Category Archives: General
by investigative journalist and editor-at-large Gil Hanrahan
The ABC has been caught out acting as an agent of government perpetuating the lies and terrible media misinformation that surrounds the Port Arthur massacre where 35 people allegedly were killed by a lone shooter, Martin Bryant.
For 22 years the ABC and other mainstream media have been paramount in manipulating the true story of Port Arthur, how a drill turned into a massacre which has been covered up at the highest levels of government.
This week the Tasmania Liberal Party Government, in election mode, announced it will free up the stringent provisions of the state’s firearms laws enacted by all states after the Port Arthur event in 1996.
The Liberals have proposed changes to gun laws which would give farm workers and sporting shooters greater access to category C weapons, including pump-action shotguns, self-loading rifles and silencers.
The usual cries of horror by the media and now a survivor of the shooting, are screaming foul that the laws should not be tampered with and left alone.
The excerpt below from an ABC news transcript released on March 2, 2018, clearly shows how a manipulative journalist, Fiona Blackwood, has inferred Port Arthur victim Peter Croswell was shot by Martin Bryant.
“…survivor Peter Crosswell said he would be devastated if Tasmania’s gun laws were weakened in any way.
Mr Crosswell was shot by Martin Bryant while lying on the ground trying to protect two women.
He was one of the few people to survive the shooting massacre inside the Broad Arrow Cafe at the convict-era tourism site at Port Arthur in 1996, later being awarded a bravery medal for his actions.
“After Port Arthur, there was a lot of work put in by a lot of people, a lot of people were in a great deal of pain then, to get these gun laws in place,” Mr Croswell said….”
Nowhere in the ABC article was Mr Croswell directly quoted as saying Martin Bryant shot him.
Thanks to expatriate Australian, now Austrian-based investigative journalist and author Keith Noble, his hallmark work MASS MURDER: Official Killing in Tasmania, Australia (2nd edition; 2014) reveals a great deal about the massacre the Federal Government would not like published in the news media.
Indeed on April 28,1996, the same day he was shot Mr Croswell was shown a number of photos including one of Martin Bryant and in his statement told police:
WITNESS: CROSSWELL, Peter David
DATE: 28 April 1996 (same day as incident)
CONCERNS: “At this point a male person stood up. He yelled out something like ‘No No Not Here.’ I then saw the gunman shoot this guy in the head.” &
“I didn’t move but I could see his sandshoes across the floor.” &“I then saw a yellow car of some description leave the car park.”
WITNESS: CROSSWELL, Peter David
DATE: 1 July 1996 (63 days after incident)
CONCERNS: “…long shoulder length blonde hair.” &
“I do however remember that he was carrying a long bag when he came into the restaurant. The bag appeared to be heavy.” &
“I have been shown a photograph identification board by Detective GHEDINI which consisted of thirty (30) photo graphs of male persons. I am unable to identify any of these males as being responsible for the shootings in side the Broad Arrow Café.”
A footnote by author Keith Noble identifies the man who stood up in the Broad Arrow café when the shooting started:
“This witness(Peter Crosswell) was wounded inside the café. To his credit and that of witnesses Pamelia (sic) Law and Thelma Walker who were with Crosswell, none of them identified Martin Bryant as the gunman. It would have been easy for them to say it was Martin. They all saw the gunman, but they all stated the truth – they did not see Martin Bryant. Thank you. The person this witness saw get shot inside the cafe, the person who called out “No No Not Here,” is believed to be Anthony Nightingale, a suspected intelligence agent. (see INDEX)”
The news clip from ABC archives shows Mr Croswell in hospital, but his narrative does not mention Martin Bryant.
This is the depth of depravity into which our mainstream media will prostitute themselves to keep the real truth from the public.
We could make excuses for the ABC journalist as she would have been a young girl at the time of Port Arthur, however she was either under instruction or had not bothered to do any basic research about the events of that fateful day at one of Tasmania’s iconic convict outposts.
NOTE: Cairns News does not in any way suggest Peter David Croswell is involved in a cover-up of the actual events at Port Arthur, then or now. Major amendments to Australia’s costly, unworkable and ineffective gun laws are long overdue consequently the Cairns News editorial board wishes the Tasmania Liberal Party all the best for the election and sincerely hopes it can retain government. Read our archives for more in-depth investigations of this tragic event. There you will discover a photograph and the names of the real shooters, as well as the true reason why the President of the Australian senate was forced to quit Parliament last year.
This is the link to the current ABC story: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-02/port-arthur-survivor-plea-over-tasmanian-liberals-gun-laws/9503356
At a conference in the Whitehouse last week survivors and families of those students and teachers shot at the Parkland, Florida school were pushing Donald Trump to tighten up gun laws.
