The Utter Madness of The Left- Carbon Tax That “Will Not Hurt The Poor”

It seems to me that as the the left continue to increase their political presence we just sink deeper and deeper into a sea of madness. Since Gillard and her cronies won the last election in Australia, the degree of insane government proclamations has increased three fold. We have her lies over the carbon tax, and then the mind boggling claim from Gillard that she never said “no carbon tax”, and now today a reversal on that, and yet she is apparently still considered fit to be Prime Minister. How is that sane?

The latest even more mind boggling stuff comes from the man predicted by Bob Hawke to soon replace Gillard as PM, Greg Combet, presently Minister of Climate Change. (just think about the insanity of having such a ministry) Combet says people can beat the tax by turning appliances off at the wall and using energy efficient light bulbs. The carbon tax is predicted to add $300 to annual electricity bills. However, Combet has also pledged generous cash assistance for low-income earners and pensioners to offset any power rises. He also foreshadowed compensation for families if petrol was part of the tax.

So here we have a tax brought in to discourage the use of energy, and here is the Minster of Climate Change so damn crazy he wants the tax to be paid by the government????? (really other taxpayers) So where is the incentive to save energy going to come from? How is that even remotely rational?

What this means is that the whole scheme becomes not targeted on reducing energy use but transferring income, same old same old left wing crapola, but worse, making the original justification for the tax the fraud that everyone has said it was in the first place….!!!

Worse again, the dumb bastard saying these things is considered to be so overflowing with potential and ability he’s going to replace Gillard…!!! I wonder if the damn loon can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Its just so utterly crazy it leaves me speechless. How can people vote for such brazen idiocy??

Courier Mail.

17 thoughts on “The Utter Madness of The Left- Carbon Tax That “Will Not Hurt The Poor”

  1. And yet another demonstration why unbridled democracy won’t work. The most brazen liar and con artist will inevitably end up with the levers of power.


  2. Surely, the Aussies will see the light at the next election and will send packing Gillard and her socialist minions, will they not?


  3. You’re right Bez, and a Constitution with power to prosecute politicians who disregard it would be a part solution. However one of the greatest problems we have now is the total ineffectiveness of a large section of the mainstream media who constantly bolster the standing of these idiots and refuse to subject them to the scrutiny they should face. The ABC in Australia (for example) leans so obliquely to the left it is nothing but a poisonous stain on the democratic process.


  4. “Surely, the Aussies will see the light at the next election and will send packing Gillard and her socialist minions, will they not?”

    Let us hope so Erikter. I would also like to see those scum “independents” who backed Gillard into power get the arse too. Most of all that disgusting little weasel Oakenshott.


  5. We need a mechanism better than just “voting them out” next election cycle. Especially when, as in Gillard’s case, they were voted in on, primarily, an election promise which they promptly changed their stance on and did the exact opposite once in power.

    Election promises should be binding, and any new laws should be subject to electoral approval prior to implementation. We need something similar to Amy Brooke’s ‘100 day Facultative Referendum’ to safeguard against badly written laws coming into being:


  6. On the Gillard government, it’s pretty much assured they will be gone come the next election. Australia has now experimented with the ridiculous of MMP, and does not like the results. The only problem is the amount of damage the commie bitch will do in the meantime.

    On the bias in the MSM, Andrew Bolt has an excellent dissertation here:


  7. Thanks for the edit, Red. Talking about constitutional issues and controls on election promises etc (which brings to mind De Toqueville’s comment on the major flaw of the US system), I’ve often thought it’s time for a movement to bring a real constitution to NZ, not the watered down crap the politicians are thinking about.


  8. There actually is a legal doctrine that suggests that a constitution can only be properly introduced upon definitely breaking with the previous legal order, which of course is the very definition of ‘revolution’. Whether bloodshed is necessarily required is another matter, although contemplating this logically suggests that bloodshed is likely, because those in charge of the previous order are unlikely to let go of that position voluntarily.
    Reversing that argument must lead to the conclusion that establishing a new constitution by the powers that be and in a way that they remain so, is an exercise in futility.


  9. “Reversing that argument must lead to the conclusion that establishing a new constitution by the powers that be and in a way that they remain so, is an exercise in futility.”

    I agree, and feel that is the main reason we must fight as hard as we can to prevent the current mob from framing a Constitution. Could anyone imagine the atrocious and insulting garbage that would arise in that case from the present ruling class? Makes me shudder just to think of it.


