Sunday, November 01, 2015

Sun Nov 1st Todays News

In my opinion the ICAC is trying to be wound up before it has to investigate the ALP for historical abuses which occurred under the ICAC's watch. 
I can illustrate one such abuse of power the ICAC is involved with in partnership with the ALP. I have clean hands and can talk about the issue. Under statute of limitations, there is no hope of an investigation. All the requisite bodies have been informed. 
As a beginning teacher in 1992, I saw a teacher acting inappropriately in a sexual way with a student. I reported it, but as it was before the Woods Royal Commission branched off into teaching, there was no standardised way of addressing it. I raised the issue within a sub committee of the school after the Principal ducked it. I was transferred to another school for that. That should have been the end of it, I wanted nothing further to do with it and hoped to make it a lesson for personal growth regarding office politics. I was very ambitious. 
However, the Bob Carr government was new in '95 and fractured immediately with pedophile claims centred around the neighbourhood I'd been teaching in. The then Minister for Education demanded reports be given directly to the department, even were they to be historical. I complied. 
I was given a second job as a night tutor at a boarding school close to the first school. The boarding school wanted me to work there during the day too. But then I was 'exposed' as a person who had reported at the first school. Investigators spoke with victims who claimed the teacher's behaviour was creepy, but they didn't want to take it further. The investigators phoned me to tell me that they were going to declare the issue investigated and warranting no further action. I pointed out that put me in a terrible situation now I had been exposed when I had done nothing wrong. 
I was illegally dismissed from my night job and I referred the matter to the Department, then the ICAC. The ICAC said it wasn't considered to be a structural problem that would interest them. 
Then, in my final few acts at the boarding school, I came across a student who had a peanut allergy and warned the Department of it. I was assured it would be dealt with and staff would be informed. I wasn't present a year later when the child died from anaphylactic shock after they had been instructed by an ignorant teacher to lick peanut butter from a spoon. I was not aware of the issue at first, but the legal department of the Department of Education contacted me to tell me they wouldn't be talking to me, ever, and I had been listed by them as a pest. 
I contacted the ICAC and they claimed I was inflating one thing to address another. I contacted a family friend involved with senior education executive and was told by legal branch they could not talk to me, even unofficially. 
I took guidance from my Principal hoping to at least end the abuse I'd been receiving and was told it was in my interests to let the matter die. I chose not to inform the coroner in the first instance, expecting that the matter would be sorted in house and those negligently responsible would be retired. Instead, the Coroner claimed the parents had not warned the school authorities. It turned out the coroner had chosen not to question welfare people responsible for the negligence. 
I have since exhausted all avenues of appeal regarding whomever might investigate the issue. I have approached my local members, I have approached the coroner, the police, a couple of ministers of Education, the ICAC, Centrelink and family. I have been isolated, lost my job, run for parliament twice, been pursued by the ATO, lost my home and lost my life savings. 
One senior editor has denounced me publicly as being a rabid Christian and having fundamentalist views I do not have. I am currently not on Centrelink as they didn't want me to work on my project.

For some, at the moment, the Sex Party has more credibility.
=== from 2014 ===
If nothing matters .. 
Students of University of North Carolina complain about a course where nobody fails, no test is set and no time given to lectures or tutorials for 3100 students over 18 years. Students describe the issue as an "“American” system of white supremacist, heteropatriarchal capitalism and brings our understanding of what it means to be a Tar Heel into question." A tar heel is a proud name for North Carolina peoples. The shameful thing is that for 18 years there was no oversight of an academic campus of an Ivy League styled campus. Let the Democrats put that in their mascot ass.

ALP have failed in opposition to direct action on the environment. The environmental policy of the Liberal Party has been taken to two elections and has a mandate, but the ALP don't recognise it. It is hard to know what the ALP are dong in their opposition to good policy. The Greens already do that and better. The ALP are shedding left wing support to the Greens and repudiating their supporters of the centre left. If the ALP reformed and dumped their union affiliates, and ran as a party with policies they might make a difference. At the moment, they make a bad legislative block.

The Age was wrong to claim Howard had rebuked Abbott over the policy of turning back boats. It is a good policy which has saved lives, and lead to fairer outcomes for refugees. What Mr Howard had said was that it was a better policy to do that than to attempt to get prior permission, as the ALP demand. Because a nationalist would be duty bound to say 'no' prior, whereas are pragmatic to say 'yes' after.