One student told the President that Australia’s gun laws were a model for the world. This poor fella had been seriously misinformed. A reader kindly prepared a timeline of gun related deaths across Australia AFTER PM Johnnie Howard and Deputy Tim Fischer’s stringent new gun laws came into effect. It speaks for itself and shows how misleading the Australian media can be.
Cairns News does not support individual gun registration because of its inaccuracy, enormous cost for little benefit and inconvenience for all gun owners.
Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.
The next NATs’ Party meeting could set Australia back on track by deciding to reverse what Turnbull tried to do to them. Turnbull made no secret of the fact he was trying to get the NATs to sack Barnaby. Well, that’s heresy and guess what, as I have been saying from day one, Barnaby is going nowhere, it’s Turnbull who should be worried.
A deputation of NATs should now go to Turnbull’s office and demand he step down or the NATs will rip up the coalition agreement and leave the Libs to wallow diseased and deceased.
So, at the next joint Party meeting, the proposition should be put to the entire Liberal Party where many would be quite excited by the idea.
The NATs, in the meantime, will have had meetings with Bernardi and all other Right of Centre Parties and Independents, who I believe would break their necks to preference the NATs at the next election but not the Libs.
Turnbull support diminished and still shrinking
There would no doubt be Liberal Party defections as it became clear that this NAT coalition would stop Shorten dead in his tracks and the Liberal Party would effectively become defunct, never to rule again.
Those who always voted Liberal will also naturally preference the NATs. The Liberal Party deserves to die for allowing Turnbull to capitulate to his Lefty Labor mates, deserting the Menzies centrist doctrine.
The combination would see the NATs as the senior conservative Party in Government as it already holds 21 seats in the Parliament. The three-corner election deals would be scrapped and the NATs could field and win with candidates in seats, where it formerly could not.
This would give Aussie voters what they crave… a clear choice between socialist and conservative and if you add to that Shorten’s appalling popularity figures it would be impossible for even Graham Richardson to predict a Labor/Green win.
The NATs would undoubtedly win between 35 and 40 seats, most at the expense of the Liberals, but it would be the NATs, combined with a diminished Liberal Party, who would be able to convince the GG that they could easily form government as one Party.
The Liberals would then have to agree to a One-Party Conservative Coalition where grubby Lefty wastrels like Bishop, Payne, Frydenberg, Hunt and Pyne etc would no longer run the joint and they would have to toe the line as they did before Turnbull assassinated Abbott.
A One-Party Coalition Government would likely elect Dutton as PM and retain Joyce as his Deputy.
Now Australia could have an honest Conservative Government that will kill off the ABC and Fraser’s SBS, dump the Paris accord, start re-mining coal, get energy costs back to normal, ban RETs, develop the north, start on nuclear power, halve immigration, combine and halve our security agencies, decimate the corrupt and bloated SCSIRO, ban immigration from known terrorist nations, reduce QUANGOs by 75%, reduce all Departmental budgets by 10%, reduce the Public Service by 5,000, cap their salaries, allow the States to collect and spend their own GST, stop ‘nominated’ Aboriginal status, reform the judiciaries, Reform the Senate, force States to reform the Family Court and the CSA, stop Islamic welfare rorts, tell the Islamic dominated UN to go root its boot, ban deficit spending, rip up 20,000 regulations, cull crocodiles and bats and at the next election include a fair dinkum referendum on restoring a trashed Marriage Act. (You can look forward to a much different result than the last Green inspired dodgy one.)
Okay so I might have my hand on it but really, Turnbull must go, and the only people with the testicular fortitude to make that happen are the NATs.
Kay Griggs, a US Colonel’s wife reveals all about the Deep State. This incredible, in-depth interview exposes how the Deep State operates, how the CIA is a sham with little power. The army has all the power and has trained mercenaries killing people across the world. She names every powerful person involved from former presidents down to low ranking Marines.
If you can spare an hour do not miss this powerful disclosure of the Deep State and Australia’s involvement in it.
One concerned Cairns News reader has offered a reward for information leading to the identity of those responsible for dobbing in the man who shot a five metre man-eating crocodile in the Fitzroy River near Rockhampton in September last year. Any confidential information can be relayed to Cairns News and will be passed on to the concerned reader.
The accused shooter, Luke Stephen Orchard of Etna Creek, has carried out a commendable public service by killing such a menacing reptile. He was charged by police for taking a crocodile without a permit. Cairns News hopes the shooter does not have to pay any fine. Cairns News can also report the concerned reader has called on responsible citizens to sort out any members of the PETA crazies interfering with farm animals. The reader said he would look favourably at tanning the hides of PETA agitators and keeping them with the crocodile skins in his trophy room.