  10. It’d end up like the Soviet Constitution, right to a home, healthcare, a job, etc, etc…

    Sounds good – except when you consider that if housing, healthcare and a job is a “right” then the state has the “right” to force you to build a home for someone without compensation or give them your medicine or force your doctor to treat someone or for you to give them a job…

    No the only rights are natural rights, the best form of democracy is that when leaders are chosen to maintain a constitutionally limited government… NZ can’t have a Constitution now because the current crop of politicians wouldn’t have a clue what I’m talking about…

    We should have written one in the 1870s…


  11. A constitution (and for that matter genuine democracy) MUST be founded upon an ABSOLUTE moral authority (I only know of one), and it must be penned by morally upright and righteous men who first and foremost are submitted to that same absolute moral authority.

    There is a reason that Western Judeo-Christian nations have, at least traditionally, led the world in areas such as Freedom, Liberty and Justice (not to mention scientific, academic, and industrial achievements). These things are not defined by (sinful) men, but are sourced from an authority “outside” ourselves; as indeed they must!

    If a constitution were to be founded upon, and subject to, man-made moral relativism then it is doomed to fail. Just as democracy is doomed to fail if built upon this same unstable foundation. We see the U.S. constitution failing for this reason, just as we see Western style democracies failing in ALL Western nations. Remove/change the TRUE foundation and you won’t need a force 6.3 quake to bring the structure pancaking down in a twisted mess with numerous human casualties!


  12. Kris,
    While one can argue about the nature of the external moral authority, it is clear that such an external source is necessary. Anything less leads inevitable to a “Munchausen effect” (the guy who lifted himself by his bootstraps). Some in the constitutional debate argue that this external source of authority can also be (or might better be) a human institution, such as a benevolent monarch, given the inherent interpretation problems that arise with deistic source of moral authority (i.e. that there will always be those with a “direct line” to God, or those using derivatives for moral authority, such as the bible taking precedent over analysis of moral principles).
    When seen in the spirit of their times, the Founding Fathers actually struck a very good balance between principles arising from human nature and the role of moral authority, albeit that their effort was consequently meant for a “moral people” in the Christian sense as they themselves recognized.
    Those basic premises have changed dramatically and this will be one of the more difficult issues in creating a modern constitution.


  13. It is obvious to me that God intended all of us to have freedom of thought and action…

    That is why we must resist the thief of our rights of personal freedom…


  14. I think we’re essentially on the same page, Bez.
    I guess I see any “external source” which is an “human institution” as doomed to failure because it is fluid in its interpretation of what constitutes Freedom, Liberty and Justice. Man will always try to change (improve?) the rules as he goes along.

    Also, a danger exists if those who [say they] have a direct “line to God” ‘interpret’ and therefore “flavour” His word. I believe the Bible speaks for itself and is of “no private interpretation”. We sure don’t need anything like the Roman Catholic papacy heading such a system of government. That’s been tried and was a dismal failure – not to mention its obvious similarities with the aims of Islam – world domination and the silencing and/or removal of all voices of dissent.

    I think you summed it up best with your – “albeit that their effort was consequently meant for a “moral people” in the Christian sense”.

    I guess I struggle to see any form of meaningful morality outside of those who embrace Judeo-Christian values [you don’t have to be Christian to do this, obviously]. And is there an alternative which we can use as a basis in the formulating of a modern constitution? Aside from the example as per the U.S. constitution I really don’t see any alternative workable solutions.


  15. And is there an alternative which we can use as a basis in the formulating of a modern constitution?

    Is there anything that can top this idea:

    “One Nation, under God, with Liberty and Justice for all”..?


  16. From the Chicken Little Science Files:

    An insight into this was given by a paper published by Nature on February 17, which claimed to show for the first time how man-made climate change greatly increases the risk of flood damage. Among the eight authors of the paper are two of the most influential scientists at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Prof Peter Stott of the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Dr Myles Allen, head of Oxford’s Climate Dynamics Group. Two of their co-authors are from Risk Management Solutions (RMS), a California-based firm which is the world leader in advising the insurance industry on climate change.

    The study, based entirely on computer models, focused on the exceptional flooding that took place in England and Wales in the autumn of 2000. Its conclusion – that climate change could increase the chance of flooding by up to 90 per cent – was widely publicised, without questioning, by all the usual media cheerleaders for global warming, led by the BBC’s Richard Black (“Climate change increases flood risk, researchers say”).

    When less partisan observers examined the paper, however, they were astonished. Although Nature has long been a leading propagandist for man-made climate change, this example seemed truly bizarre. Why had this strangely opaque study been based solely on the results of a series of computer models – mainly provided by the Hadley Centre and RMS – and not on any historical data about rainfall and river flows?

    The Met Office’s own records show no upward trend in UK rainfall between 1961 and 2004. Certainly autumn 2000 showed an unusual rainfall maximum, but it was exceeded in 1930. The graph between then and 2010 shows no significant upward trend. While 2000 may have seen a lot of rain, 1768 and 1872 were even wetter. In the real world, the data show no evidence of an increase in UK rainfall at all. Any idea that there is one seemed to be entirely an artefact of the computer models.


Comments are closed.