ALP Glenn Serle rebukes ALP Melissa Parke over anti semitic attack. Melissa was ignorant to state her opposition to ALP policy in support of terrorists who use BDS to hurt Israel. Recently, BDS have had a success with Soda Stream and hundreds of so called Palestinians are unemployed as a result.

Clive Palmer admits back dating instrument that he wanted to employ to withdraw $12 million to bank roll his federal campaign. It is apparent Palmer had no right or authority to spend the money he used.

Gillard declared 'questionable' .. possibly corrupt? Gillard set up the instruments her boyfriend used to extort millions of dollars from companies for personal use. She was also his lawyer.

ABC fields Dr Karl who lies effortlessly. He was quoted as misquoting a a British Met Office statement and given an opportunity to correct it. He failed, repeatedly.

Did Nova Perris mislead parliament? She claimed she was the victim of extortion, but the evidence she refers to does not suggest that. If nothing matters .. 
From 2013
Tony Abbott is taking the necessary steps to heal Australia after six abysmal years of ALP government. But more has to be done. Boats are being stopped, with a drop from 3000 illegal arrivals, by boat a month, to 300 last month. Still, a substantial number of very dangerous type of illegal arrival has introduced islamo fascist behaviour. NSW ALP have appointed as a dispute resolution person the husband of a liar. The ABC would complain if a conservative did it. Fracking is safe but socialists and reactionaries don't want it. If you ask why, they mumble things about Monsanto, water tables, bees, GM crops, and agenda 21. They seem to forget Catch 22. I welcome disagreement based on fact. ABC have just worked out Bolt is effective. Why is record cold in Victoria not trumpeted as loudly as warm weather in NSW? Maybe one has to slay the AGW Demon to find out? Shorten volunteers to commit electoral suicide, fighting for a tax in opposition, rather than trying to become an effective government in future. 

I would like to take this time to thank my supporters and friends who have stood by me in these tough times. I am in a concrete shell thanks to a raw sewage blockage a month ago. I am insured, but sadly, insured with GIO, who have done nothing to decontaminate the kitchen and bathroom area the insurance I have with them covers. Luckily, my home contents is with Allianz and they were here in the first few hours with specialist cleaners and removal experts. I have lost everything I once owned, including irreplaceable keepsakes of a lifetime, but important things will be replaced. For unrelated reasons, I am in danger of losing my unit, but this may be a blessing, improving any sale value and possibly delaying it. 

I note Tripodi faces ICAC today, and that brings my heart joy as corruption involving him is why I've been unemployed since '07. People who don't know me may not understand why my issue is so challenging. Partly Tripodi and stable mates have made it that way. I recently thought I had cleared my matters with the tax office. It turns out I hadn't. But this new issue may be a blessing too. ATO want to know why I accessed my superannuation early. They seem to feel I may have lived large on it. It is true I have visited Max Brenners more than is good for me. But that has nothing to do with it. What had happened was I had been granted early access through hardship to it, and my bank had signed off on the deal. But my bank reneged, and suggested a path I took which I don't advise anyone else do. I turned $220k into $99k and put it in my mortgage. It is still there. But I have been denied work in my trade (math teacher) for over six years. Soon, my bank will force me to sell my unit. And now ATO have decided to claim I was paid income of $153k (note that figure, super bodies already have $67k from my early access) a quarter went to mafia types who organised it. The blessing is the ATO might call in a federal investigation into the issue which should blow Tripodi and others sky high. The danger is the ATO might try to limit the issue to me and fine me and slap me with secrecy deals to protect the ALP. The ATO is a cat's paw .. do they like being a cat's paw? All I can do is to man up and take what is dished out. Accessing super early is wrong. No one can help me until I know the scope of what the ATO plan. 
=== Publishing News ===
This column welcomes feedback and criticism. The column is not made up but based on the days events and articles which are then placed in the feed. So they may not have an apparent cohesion they would have had were they made up.
Editorials will appear in the "History in a Year by the Conservative Voice" series, starting with AugustSeptemberOctober, or at Amazon  The kindle version is cheaper, but the soft back version allows the purchase of a kindle version for just $3.99 more. 