JCU censures its own Professor for telling the truth “… there is nothing wrong with the Barrier Reef…”
The Australian Institute of Marine Studies has been caught out telling porkies….
by Don Aitkin
Well, the pressure to conform is happening again, and at Professor Bob Carter’s old university, James Cook University in Townsville. The late Bob Carter was censured by JCU some years ago for ridiculing the Global Warming theory. This time the proposed villain is JCU professor of physics, Peter Ridd, whose interests include coastal oceanography, the effects of sediments upon coral reefs, past and future climates and atmospheric modelling. I have met Peter Ridd, and I know something about his work. He has been head of the Department of Physics for ten years. His intellectual reach is wider than my short summary here, but I have put in what gives him some status in the world of global warming.
Professor Ridd’s comments on Sky news, to the effect that “We can no longer trust the scientific organisations like the Australian Institute of marine Science, even things like the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies… The science is coming out not properly checked, tested or replicated, and this is a great shame.”
He has been in the news before, drawing attention to the need to change the peer review system, and to what he sees as exaggerated claims about the dangers that threaten the Great Barrier Reef, alleging that scientists or spokesmen for scientific organisations like the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and government organisations like the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) were not behaving in a scientifically scrupulous way in announcing new claims and about danger. He was not alone in saying these things. The chairman of GBRMPA himself protested that headlines saying that ’93 per cent of the reef is ‘critically dead’ or that 35 per cent or even 50 per cent of the entire reef is now gone’ were rubbish. A former chairman said that ‘environmentalist were ‘exaggerating the impact of coral bleaching for political and financial gain’. Ridd said that a paper by JCU scientists foretelling the end of the reef was simply ‘laughable’. Bleaching is a natural event, and occurred long before there was human activity anywhere near the reef. What is more, reefs recover, sometimes quite quickly.
Nonetheless, the university told him he was ‘not displaying responsibility in respecting the reputations of other colleagues’. Do it again, he was told, and we’ll try you for ‘serious misconduct’. I’ve written about this before, and indeed the above is an introduction to the news that JCU indeed decided to discipline Professor Ridd, and started the process in late August last year. What for? The University’s statement is that it was disturbed by Professor Ridd’s comments on Sky news, to the effect that ‘We can no longer trust the scientific organisations like the Australian Institute of marine Science, even things like the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies… The science is coming out not properly checked, tested or replicated, and this is a great shame.’ Such statements, said the University, were ‘not in the collegial and academic spirit of the search for knowledge, understanding and truth’. Further, his comments had denigrated AIMS and were ‘not respectful and courteous’. In a letter tabled with the court, the University said that his comments could damage the reputation of AIMS and the University’s relationships with it.
On this occasion, Professor Ridd decided he had had enough, and launched his own court case against the CEO, claiming conflict of interest, apprehended bias and actual bias. It happens that the University’s Vice-Chancellor is a director of AIMS, which produces an obvious conflict of interest. The University then told Ridd he was not to ‘disclose or discuss these matters with media or in any other public forum’. His lawyers pointed out that either the University was incompetent or it was guided by bias, which the University’s lawyers denied.
Peter Ridd was kind enough to write to me about the alleged misconduct involved in talking to the media about the misconduct allegation, and later alerted me to the fact that there was deemed to be further misconduct involved in writing to me! I wish him well in all of this, which is so unnecessary, and so inimical to the cause of scholarship, argument and the advancement of knowledge.
I can appreciate the dilemma facing the Vice-Chancellor of James Cook University, for there is no doubt that research grant money is really important. I have to say that I did not have a comparable problem in my eleven years in the role, despite the pressure on everyone to get grant money if they could. Nonetheless, there is no doubt where I think the right is. A scientist who says that other people’s work is flawed has to show cause. In the case of the Great Barrier Reef that is not hard to do. There has been a lot of loud noise based on small pieces of work. It is not widely understood that the Reef is a vast system, and that it is not closely monitored. You would need hundreds, thousands, of researchers and assistants to do that. And there are lots of natural and cyclic causes for changes to the Reef’s coral. These events have happened before, and they will happen again. The correct response from those he has criticised is to respond in the proper way, show that Ridd is wrong, and that their work can withstand his criticism.
To the best of my knowledge that has not happened. Instead, Professor Ridd has been attacked in an ad hominem way. It seems to me utterly wrong for his own University to try to ‘discipline’ him so that he does not criticise others. That is not what science is about. It doesn’t matter what relationships JCU has with AIMS. If the AIMS work is poor, or inflated claims have been made about the importance of its research, the University ought to be able to point that out, and suggest that better work ought to be done, or that claims should be more subdued.
Ah, but this is the Reef, an icon of the environmental movement. And there is a lot of money about for ‘research’ that is ‘consistent’ with the notion that doom is at hand. Like Professor Ridd, I think that the University has gone down utterly the wrong track, and the sooner it departs from it the better. As it happens, the book I referred to at the beginning of this essay, No End of a Lesson, gives instances of other high-handed behaviour from Vice-Chancellors. They are not emperors, and should never give the impression that they think they are.
