I would not wrap my chips in the Murdoch news either, but I’m not wasting my time. My comment above is the second half of another article, Australians were never asked and never gave permission for today’s mass immigration Someone has to combat this propaganda because it is being presented again and again to people as if it represented their opinion back to them. The agenda of a big population to increase corporate power and the financial interests of a tiny class of people is the big thing - not the boat people - Have a look athttp://candobetter.org/node/431
People need to know about how they are being manipulated and if those who can see it don’t start to create their own press, then we are doomed to become just another bankrupt and corrupt colony due to overpopulation via the official routes. It may seem to dignify the Murdoch fish-wrappings, but when people google their titles and get something critical instead, we give ourselves a chance. Editors at candobetter.org try to promote articles by all kinds of people - anyone in this country who understands that they can be real and contribute, rather than consume ideas passively should be encouraged to report on real opinion to replace Murdoch opinion.

As for sheridan. Anyone who takes anything he says seriously after his drunken public behaviour at those awards is as bad as he is, and his colleagues at the Murdoch stables are the same. They give journalism a bad name! Can’t stand any of them; wouldn’t even wrap my chips in those rags. They push the ultra right all the time. They’re racist and never let the truth spoil their agenda - support corporate wealth, greed, anti-human rights, they’re sexist, racist and use sensationalism to sell their garbage etc. Why waste your time SHEILA?

And those Sydney guys convicted of terrorism? Alan says “They got here somehow”. Several times, nod nod, wink wink.

So Alan, how did they get here? Family reunion by plane? How did the 9/11 hijackers get into the USA? Over the Mexico border on foot through the desert, or was it … business migration programme, by plane?

Come on old boy, I know you’ve been sick, I won’t be mean. Just tell us how the terrorists for real got to Australia. Otherwise we will know your latest squawking is just another dose of Liberal Party viagara before you go all wrinkly and limp again, to be sent on viking boat ride of your own. Sooner the better.

In contrast, Turnbull: “What I would do is not have a policy that fails.”
And some months ago in the National Press Club, when asked what’s a hard decision he would make: “Well I’ll tell you an easy decision I would make, and that’s not to treat parliament with contempt.”
Turnbull may be a sheep in wolf’s clothing.

Apart from the fact that Kevin Rudd and John Howard look different from each other - a child could probably tell them apart physically - the average adult might already have some trouble telling their asylum-seeker policies apart. In his article in the Australian “Boat People paint PM into a corner”, Sheridan sets about trying to establish some difference, but the words are clumsy and unconvincing:

“Rudd is absolutely right to take a tough line against illegal immigration. Those who criticise him for doing so and saying so, such as the normally sound Labor MP Michael Danby, or those who cannot bring themselves to embrace the Prime Minister’s language, such as Foreign Minister Stephen Smith in a remarkably evasive and feeble performance on Lateline, merely show how much better, shrewder and braver than the Labor Party Rudd is.

There is a reason this government is so dominated by its PM.”

It doesn’t matter if the job is hard and the materials poor. If you repeat that Rudd is ‘right to take a tough line against illegal immigration’ often enough, people will begin to think that this is somehow the crucial point of Australia’s population policy.

There is a gem here, though, which you might miss if you began to nod off before you got to the end of Sheridan’s article (and who could blame you)?

Right at the end, Sheridan writes this amazing assertion, that Rudd is

“much better, shrewder and braver than the Labor Party”

What does this tell the alert observer? Well, it sounds to me like a message to the old Liberal-National voters who worry that the ALP has got in and that dear old Howard got the boot. It’s telling them, “You don’t need to worry. Rudd isn’t really the Labor Party. It isn’t really a Labor Government as long as Rudd ‘dominates’ it.

Clearly the Murdoch Press is pleased with Kevin Rudd’s performance to date and they don’t regret the departure of Howard, although they know that some of their readers still do.

On the other hand, what should Labor sympathisers think about this?

In my opinion, they should be worried! If they weren’t already. But not because of Rudd’s attitude to asylum seekers. They should be worried that Rudd is overpopulating this country legally to the satisfaction of the growth lobby. As if that were not bad enough, he shows contempt for refugees by allowing a gigantic stream of legal immigrants in but almost no refugees. If that doesn’t tell you that the main interest the growth lobby has in immigrants is their money, then you are not reading the signs correctly.

At the same time we can see that Mr Sheridan has become an apologist for geographically distant refugee determination detention facilities because Mr Rudd is running into problems accommodating asylum-seekers.

“There are hard truths in this debate. Let me confess my own sins. When the Howard government introduced the Pacific solution, I was virulently opposed to it. I thought it was inhumane and wouldn’t work. In fact, it did work. It also became clear to me the vast majority of people intercepted were not refugees but illegal immigrants.”

Mr Rudd is also running into problems accommodating Australians, so perhaps we will soon hear that a few gulags will be built to house the more unruly homeless and unemployed, not to mention those who demand democratic government, under those Howard government terrorism laws that the Rudd government also embraces.

There is more about this at Growth Lobby but feel free to moderate if this is one link too far.

Could it be that the Goverment doesn’t want to “lock up children” because they would prefer Indonesida does it? In substandard detention centres??

Both sides are ‘all at sea’ on this because it appears no-one really knows which way the great “unwashed masses” (ie the electorate) will fall on it.