List of available items at Create Space
For twenty two years I have been responsibly addressing an issue, and I cannot carry on. I am petitioning the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott to remedy my distress. I leave it up to him if he chooses to address the issue. Regardless of your opinion of conservative government, the issue is pressing. Please sign my petition at

Or the US President at
or or

Mr Ball, I will not sign your petition as it will do no good, but I will share your message and ask as many of friends who read it, to share it also. Let us see if we cannot use the power of the internet to spread the word of these infamous killings. As a father and a former soldier, I cannot, could not, justify ignoring this appalling action by the perpetrators, whoever they may; I thank you Douglas. You are wrong about the petition. Signing it is as worthless and meaningless an act as voting. A stand up guy would know that. - ed

Lorraine Allen Hider I signed the petition ages ago David, with pleasure, nobody knows what it's like until they've been there. Keep heart David take care.

I have begun a bulletin board (http://theconservativevoice.freeforums.netwhich will allow greater latitude for members to post and interact. It is not subject to FB policy and so greater range is allowed in posts. Also there are private members rooms in which nothing is censored, except abuse. All welcome, registration is free.

Happy birthday and many happy returns Paul Nguyen and all those born today, across the years, along with
November 1All Saints' Day (Western Christianity); National Day in Algeria (1954); Rajyotsava (Formation Day) in Karnataka, India (1956)
Harry S. Truman
We have a pet ostrich. We have nailed the Tempest and Othello. You are the Count. Puerto Rico needs to finish her work. Loyalty is poorly rewarded by the undeserving. Let us party. 

Premier Mike Baird needs to chain up the rabid ICAC watchdog

Miranda Devine – Saturday, October 31, 2015 (9:42pm)

I HOPE the Baird government is making plans for regime change at ICAC. Better yet, close down the discredited star chamber and save the taxpayer $28 million a year. 

Icon Arrow Continue reading 'Premier Mike Baird needs to chain up the rabid ICAC watchdog'


Tim Blair – Sunday, November 01, 2015 (10:32am)

David Pocock won’t play in a winning World Cup team until gay marriage is legalised.

On The Bolt Report today, November 1

Andrew Bolt November 01 2015 (5:59am)

On Channel 10 at 10am and 3pm:
My guests: Best-selling author and geologist Ian Plimer, former Labor campaign guru Bruce Hawker, Victorian Liberal president Michael Krogerand Sharri Markson, media editor of The Australian
The green Pope, the coal scare, Turnbull’s yes-but-no, Shorten sinking and Abbott haters’ shame.

The videos of the shows appear here.

This kind of Abbott hatred can’t be healthy

Andrew Bolt November 01 2015 (4:54am)

Fairfax has the kind of insane hatred of Tony Abbott that causes cancer. Today’s effort, attacking Abbott’s London speech, in which he warned Europe to stop the boats and fight the Islamic State:
Negative and extreme. Simplistic and misleading, perhaps even a little delusional. Full of fear and obsessed with external threats… fearmongering and sloganeering ...  couldn’t even get his facts right ... Three-word slogans ... hardly a constructive contribution ... cognitive dissonance… perhaps he’s out for a bit of revenge by making some mischief of Malcolm ...  doesn’t really have a conventional relationship with the truth ... broken promises ... general air of crisis and incompetence that permeated his administration ... Abbott’s never really had a conventional relationship with that thing we call reality either.
This foam-flecked tirade is more suited to a children’s horror story or uni student magazine than a serious newspaper.
In contrast to the frenzy of the Australian media, the British media gave Abbott an almost uniformly respectful hearing, and at times admiring.
The Daily Express:
The EU should heed former Australian PM on migration
The Spectator:

Europe needs a Tony Abbott
The Sun:
Tony Abbott has delivered a chilling speech 

No, FitzSimons is not a “bully”

Andrew Bolt November 01 2015 (4:34am)

I can’t say I’ve every felt bullied by Peter FitzSimons. Indeed, I’ve rather made it a hobby to try to temper his more rash enthusiasms.
But FitzSimons discovers that others are taking exception to whatever he’s said in response:
At the airport, a businessman called out: “Wanker. Bully!”
“Really,” I asked, stunned. “Who have I been bullying?”
“Andrew Bolt,” he said, dead serious.
So I can’t approve of the word “bully”. 

