younger members of the Abbott faction wasted no time angling for former Western Australian treasurer and now federal Social Services Minister, Christian Porter, to be groomed as the next conservative prime minister.
But as credentialed as he is, Mr Porter might not yet have enough gravitas to convince his colleagues that he’s ready for the ultimate promotion. 
This is important because the arch conservatives are seriously beginning to think the top job (and a triumphant return to cabinet) is back within their grasp.
Depending on the polls
Support for the government, as measured by opinion polls, is now as bad under Mr Turnbull as it was under Mr Abbott. Yet there appears to be no appetite within the Australian community for Mr Abbott to be returned to the leadership.
If the Labor Party remains dominant in the opinion polls next year, with Mr Abbott and his cronies fomenting dissent and the PM seemingly incapable of stopping government MPs from running amok, the Liberals may again feel compelled to do the unthinkable, which is to switch leaders.
With Mr Porter still on training wheels, Mr Dutton appears to be entertaining delusions that he is the man to step into the breach. 
Considered in this light, it’s easy to see the former plod’s tough-man antics are an audition for the right’s leading role.
This is what makes it necessary but also difficult for Mr Turnbull to discipline his Immigration Minister. 

The PM risks alienating the far right if he publicly criticises Mr Dutton. Photo: AA
By failing to denounce Mr Dutton’s anti-immigration dog-whistling for what it is, the PM further fractures what little hope remains in Australian moderates and progressives that he will reconnect with his inner humanitarian.
Yet if Mr Turnbull spoke of Mr Dutton in anything less than glowing terms, the PM would further alienate the Liberal arch conservatives and potentially strengthen their support for Mr Dutton as an alternative prime minister.
Paula Matthewson was media adviser to John Howard in the early 1990s and then worked for almost 25 years in communication, political and industry advocacy roles. She is now a freelance writer and communication strategist. Paula has been tweeting and blogging about politics, the media and social media since 2009 under the pen name @Drag0nista.

Donald Trump has caused the left to loose its mind

Donald Trump Has Caused The Left to Lose Its Mind

John Hawkins
|
Posted: Feb 11, 2017 12:01 AM
  Share (2K)   Tweet

Trending

Helen Raleigh
“We Are A Nation of Laws”, But “Sanctuary Cities” Are OK?

Katie Pavlich
Progressives, Nordstrom, And The Moronic Crusade Against Ivanka Trump

Todd Starnes
Principal Says Trump is Worse than 9-11 Terrorist Attacks

“You’re awake by the way. You’re not having a terrible, terrible dream. Also, you’re not dead and you haven’t gone to hell. This is your life now. This is our election now. This is us. This is our country.” – Rachel Maddow’s reaction to Trump becoming President
When Barack Obama was elected, conservatives didn’t cry like the liberals you see in this HILARIOUS VIDEO. We didn’t need therapy. We didn’t start wailing that he was Hitler or demand safe spaces. Instead, we said, “That sucks. This guy is going to be terrible for the country.” By the way, we were right. He was. But still, we got up and we went to work. Then when the time came, we went to Tea Parties. We obeyed the law at those Tea Parties. We paid for our permits. We were polite to the police. We cleaned up behind ourselves. Then we organized and we took control of the House and the Senate along with the majority of state legislatures and governorships. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
What we didn’t do was put on masks and riot in D.C. because we didn’t like the candidate who was elected. What we didn’t do was tear up Berkeley because we were upset that a pro-Trump gay guy was invited to give a speech. We didn’t smash any windows at Starbucks. We didn’t squirt pepper spray in people’s faces because they wore hats we didn’t like. If we had done that, Townhall and Right Wing News wouldn’t have written columns talking up the riots like the UC Berkeley student paper did. The rationale was that having people say things students don’t like on their campus is the same as committing violence against them and therefore, their violent outbursts represented “self-defense” against fascism…or something. It’s a little hard to follow the reasoning of crazy people sometimes, but as Phil Massey said, “They’re trying to fight imagined fascism with actual fascism.” 

CARTOONS | Jerry Holbert

View Cartoon
This gets even trickier to figure out since former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich said on TV that he heard rumors that the violent protesters were actually Breitbart plants: “There’s rumors that they actually were right-wingers. They were a part of a kind of group that was organized and ready to create the kind of tumult and danger you saw that forced the police to cancel the event. So Donald Trump, when he says Berkeley doesn’t respect free speech rights, that’s a complete distortion of the truth. …I saw these people. They all looked very– almost paramilitary. They were not from the campus. I don’t want to say factually, but I’ve heard there was some relationship here between these people and the right-wing movement that is affiliated with Breitbart News.”
You think that’s crazy? Just yesterday, liberal protesters blocked a schoolhouse door to keep Education Secretary Betsy DeVos from being able to go in. Setting aside the fact that the last time Democrats blocked people from entering schoolhouse doors in the sixties was not exactly a proud moment for them, it’s amazing to see a DNC official siding with thugs blocking the Education Secretary from entering a building.

COFFS OUTLOOK – WHAT ON EARTH IS HAPPENING HUGH?

I have to apologise for the haphazard way we (I) have been operating lately. Unfortunately I have been pulled up short with a melanomer the source of which the local medicos are having difficulty finding and which is certainly causing quite a few problems.
Add to that, my Mac computer spat the dummy about 3 weeks ago (probably operator error) which it seems is not repairable. I have purchased an HP desk top with windows 10 which I am trying to cope with. I am trying to get the hang of windows 10 with Windows for Seniors for dummies! beside me.
ANY ADVICE FROM READERS will be greatfully appreciated. Hugh Saddleton