"Cock Lock Look" will be very familiar words to old soldiers of my vintage.

Soldiers are drilled in the Immediate Action or IAs for weapon stoppages.   That might include removing a jammed cartridge, replacing a magazine or sometimes bringing up a secondary weapon like a pistol.

I can't recall an IA that resulted in the deployment of an axe through the head of an enemy combatant - but in the circumstances these Special Air Service Regiment soldiers encountered I can think of no more professionally satisfying result than the reassuring thud that comes from braining a Mohammedan scumbag. 

SAS hero kills ISIS fighter with an axe while freeing sex slaves as soldiers are reduced to tears by images of the torture girls are being put through

• SAS soldier killed an ISIS fighter with an axe while freeing enslaved girls 
• Girls said to have been rounded up and forced to marry ISIS terrorists
• The girls were tortured and raped when they refused to wed the men
• Freed after covert operation by US and British forces who wept when they saw images of the torture they suffered

By REBECCA TAYLOR FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 23:12 GMT, 15 October 2016 | UPDATED: 13:50 GMT, 16 October 2016

An SAS soldier killed an ISIS fighter with an axe as he freed young girls who were being held hostage as sex slaves.

According to the Daily Star, the SAS hero struck the jihadi in one blow to the skull during a mission in Syria last month.

The mission was a US and British covert operation in northern Syria to free girls who were being held hostage by ISIS and forced to marry their fighters.

 

A group of SAS fighters freed girls who were being held as sex slaves in a covert mission, joining forces with American troops. File photo

Those who refused to co-operate were raped, dipped in acid or crucified, according to the paper. 

It is believed images of the girls being tortured were found and they were so brutal, they reduced the SAS men to tears. 

 

One sergeant, said to be a veteran of Iraq, shot one ISIS fighter when two opened fire on him, but had to resort to a hand axe when his gun would not function and he could not shoot the second. 

The girls and their families are said to have been relocated once they were freed. 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3840145/SAS-hero-kills-ISIS-fighter-axe-freeing-sex-slaves-soldiers-reduced-tears-images-torture-girls-through.html#ixzz4NK77FCF7
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I wrote and published this editorial more than 10 months ago.   Thought it was worth a revisit now, particularly by conservatives in Australia who continue to play by the media's rules.

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2016/01/donald-trump-shows-how-to-smash-the-leftmedia-control-over-the-news-zeitgeist.html

TUESDAY, 05 JANUARY 2016

This letter is from a great contributor to this website Assad.  His is a voice of common sense.

Mr Turnbull, 

Please listen to the attached audio for details.

Barangaroo will be a great development when it's done - given its location with Sydney Harbour lapping at its shores you'd have to work really, really hard to stuff it up.

But that's what Labor, Sussex Street, weak-kneed Liberals and the CFMEU have been doing.   Now we learn of the grovelling approach to get the Clinton Foundation's endorsement, forwarded from the Foundation to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton within hours of the proposal being dispatched.

The costs, controversies and CFMEU corruption make the Barangaroo project a typical and tragic example of good intentions screwed up by Labor governments.   And where there's big bucks, showcase greenie-influenced developments and famous people involved, the Clintons usually aren't far behind.

Here's some background to the Barangaroo development saga - this summary from Wikipedia.

Initially placed in the hands of Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority, the Barangaroo Delivery Authority was established pursuant to the Barangaroo Delivery Authority Act, 2009 No 2 to facilitate a high quality commercial and mixed use precinct at Barangaroo balancing social, economic and environment outcomes, including the establishment of a headland park and other public domains; amongst other objectives. Supporting the Authority is a Design Excellence Review Panel that comprised Paul Keating (Chairman from 2005 until 2011), Chris Johnson, Bridget Smyth, Oi Choong, James Weirick, Angelo Candalepas, andLeo Schofield (resigned 2011). The role of the Panel was to guide the government authority on a range of design issues, such as architecture, landscape and culture. Commissioned initially in 2005, the Panel was instrumental in the selection of Hill Thalis Architecture as the winning the international design competition in 2006. The winning team was commissioned to assist the Government in developing the design during the latter part of 2006. There was early debate regarding the design and size of waterfront developments. The City of Sydney and some architectural bodies expressed concern that the proposed designs would be out of scale with the surrounding environment, as well as causing large unwanted shadows over the immediate area, parts of Darling Harbour and possibly nearby Pyrmont.

