Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA

A new PM, a new world order

June 30, 2010, part 1 of 1.
Download mp3 » click here

30 June 2010 | Permalink | comments: 9

Categories: [ ]

We lead tonight with revelations that Julia Gillard's partner, Tim Mathieson, works for leading Israel lobbyist Albert Dadon.

We also cover several breaking stories in relation to the police crackdown at the G20 summit in Toronto plus a selection of news stories from our twitter stream, all with customary TNRA chutzpah.

In the second half our planned guest interview did not take place and we do apologise if tonight's show is somewhat haphazard as a result.

We plan to get some high quality interviews on the show soon!

G20 Toronto Collected Scenes of Police Brutality



Related Links

Comments

You are doing good work Hereward. I am proud to have been associated with you in the early years of 2006 when we were all alone out there. <br><br>I see you are now realising how much of a stranglehold the Israelis have on foreign countries and if we dont stop it we are all screwed.

By Jake McCrann on 2010 07 03 - 10:44:48

The project is called Diaspora.<br><br>“The privacy aware, personally controlled, do-it-all, open source social network.”

By Calem on 2010 07 06 - 14:39:19

http://www.joindiaspora.com/2010/07/01/one-month-in.html

By Calem on 2010 07 06 - 14:41:27

Frightenning statements from Gillard!<br>Encouraging another push from Global Warmist Aussie Supremo Connor!<br>What guiles me is that again we cannot rely on any mainstream media reports that will look into ‘the other side’ of any issue other than which the ‘Government’ feeds them. Journalists? My arse<br>What about Climategate, Freedom Flotilla raids, Gaza and US use of torture…let alone 911!!<br>If ever this Country needed a NEW political party, it is NOW!!

By angry dave on 2010 07 06 - 20:31:09

I’m serious! How about the Australian Truth Party!! <br>Every Policy decision based on truth and no ‘spin’ - Couldn’t go wrong!

By angry dave on 2010 07 06 - 20:36:18

I totally agree Angry Dave… I’d support the Aussie truth Party… For sure…

By Daniel A on 2010 07 16 - 06:23:24

[have you thought|but what] about the [kids|children] - they are [definately|really] [whats most important|whats important|what matters] [in this situation|here]

By Lane Cairns on 2010 12 07 - 20:46:45

So he’s not just a “beard”. This goes to show how stupid they think is the Australian are. Come on! Her partner works for an Israeli lobbyist and we’re supposed to think it’s OK because she says so?

By Tony on 2011 06 01 - 07:37:55

Claiming that we would be defeated in an all out war against the State on a global level is incorrect. We outnumber these globalist thugs by millions to one, of course millions would die but they would eventually succumb to the will of the people as long as they were organised.
Not that I advocate violence, I’m merely speaking hypothetically.
Why haven’t they moved in on the US population before attempting to disarm them ?  They know that it would descend to a guerrilla war and they know that you can’t win such a war against the people.

By Tony on 2011 06 01 - 08:42:51

Enter comments below, then click Submit:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Listen Live

Recent Comments

Geoffrey, I’m inclined to agree with what you say, except that I wasn’t saying ‘anything goes’. I was only pointing out what free speech is, and that it isn’t what most people who like to think of themselves as liberal (or whatever) want it to be. They like to think they are open-minded and progressive, yet they support the assertion of authority over others.

If anyone can dictate what I cannot speak about, that sets a precedent. It means that no-one has freedom of speech at all. I don’t want to say nasty things about gays, for example, but if I support the idea of some body being able to stop others doing that, it would be hypocritical to then oppose that same body imposing other similarly arbitrary limitations on me.

Thus I am opposed to any limitations on speech (that is free speech!). It doesn’t mean I approve of any particular thing someone might say, but I do uphold their right to say it.

By zek on 2015 01 31 - 03:30:57
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

Free speech of course is free speech, as ‘Zek’ opines.  He is saying that ‘anything goes’.

On the other hand, some ‘anti-discrimination laws’ particularly in NSW Australia, make it unlawful to make any public statement that is deemed to offend persons who are, or who are reasonably believed to be, homosexual.  This anti-free speech law was bought into existence by Ms Clover Moore and it was called the Anti-Discriminaiton (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Act 1993. Read more about the nightmare this law can create, here: http://bernardgaynor.com.au/into-battle-backup-required/#comment-384568

This show by Hereward Fenton I found very mind-stretching and interesting.  It was as if he was taking us on an inquiry together in order to discover a deeper truth.  It discussed many aspects of free speech in the current climate of fear and loathing. There are several dictionary definintions of ‘paradox’.  Here’s one definition that I think Mr Fenton had in mind:- ‘a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth’.

We can also say free speech is not free speech, in that most of us (except trolls) self-censor.  Our empathy, if we have any, stops our speech from being free.  This raises the question, what do we do about those without empathy, who are psychopaths or trolls, and actually get pleasure from using speech to attack and hurt people. In order to avoid laws that try to control what people can and cannot publicly say, one solution is to change our attitude, and cultivate tolerance and resiliance. This is based on the insight that mothers used to tell their kids who were bullied at school.