Still scratching your head over the Qld ALP’s push for gender bender Commonwealth Games and boys wearing dresses to school?
This extract is from the UN Agenda 30. Initially we were signed up in 1992 by then Queensland Labor Attorney General Rod Welford to Agenda 21 which has morphed into Agenda 30…
4.1 By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes
4.2 By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education
4.3 By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university
4.4 By 2030, substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship
4.5 By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations
4.6 By 2030, ensure that all youth and a substantial proportion of adults, both men and women, achieve literacy and numeracy
4.7 By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development
4.a Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all
4.b By 2020, substantially expand globally the number of scholarships available to developing countries, in particular least developed countries, small island developing States and African countries, for enrolment in higher education, including vocational training and information and communications technology, technical, engineering and scientific programmes, in developed countries and other developing countries
4.c By 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers, including through international cooperation for teacher training in developing countries, especially least developed countries and small island developing States
This compelling movie should be viewed by every Australian. As Australia is the 52nd state of the US, it is only a matter of time before these standoffs occur here. The Commonwealth of Australia is registered with the New York stock exchange, regulated by US corporation law. The Queensland Corporate Labor Government comes to mind when farmers are finally pushed hard enough to take a stand against the proposed vegetation management laws that are designed to shut down viable farmers and graziers in the state. If all of the state’s farmers banded together to stop the corporation’s policies of halting development, the ALP would be stymied.
About 30,500 businesses carry out agricultural activity in Queensland. Agricultural industries contribute more than $10 billion to the state’s economy each year. It will be up to farmers to decide if they want their business to continue or will allow the edicts of the UN agreement, Agenda 30 to which we are a signatory, shut them down. The ball is in your court Mr Primary Producer!
The ball also is firmly in the court of city consumers. Do they want to eat Queensland’s renowned clean and green produce or would they prefer imported, tainted food from countries such as China or Asia? The federal Liberal Party, aided and abetted by the ALP has signed free trade deals all over the world. The laissez faire policies of governments came back to bite them when the $87.7m farmed prawn industry was destroyed last year by imported prawns from Vietnam infected with white spot disease, all under the holy grail of free trade. Anne Bressington MP talks about the devastating effects of Agenda 21, now Agenda 30
Letter to the Editor
Three weeks after college, I flew to Senegal, West Africa, to run a community center in a rural town. Life was placid, with no danger, except to your health. That danger was considerable, because it was, in the words of the Peace Corps doctor, “a fecalized environment.”
In plain English: s— is everywhere. People defecate on the open ground, and the feces is blown with the dust – onto you, your clothes, your food, the water. He warned us the first day of training: do not even touch water. Human feces carries parasites that bore through your skin and cause organ failure.
Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined that a few decades later, liberals would be pushing the lie that Western civilization is no better than a third-world country. Or would teach two generations of our kids that loving your own culture and wanting to preserve it are racism.
Last time I was in Paris, I saw a beautiful African woman in a grand boubou have her child defecate on the sidewalk next to Notre Dame Cathedral. The French police officer, ten steps from her, turned his head not to see.
I have seen. I am not turning my head and pretending unpleasant things are not true.
Senegal was not a hellhole. Very poor people can lead happy, meaningful lives in their own cultures’ terms. But they are not our terms. The excrement is the least of it. Our basic ideas of human relations, right and wrong, are incompatible.
As a twenty-one-year-old starting out in the Peace Corps, I loved Senegal. In fact, I was euphoric. I quickly made friends and had an adopted family. I relished the feeling of the brotherhood of man. People were open, willing to share their lives and, after they knew you, their innermost thoughts.
The longer I lived there, the more I understood: it became blindingly obvious that the Senegalese are not the same as us. The truths we hold to be self-evident are not evident to the Senegalese. How could they be? Their reality is totally different. You can’t understand anything in Senegal using American terms.
Take something as basic as family. Family was a few hundred people, extending out to second and third cousins. All the men in one generation were called “father.” Senegalese are Muslim, with up to four wives. Girls had their clitorises cut off at puberty. (I witnessed this, at what I thought was going to be a nice coming-of-age ceremony, like a bat mitzvah or confirmation.) Sex, I was told, did not include kissing. Love and friendship in marriage were Western ideas. Fidelity was not a thing. Married women would have sex for a few cents to have cash for the market.
What I did witness every day was that women were worked half to death. Wives raised the food and fed their own children, did the heavy labor of walking miles to gather wood for the fire, drew water from the well or public faucet, pounded grain with heavy hand-held pestles, lived in their own huts, and had conjugal visits from their husbands on a rotating basis with their co-wives. Their husbands lazed in the shade of the trees.
Yet family was crucial to people there in a way Americans cannot comprehend.
from Karen McQuillan