A concept plan was released by the Government in 2007 and a year later announced that it had shortlisted consortia led by Brookfield Multiplex, Lend Lease Group and Mirvac. In 2009, to assist with the economic viability of the project, the Government announced that the amount of commercial office space would increase by one third, allowing an additional 120,000 square metres (1,291,669 sq ft) from the initial concept plan for the A$6 billion development.^[18] In late 2009, after a further shortlisting process, the Government announced that it would not to proceed with Hill Thalis' winning design, choosing instead a consortium that included lead architect Lord Rogers and developer, Lend Lease, who controversially proposed a 230 metres (755 ft) tall hotel to be constructed 150 metres (492 ft) into Darling Harbour, as well as parkland and commercial offices. When plans were put on public display during 2010 it was claimed that the development exceeded planning height and footprint limits.^[27] Following public outcry at changes to the original Concept Plan, community-based organisations such as the Friends of Barangaroo, Australians for Sustainable Development and the Barangaroo Action Group formed, colloquially referring to the precinct as "the Greedy Mile". In March 2010, the Government and Lend Lease entered into provisional contracts for the development of the site, subject to Ministerial approval which was given in May 2010. Concerned about the lack of transparency, in September 2010 Clover Moore, Lord Mayor of the City of Sydney and Member for Sydney, resigned as a director of the Barangaroo Delivery Authority.^[28]

On attaining Government in March 2011, Premier Barry O'Farrell announced an independent review into the selection processes. The panel reported in August 2011 and stated that two members of a design panel had a conflict of duty.^[29] O'Farrell also overturned an amendment to planning legislation made in the last days of the Keneally government that placed the Barangaroo site as exempt from remediation of contaminated sites requirements. The Government has also asked Lend Lease to move the hotel off the harbour as a gesture of goodwill, even though it has planning approval from the Keneally government. Discussions with the developer are ongoing.^[30]

ENDS

Nothing moves at Barangaroo without the CFMEU.   You'll recall that much of the TURC was devoted to George Alex, his criminal associates and the various mechanisms the CFMEU had for extracting cash from the Barangaroo development.

Here are the first few Google entries for a search on "CFMEU Barangaroo".

CFMEU Lend Lease strike - Barangaroo picket, Sydney - YouTube

▶ 1:48

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoK_-irGGyk

 

Jul 26, 2012 - Uploaded by swoski1917

CFMEU state secretary Brian Parker speaking at the Barangaroo picket this morning, said this Lend Lease ...

 

Barry O'Farrell demands report into CFMEU Barangaroo practices ...

www.theaustralian.com.au/...cfmeu-barangaroo.../story-fn59noo3-1226812012605

 

Jan 28, 2014 - THE NSW Premier has demanded a report into work practices at Barangaroo, Australia's biggest building site, saying he was very concerned ...

 

ENDS

 

Back in April 2012 Gillard was PM.   Her former beau and continuing confidant Michael O'Connor was (and remains) the national chief of the CFMEU.

 

This email from Lend Lease to the Clinton Foundation sets a grovelling tone as Lend Lease begs the Clintons for permission to associate Barangaroo with the Clinton brand.

 

Here's the Lend Lease written proposal. 
Climate Positive Tenant Partnership FINAL.docx
25.37 KiB
application/vnd.openxmlformats-

 

You'll note that the proposal goes from Lend Lease to the Clinton Foundation's foreign affairs guy Amitabh Desai.

 

Within 3 hours of receiving the email and proposal, Desai forwards the whole thing to John Podesta.

 

Hillary Clinton was at the time US Secretary of State and Podesta appears as a regular go between for her and the Foundation (he's currently the chairman of the Hillary for President campaign and the central figure around which the Democrat Party orbits).

 

There are a few considerations here.

 

Firstly the Clinton Climate Caper in its various incarnations was pretty much vapour ware around that time.

 

Rudd gifted it $10M in 2008 via the Carbon Capture and Storage Institute.  Penny Wong had struck a few deals with the Foundation - but things moved into overdrive in 2012 as Gillard positioned herself for the Clinton Global Initiative in New York that year (recall Hillary's last months as US Secretary of State, chaperoning Gillard and setting up her post prime ministerial appointments in the education caper, tipping millions towards the Clintons).

 

The reality of what the Clintons had to offer in any practical sense was vastly different from the grand titles and grander claims about its work to "fix" climate change.

 

Here's the value for money Clinton's customers in our part of the world received - the personal attention of the AIDS specialist, PNG Incorporated Associations fraudster, Caterpillar Tractor Dealer and climate change remediation expert Ruby Shang.

 

 

http://www.gaiadiscovery.com/latest-people/ruby-shang-the-woman-driving-bill-clintons-climate-initiativ.html

 

REQUEST FOR RESEARCH

 

There is very fertile ground here for research on the linkages that led to the approach to the Clinton Foundation asking for its involvement in Barangaroo.

 

May I ask that our expert team, well versed in pursuing the names of the usual suspects involved in opportunities for chicanery like this one go at it!!!!!!

 

 

This from the Podesta email dump.  This is along similar lines to the Shorten Medicare SMS routine.

Imagine if Trump's people had authorised something similar for Bill (Monica Lewinsky based) or Hillary (Yoko Ono et al).

The US has similar electoral material attribution laws to ours - ie that responsibility for election material must have the details of who authorised and produced it.   But this sort of thing goes out as a "joke" notwithstanding it's created by the Clinton campaign - and because it's good Hillary taking the piss out of bad Donald the usual complainants who'd be outraged if the roles were reversed just laugh at the gag.  Which is a good word for how this makes you feel.

  


This photo should not be used in any retributive rejoinder to Hillary (with apologies to Yoko).

And nor should this.  Actually, yes they both should.