Turnbull’s GST push gets more serious

Andrew Bolt November 01 2015 (4:26am)

Fine, and courageous. But I have a great suspicion that the total tax take will in fact increase, once the states are bribed to agree:
THE GST will rise to 15 per cent, middle-income earners will secure tax cuts and fresh food will remain GST-free under tax options being closely examined by the federal government.
Setting the scene for a tax battle at the next election, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is prepared to ask voters for a clear mandate on GST reform and tax cuts if his party room agrees, according to senior Liberals.
And, indeed, the extra money raise will almost certainly not all be returned in tax cuts:

[NSW Premier] Baird and [South Australian Premier Jay] Weatherill have previously signalled they would consider increasing the GST to 15 per cent in return for more money for the states and other trade-offs. 

Child care costs to rise for the “rich”

Andrew Bolt November 01 2015 (4:21am)

Pruning middle-class welfare:

FAMILIES earning a combined income of more than $230,000 will pay more for childcare and face new cuts to the 50 per cent rebate under a “fairer’’ reform package to be announced by the Turnbull government.

Just because it’s only used for women doesn’t make the description wrong

Andrew Bolt November 01 2015 (4:07am)

True, the word is mostly used for women, but can nevertheless be accurate:
Sixteen-year-old feminist S… was sick of being called “bossy” and “bitchy” at school.
She sees herself as ambitious and assertive. She’s unafraid of asking teachers tough questions, and taking up leadership roles. But these efforts landed her a reputation of being too forthright – a description more commonly attributed to female, rather than male students.
Pardon? No males are ever called too forthright or pushy, domineering, a jock, aggressive, in-your-face, smart-arse, needy, demanding, disruptive, selfish, bossy or a wise guy?
Or put it this way: just because only men get to be called a “thug” doesn’t mean some aren’t.
I’d worry less about the word and more about the alleged behaviour.
(Note: I have no idea about the facts in this matter. The girl could as she describes herself, or as some others would have it. My issue is with the fashionable only-women-bleed victimology assumed and encouraged by The Age. Was any attempt made to establish the views of the teachers?) 

Alleged: Islamic State claims responsibility for destroying Russian jet

Andrew Bolt November 01 2015 (4:02am)

A Russian plane has crashed in Egypt, killing all 224 people on board :
Islamic State militants have claimed reponsibility for bringing the jet down....
Terror Monitor, an online terrorist monitoring organisation, tweeted an image of the Arabic statement and wrote: “#IslamicState (#ISIS) terror group claims downing of Russian aircraft in #Sinai.”
The unverified statement, written in Arabic, says the flight crash was not a technical fault, as reported by security sources.


Tim Blair – Saturday, November 01, 2014 (4:13pm)

In our own ways, aren’t we all just victims of white supremacist heteropatriarchal capitalism?
(Via RR)

The Bolt Report tomorrow

Andrew Bolt November 01 2014 (10:20am)

On The Bolt Report on Channel 10 tomorrow at 10am and 4pm.
Editorial:  Labor’s deadly compassion.
My guest:  Attorney-General George Brandis on terrorism, free speech and Julia Gillard.
The panel: Janel Albrechtsen and Sean Kelly, former media advisor to Julia Gillard. On the Government using Clive Palmer again to sideline Labor - and on the royal commission submission damning Julia Gillard.
NewsWatch:  Piers Akerman on the Nova Peris scandal.
And lots more, including: why the Foreign Minister is no feminist and why a power station is beautiful. Plus lots more, including payout of the week.

The videos of the shows appear here.

What Labor opposition?

Andrew Bolt November 01 2014 (10:08am)