Sticks and stones
will break your bones
but words will never hurt you.

This little ditty reresents the opposite of what the vilification laws are about.

By Geoffrey McKee on 2015 01 31 - 00:52:48
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

I think the search for answers is pretty obvious now Fenton, it seems most avenues end up in the same place so for you and your followers, I think you are doing a great job, but its time to expose the elephant in the living room, once 9-11, is sorted and the world wars, its pretty much a Rothschild & Israhelli terrorist state purpetrating (ALL) the worlds angst! Imagine no refugees because no wars, MM its like that cure the scource, Breddon O,connell (SPOT ON) mate. Lets support people like this who see the Truth. Here,s to a better world smile Bring it on !

By Lachlan on 2015 01 29 - 20:47:17
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Sorry guys, “homophobes” in my last post should have read islamophobes…sometimes my finger get a little ahead of my thinking!

By Eugene Donnini on 2015 01 29 - 16:56:08
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

josh anonymous thinks his banal obfuscations can dispel any and all concerns regarding atmospheric spraying.
you may believe your bullshit bluff and bluster - but it does nothing to prove your case of no such thing as chemtrails, when that picture is but one of hundreds you will see if you enter chemtrail satellite into a search engine..

you can explain all them away with your unqualified babble - fact is.. if trails require specific rare conditions in oreder to persist, even for a short while.. ie; a few minutes, that doesnt go anywhere near explaining what is shown covering an entire country..  your full of it..  unless you can post evidence of your claim, that there is no such thing as chemtrails, i dont care for anything you have to say, you have proven repeatedly your disposition towards mendacity..

so again.. to put it bluntly.. put up or STFU.

By theehwh on 2015 01 29 - 14:53:44
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

aewt/Andrew Adams/Skywatcher,

the image you posted was taken from this original NASA publication.

Note that it’s an enhanced infrared image, but nevertheless it was a day with many trails in that region (January 29, 2004).

Here is the whole satellite photo (thumbnail) in real color, which provides some perspective about the proportions. Note the cloud band over Florida with the embedded contrails:

The original high-res image (17 MB) is also still available here.


Again, “rare” is a relative term; the actual numbers and the context are more telling.
As the study of R. Sausen and others says (I have referenced it before):

The annual global mean value is 0.09%

(From “A Diagnostic Study of the Global Distribution of Contrails Part I: Present Day Climate”)

Now, the surface area of the Earth is 510 million square kilometers. That means roughly 460 000 square kilometers of pure contrail area - at every moment, excluding all the gaps, and obviously concentrated in areas where there is air traffic.

The central point is that this is the average, so of course there can be local and temporal maxima. Nothing there to make scientists fret about.

By Josh on 2015 01 29 - 01:41:43
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

it appears from this picture

that the specific, RARE, ( i say rare because that is what was said in an article posted by josh anonymous himself ) atmospheric conditions for contrails to persist… actually must in reality, occur all over the world, all the bloody time!

josh and fenton are liars. simple as that.

By aewt on 2015 01 28 - 13:12:16
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

At least Christendom has modified its act…even the Pope calls for peace and reconciliation, admited the Churches complicity in past atrocities, apologized to the Jews and so on…

re free speech: I suppose Hereward needs to be very careful about what he says, and would be fully aware that his every word is being monitored by others. I think he does a great job and has on more than one occasion come very close to the edge. He’s also entitled to his opinion, and although I don’t agree with it at times, in my opinion, it doesn’t detract from the work he is doing.

By Eugene Donnini on 2015 01 28 - 10:51:17
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

Free speech is free speech. If you believe in any restrictions on it, then you don’t believe in FREE speech. People often say, “I’m all for free speech but…” - there are no buts, it’s either free or it isn’t. Be honest, if you don’t believe in free speech, admit it. I’m not advocating either side of the argument here, just pointing out a fact.

By Zek on 2015 01 28 - 04:26:08
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

Rattus, do you know about the military conquests of Christian nations, from the crusades through to the conquest of Mexico? Do you know about how the ‘Christian’ slave traders operated in Africa? Do you know what the ‘Christian’ French did in Indochina, or the ‘Christian’ English did in India, or the ‘Christian’ Dutch did in Indonesia?

I think maybe your education in these matters is a bit one-sided, in that you have read and absorbed only one polemical perspective and missed the forest for the trees.

If you’re looking for atrocities, look no further than Christendom.

As for the Charlie Hebdo cover, surely you understand that the headline is the main message conveyed? The headline says “The Koran is Shit” - a direct insult to Muslims. Imagine if a magazine had the headline “The Torah is Shit” - how long do you think such a publication would remain in circulation?

By Hereward Fenton on 2015 01 27 - 22:40:05
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

Categories