Kim Bax gets a Supreme Court injunction
Kim Bax, webmaster of Women for Schapelle, reported that she had received a Supreme Court injunction (post since removed), which threatens her with severe consequences if she mentions certain "serious allegations" about the Seven Network. These allegations are connected to the disclosures found at the Expendable Project, a website dedicated to exposing fraud, disinformation and perversion of the course of justice perpetrated by the mainstream media and supported by successive Australian governments, in relation to the Schapelle Corby marijuana smuggling case.
More from Kim Bax:
REDACTED ON REQUEST
The injunction apears to be spurred by the allegations of former private investigator Col Chapman, who claims that while working as a contractor for Seven Network, he engaged in surveillance of members of the Corby Family, including bugging of homes and the use of GPS tracking devices.
We wish to empahsise that these allegations are as yet unproven, as is the authenticity of Col Chapman. Expendable.tv has since removed the audio of the Col Chapman interview from their website.
TNRA recently covered the work of the expendable project, including an interview with one of the key researchers.
Son of Climategate
After two years, the climategate scandal has erupted once again, with a new tranche of embarrassing emails from the world's top climate researchers now spreading virally across the net. The release of these emails seems timed to overshadow the upcomng Durban conference in the same way the previous release preceded the COP 2009 conference.
Chris Smith speaks with Shadow Climate Change Minister Greg Hunt about the leaked emails casting doubt on the science of climate change.
The climate science establishment has predictably hit back with a swift and savage rebuttal:
Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Centre at Penn State University and a scientist whose name appears in several of the emails, dismissed the latest email release as “truly pathetic”. He instead said the hackers were “agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry know they can’t contest the fundamental science of human-caused climate change. So they have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat. Its right out of the tried-and-true playbook of climate change denial.”
In tonight's show Josh Jackson joins us to mull over this news and other matters of public importance.
- Fresh round of hacked climate science emails leaked online
- Climategate II: 5000+ new emails released sparking climate conspiracy despite evidence
- Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!
- OWS Website Bans Alex Jones “Conspiracy Theories”
- Self-sabotaging scientists who have their doubts
- Barrier Reef job among leaked mail
The “communitarian” world view (for climate dummies)
On tonight's show we take a look at a recent article by Naomi Klein titled "Capitalism vs. the Climate". In a key passage, Klein states the following:
"Those with strong 'egalitarian' and 'communitarian' worldviews (marked by an inclination toward collective action and social justice, concern about inequality and suspicion of corporate power) overwhelmingly accept the scientific consensus on climate change. On the other hand, those with strong 'hierarchical' and 'individualistic' worldviews (marked by opposition to government assistance for the poor and minorities, strong support for industry and a belief that we all get what we deserve) overwhelmingly reject the scientific consensus."
This appears to be an admission that the views of the left and the right on climate change are shaped more by their political ideals than by any regard for science based evidence. However, as we have been at pains to demonstrate on this show, the truth is the only thing that really matters, and the attempt to make climate science a political tool to serve agendas for social change is both a betrayal of science and of public trust in scientists. As such it can only be seen as anathema to freedom, democracy and science itself.
Nonetheless this style of thinking, which Klein describes as "communitarian", appears to be very influential and many believe that it is the way of the future.
In part 2 Steph from Occupy Sydney returns to the show to talk about his recent experiences with the group. After the arrest of many of the risk taking free thinkers, he asserts that the movement is now dominated by collectivst "group think", in which all individual expression is suppressed.
A great show!
Occupy Building 7
November 19 and 20, 2011. In front of the rebuilt World Trade Center Building 7.
DEMAND an investigation into the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 and the Twin Towers
September 11, 2001 - the The United States was hijacked and a permanent war was launched that will not end in our lifetime unless we the 99% stop it.
Ten years later the War on Terrorism has diverted trillions of dollars from more important uses and sunken our country into debt.
