Has taken up residence by the back door. Not identified yet, but he’s not very big anyway.

is a crypto-fascist.
‘Ormerod writes:
I do in fact support free speech. However, like many political rights free speech is a relative right, relative to the common good to which it contributes. People may have a right to their opinions, but not necessarily a right to express those (sic) opinion in a way which does damage to the common good…’
Link
And who decides what is the “common good”? Yep, our old friends the government – and their cronies and lickspittles.

‘Slavery – The worst slavery is of the most insidious kind. It leaves the slave able to think and act, but not as a free man. It leaves him with cunning, but not courage. He is able to use force, but only to bring other slaves into line. And most hideously, this state of affairs seems moral and natural to him. This is his freedom.’
Daniel Greenfield

Via Tim Blair:
‘Australian playwright and Guardian columnist Vanessa Badham joins the panel next week on the ABC’s Q & A program. Let’s see what this young lady gets up to on Twitter …’
Your tax dollars at work….what’s needed is for the (outnumbered) conservatives in the audience to stand up, turn their backs and walk out when this piece of filth opens her mouth. This is not “debate”, this is infantile wallowing in faeces and the government urgently needs to bring the ABC under adult supervision.

 Keep this academic filth and others like her away from our soldiers.
‘Dr Lindy Edwards teaches at the Australian Defence Force Academy and claims:
There is a long tradition of firing up fighting men by invoking their shared ability to sexually degrade women. They tap into an ideal of male sexual power to create a cocktail of ego, aggression and sexual energy that they channel into battle….’
Read the background here—and have a sickbag ready.

By a man who knows what he’s talking about:
‘..The basis for these (Maori) claims rests solely on the proposition that the claimants are to some extent of Maori descent. If successful therefore they are thus in clear breach of a fundamental component of the Rule of Law. If such claims are to be granted solely on the basis of race, then what next. No member of the society any longer has the protection of the equal treatment component of the Rule of Law, and as a concept regulating the conduct of the affairs of society The Rule of law is fatally compromised. The inevitable consequence is that New Zealand will cease to be a society in which the Rule of Law is paramount, to one in which race based privilege or some other criterion depending on which group is seeking the privilege, becomes the deciding factor in who gets what benefits from society, and what opportunities are open to whom…’

‘Neil Ormerod, Professor of Theology at the Australian Catholic University, demands an end to free speech:
“Free speech for racist bigots, free speech for climate denialists. Where will it end?… There is a value in free speech to promote reasoned discussion and deliberation. And then there is obdurate and at times wilful ignorance …”..’
Of course, by “reasoned discussion and deliberation” he means discussion on terms set by people like him. Speech by permission is NOT “free speech”.

 ‘Mohammed Whitaker – Muslim black thug arrested as suspect in Kansas City highway shootings’

and from the Report:
‘The liberty movement does not care what the Federal government deems “legal” or “illegal.” Our only interest is what is Constitutional and what is moral. The dispute was never about the “legality” of Bundy’s use of the land … Statists and bureaucrats like Reid continually attempt to argue this issue from the standpoint of Federal legality, obviously because the Federal government has the legislative and bureaucratic power to make any despicable action legal if it wishes. However, the liberty movement has no interest whatsoever in Federal interpretations of legal precedence. We are only concerned with what is right.
Brandon Smith at alt-market.com ‘

‘Supreme Court upholds Michigan affirmative action ban

“This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it,” Kennedy said.
…In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision tramples on the rights of minorities, even though the amendment was adopted democratically. “But without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups,” said Sotomayor, who read her dissent aloud in the courtroom Tuesday. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sided with Sotomayor in dissent. ..’
Hmm…so this arrogant, semi-qualified Obamapuppet affirmative-action beneficiary thinks that SCOTUS should be able to overturn the will of the voters of Michigan, based on nothing more than her personal feelings–the “checks” she refers to. I look forward to seeing the dissenting opinion shredded by qualified grown-ups.