If your revenues were dwindling, your audience perception metrics on truth and trustworthiness plummeting, your circulation dwindling and a group of 20,000 motivated voters sent you this message - wouldn't you stop and listen?   Wouldn't you take a long hard look at yourself?

Not the self-reinforcing, self-congratulating and self-righteous mainstream media.

The reaction has been amazing.   Trump et al are accused of engaging in dangerous tactics.

Nowhere do I see any sign of mainstream media accepting the criticism.   Far from it.   Criticism of the way media is reporting on Clinton et al is reported as proof that it's Trump and his supporters who present a risk to freedom of the press.

This report in the New York magazine is typical.

Dr Peter Phelps (his PhD is in Australian History) is a Liberal MP in the NSW Parliament.

His parliamentary bio says "Dr Phelps is a libertarian with social conservative tendencies, placing him within the 'fusionist' school of conservative political philosophy. His political hero is Ronald Reagan."

This is a magnificent speech.

GREYHOUND RACING INDUSTRY BAN

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS ( 21:38 ): Earlier today the Premier said:

We got it wrong. I got it wrong. Cabinet got it wrong. The Government got it wrong.

Mr President, I did not get it wrong; I got it right. I got the policy and the politics right. I am not going to hide my light under a bushel. I am going to indulge in a gratuitous post‑try celebration. I am going to be doing the Adam Goodes victory dance. I got it right. The Newspoll showed that I got it right—51 per cent said that there should be a second chance for the industry and 61 per cent of non-Sydney people thought that there should be a second chance for this industry. I will not be diverted by calls for a fake unity, which merely seeks to paper over the disastrous decision-making behind this entire process.

The report was received. Media reports indicate that the press-savvy people in the Premier's office wanted to release it publicly to test the waters. But that was not done. Cabinet was presented with it, but Cabinet was down on numbers because it was the start of July. I congratulate Ministers Ayres, Blair, and Goward, who all strongly spoke against it. Indeed, Minister Blair continues to amaze me with his ability to show prescience in both policy and politics when it comes to this State. It was then announced publicly via social media before it went to the party room about six weeks later. This was a disaster, and it was always going to be—just like with legislation on ethanol, which was shoved through Parliament in almost identical circumstances. There was poor review, poor communication, poor consultation and, inevitably, poor results. How can Cabinet have such a tin ear? Do they read their CabSubs? Do they have somebody in their office to do so? Do they understand the political ramifications of the policy decisions?

But my real criticism is not with Cabinet, which is obliged to conform to the provisions of the Westminster system, but with the Liberal backbench. Apart from a select few, everybody toed the line—this "disunity is death" bulldust that masquerades as a virtue. Disunity is not death. Bad policy is death. The idea that it is somehow virtuous to remain silent in the face of terrible decision-making is obnoxious. If you were on a bus, filled with passengers and you saw that the driver was speeding towards a precipice, would you stay silent or would you raise a hue and cry? Would you demand to be let off the bus or would you say nothing and have the bus and all its passengers go right off the cliff?

But, no, the Liberal backbench still remained silent. I can forgive those who genuinely supported the ban because they thought that the industry was entirely impossible and irreconcilable to meet the demands placed upon it. I think they are wrong, but they were at least sincerely wrong. I can also forgive the parvenus who, with no real grounding in the history, traditions or philosophy of the Liberal Party, said nothing. No, the real problems in this case are the careerist weasels—the spineless blancmanges who, knowing this was a bad decision, comforted the Premier that this was the right choice, and sought to defend it publicly, because they believe that the fast-track to ministerial preferment is to be a bobble-headed appeaser of Executive diktat.

For them, Eurasia is at war—we have always been at war with Eurasia—and tomorrow when the Premier says we are at war with East Asia, then we have always been at war with East Asia. If we had sold the dogs to China they would have said that was a great decision. Will they now be resigning or contorting themselves into further pretzels? I say to the Premier: You cannot only rely on people who will only tell you that you are right, unless, of course, you are always only right. Instead, they sat there like Easter Island statues, knowing this was political poison, but not daring for one second to say boo to the Premier lest they lose their Parliamentary Secretary jobs, lest they lose their finger-holds on the greasy pole to the white limo and the Martin Palace office.

Well, sucked in! You made your bed, now lie in it. Good luck going back to your electorates and explaining the 180-degree backflip without looking like the utter gooses that you are. Contrariwise, The Nationals have shown great mettle and good old-fashioned gumption. The only Liberals who have come out of this entire mess with any dignity are those of us who had the political brain to see that this was wrong and had the courage of our convictions to say so. And the Premier. The Premier's decision to reverse the policy took great personal sacrifice and political courage. The media, typically, has demonstrated its loathsomeness by mocking the decision. Yet if this is not the sign of a government which ultimately listens, then what is? The Premier has changed his mind, and he has done it to effect an outcome which is the correct one. Well done, Premier, you are too good, too noble, too decent for the vast bulk of the backbench of your own parliamentary party. You need people who are willing to speak truth to the Executive, not lick-spittle yes-men.

This rings true for me.