Building 7, which most people don’t know about, came crashing to the ground at 5:20pm on September 11th. Today, millions of citizens and 1,600 courageous architects and engineers are demanding an investigation into the suspect destruction of this skyscraper.
The government's absurd story that "normal office fires" felled this 47-story skyscraper is only the tip of the iceberg of the anomalies and inconsistencies we've been given about 9/11.
Welcome to a “Hung” Democracy
And so it came to pass that a small band of the selfish or deluded came to steal the blood, sweat and toil of the many.
They lied, broke solemn promises, failed to provide evidence, and displayed a singular lack of good-manners. They viciously insulted anyone who disagreed, they hid the models the public were forced to pay for, they gave patrons highly paid jobs to advertize their scheme.
They speak arrant nonsense as if it is the bleeding obvious: telling us that we will grow rich if we use energy that costs more; that coal miners are to blame for heavy rain; that more taxes will bring investors; that we’ll lose jobs if we don’t pay more than we need to for energy; or that 6.98 billion people will follow the 0.02 billion who lead us on the path to the Land of Stupid. They made prophesies that failed time after time, yet speak on, as if only they have the vision to guide us.
The polls show the public would not have elected people who wanted to bring in a Carbon Tax. Yet it is law.
The narcissistic self-anointed activists have overreached, and it will be their undoing.
“We’re copying the EU” except the EU took $1.50 per capita over 5 years, and we’re taking 250 times as much.
The selfish include the parasitic members of the species homo-sapiens — they who produce little of value, but demand the rest provide them with food, housing and rewards. These demands are enacted through the government, under the guise of “helping” to prevent a non-existent threat.
The deluded include many people of good will, who are too busy (working to support the parasitic class) to check that their news sources, schools, and government officials are giving them both sides of the story, or that their search engines are behaving fairly (who would know?).
People can simultaneously belong to both groups. Some of the parasitic class, deceive themselves that they are helping. They take no responsibility for the children who drowned in floods they said would never come. They will never know, nor apologize to those who die prematurely of diseases that could have been cured. They think not of all the invisible jobs that were gone before they were offered, or the factories that moved overseas.
9/11 Theories: Expert vs. Expert
Why can't the experts get their stories straight? A condensed summary of all the conflicting expert theories that make no sense, purporting to explain the collapse of the twin towers.
The political sacrifice of Schapelle Corby
WARNING: this podcast will make you angry.
If you take the information seriously and research the links we provide, you will soon realise that the people who govern you have no decency or integrity. If you have a conscience at all this will force you to take a stand. You will not be able to sit on the sidelines any more.
You will be radicalised.
The substantive facts in the story of Schapelle Corby are not well understood, largely because the media has done such a good job of muddying the waters and putting doubt into the minds of the public. We wish to set the record straight, and we wish to inspire the people of Australia to demand accountability from their elected representatives in government. We wish to hold the media to account, and we want the purveyors of baseless smears and hit pieces to be brought to some kind of justice.
In our system of laws a person is innocent until proven guilty. A person does not have to prove innocence, the prosecution must prove guilt. Like it or not, that is the underlying principle of the laws which govern our land, and that is what differentiates a country like Australia from despotic regimes around the world where people can simply disappear if they offend the tyrants who rule over them. It is central to democracy.
We are not claiming absolute proof that Schapelle is innocent. We are claiming an astonishing lack of proof that she is guilty. In addition to that, we have overwhelming evidence that the government colluded in covering up information which may have fully exonerated Schapelle and forced the Indonesians to release her.
For a detailed summary of the the key facts in the Schapelle Corby case, please visit the Expendable Project.
Today's show consists of 2 interviews. The first, conducted on Sydney's Radio Skid Row 88.9 FM, is an interview with one of the creators of the Expendable Project website, who details for us the bombshell evidence that senior members of the Howard government conspired to misinfom the Australian public, Indonesian prosecutors and defence counsel about crucial evidence that Schapelle's bag had been tampered with during her transit from Brisbane to Bali.
In the second interview we talk to Schapelle's uncle Shun Hatton, who knows Schapelle well, and who had been planning to meet her in Bali for the family reunion which ended in disaster in October 2004.
To those who think they know Schapelle is guilty, I wish to remind you that every assertion that has been made linking Schapelle to the drug trade has been debunked. Every single one. There is simply no extant evidence that links Schapelle or her family to the drug trade. Her sister Mercedes continues to live in Bali. She has never been a suspect in any criminal investigation and she won a defamation case against Channel 7 over a series of Today Tonight episodes in which Schapelle's former friend, Jodie Powers, made allegations about the family's drug dealing history. It later emerged that Jodie Powers was paid $100,000 by Seven network for airing these baseless allegations on national TV.
We have previously debunked other rumours about the Corby family which were circulated by mainstream press. For more information on the smear campaigns against Schapelle please check our previous episodes on the subject, and the Schapelle Corby Media Project.
On a final note, if there are visitors to this page who wish to share new information pertaining to this case, we urge you to contact us. Our mission is to find out the truth, rather than to protect or defend any point of view. We will absorb and reflect upon on any new information, regardless of its implications for the guilt or innocence of Schapelle.
The 9/11 Commission claims that we found ‘no evidence’
Kevin Ryan | 30 October 2011
When Underwriters Laboratories fired me for challenging the World Trade Center (WTC) report that it helped create with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), it said “there is no evidence” that any firm performed the required fire resistance testing of the materials used to build the Twin Towers. Of course, that was a lie.
With this experience in mind, I checked to see how many times the 9/11 Commission Report used the phrase “no evidence,” and noted in particular the times the Commission claimed to have “found no evidence” or that “no evidence was uncovered.” I discovered that the phrase “no evidence” appears an amazing 63 times. An example is the dubious statement — “There is no evidence to indicate that the FAA recognized Flight 77 as a hijacking until it crashed into the Pentagon (p 455).”
Of these 63 instances, some variation of “we found no evidence” appears three dozen times. This seems to be an unusually high number of disclaimers begging ignorance, given that the Commission claims to have done “exacting research” in the production of a report that was the “fullest possible accounting of the events of September 11, 2001.”
The number of times these “no evidence” disclaimers appear in the report is doubly amazing considering how infrequently some of the most critical witnesses and evidence are referenced. For example, the FAA’s national operations manager, Benedict Sliney, who was coordinating the FAA’s response that day, appears only once in the narrative (and twice in the notes). And the FAA’s hijack coordinator, Michael Canavan, appears only twice in the narrative, with neither of those citations having anything to do with Canavan’s assigned role as the key link between the military and the FAA, a role whose failure the Commission says caused the attacks to succeed. Similarly, the testimony of FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who says Bin Laden worked with the U.S. government up until the day of the attacks, is mentioned only once in the notes. William Rodriguez, the WTC janitor who has publicly testified to basement level explosions, is not mentioned at all despite having given testimony to the Commission.
It seems a good idea to look more closely at the instances in which the attorneys, myth experts and military intelligence operatives who wrote the 9/11 Commission Report said that they did not find evidence. Here are a few of the most interesting examples.
- “We found no evidence, however, that American Airlines sent any cockpit warnings to its aircraft on 9/11.” p11
- Concerning the hypothesis that one of the alleged hijackers was sitting in the cockpit jump seat since takeoff on Flight 93: “We have found no evidence indicating that one of the hijackers, or anyone else, sat there on this flight.” p12
- Within minutes of the second WTC impact, Boston Center asked the FAA Command Center (Benedict Sliney’s team) to advise aircraft to heighten cockpit security, but the Commission said: “We have found no evidence to suggest that the Command Center acted on this request or issued any type of cockpit security alert.” p23
- With respect to requests to warn aircraft to heighten cockpit security — “While Boston Center sent out such warnings to the commercial flights in its sector, we could find no evidence that a nationwide warning was issued by the ATC system.” p455