Terry McCrann on Tony Abbott’s deal with Clive Palmer to pass his “Direct Action” global warming policy:
Tony Abbott might finally have got his “working Senate majority”. 
If it proves true and is sustained, this will transform the dynamics of both policy and politics over the next two years. Clive will be “inside the tent”, and Bill Shorten by choice outside it…
The really important message was that Abbott is finally gaining the benefit of the Senate election result which ended — if he’s sensible, potentially for at least six years — the Labor-Green majority… 
[Palmer] can be persuaded to do the deals which Labor refuses to countenance through political stupidity and the Greens through blinkered and often self-contradictory ideology.
Paul Kelly:
This is a decisive political victory for Tony Abbott and his Environment Minister, Greg Hunt… 
The latest reversal by Clive Palmer and his party has delighted the Prime Minister, dismayed Labor and sent the Greens into paroxysms of rage. The wheel of history has turned in two stages — the recent repeal of Julia Gillard’s ETS policy and this week’s kiss of life to Direct Action.
Palmer has been the enabling agent at each point. Despite his earlier apparition with the crusading Al Gore and his championing of an ETS in principle, the mining boss is responsible for killing the Gillard-Greens scheme and authorising the conservative model as Australia’s next climate change experiment. 
Dennis Shanahan:
In the three two-week sittings of parliament since the winter break the Coalition has been able to deal with a hostile Senate and repeal the carbon tax, abolish the mining tax and this week, in the early hours of Friday, establish its Direct Action and $2.25bn Emissions Reduction Fund… 
The Coalition is moving aggres­sively on to the front foot on passing legislation, imposing budget savings, setting an agenda for reform and changing the political rhetoric while Labor is digging in and appearing more negative than Abbott was as opposition leader…
Hunt and Small Business Minister Bruce Billson are making daily hay on real reductions in power prices and business inputs because of the abolition of the carbon tax.
At the same time Immigration Minister Scott Morrison continues to pound Labor on border security and “stopping the boats”, constantly citing results in stopping people-smugglers and preventing asylum-seeker drownings.
Meanwhile, Joe Hockey and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann work on ways to pass budget measures and longer-term structural savings, either with Palmer and independent senators or through regulatory paths around the Senate block…
The danger for Labor is that by a combination of deals with crossbench senators — even with the Greens, as was the case with raising the national debt ceiling — and by regulatory bypasses the Coalition will render the ALP irrelevant to the national debate.
It will be even worse if Labor further entrenches itself behind failed policies and approaches the 2016 campaign with the view that it was just its leadership changes that cost it government and that an unpopular Abbott will be an easy target. 
After the repeal of the carbon tax Labor locked in behind taking a carbon price to the next election and still supports a mining tax… In response to [Immigration spokesman Richard] Marles’s preparedness to talk about turning back boats, Shorten comprehensively slapped down his immigration spokesman. 

John Howard rebukes the opposite of what The Age assumes

Andrew Bolt November 01 2014 (9:30am)

The Age is either better than me at cracking codes or it’s just making stuff up.
The claim:
Former Liberal prime minister John Howard has delivered a coded rebuke to his successor Tony Abbott for his diplomatic handling of boat turn backs in his first year in office… 
The comments are made in The Adolescent Country, a new paper for the Lowy Institute penned by Sydney Morning Herald Political Editor Peter Hartcher, which will be published next Wednesday…
The essay argues that ...  the now Prime Minister’s promise to stop the boats and turn them back when safe to do so offended Indonesia.
Mr Howard tells the author that to work effectively with Indonesia on turn backs, “You don’t test it formally with another government”.
“You see if the [Australian government] agencies have contacts with their counterparts in Jakarta and if they do, you can make things happen. Whereas if you write a letter asking, `Can we please take the boats back?’, you’re not going to get very far. But if you have their understanding you can make it work,” he says…
But by broadcasting its intentions in opposition, the essay argues, the Abbott government violated the Howard precedent ...
Pardon? If anything, I see Howard in fact endorsing the Abbott approach over Labor’s.
Howard, who himself turned back boats, is saying it’s dumb to ask Indonesia for permission to do so. For nationalist reasons it cannot openly agree.
Howard is not saying Abbott should not have promised before the election to turn back boats. How could Abbott possibly have got away with making a promise to stop the boats without spelling out how?
In office, though, Abbott has played it by the Howard book. For months he refused to even confirm boats were being turned back.
No, if there is any “coded” rebuke here it is of Labor, which promises to do exactly what Howard warns against - to ask Indonesia’s permission:
LABOR has given its strongest signal yet that it would continue the Coalition’s controversial boats turnback policy, but only if it didn’t “erode” Australia’s relationship with Indonesia. 
Opposition immigration spokesman Richard Marles ... claimed Indonesians “obviously hate this policy” but, if that was to change, the Labor Party “might” support it…

“If there was a situation where Indonesia was cooperating with this policy, that’s a complete game changer. 
(Thanks to reader brett tr.) 

Labor Senator Glenn Serle pays out Labor’s Melissa Parke over anti-Israel attack

Andrew Bolt November 01 2014 (9:16am)

Labor has become more anti-Israel as the Muslim minorities in its key NSW marginal seats grows - and as anti-Semitism becomes more fashionable in the far-Left.
Finally a Labor MP confronts this foul drift in his own party. All praise to Senator Glenn Sterle for his rebuke in parliament of Labor MP Melissa Parke:
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (01:32): I rise to condemn the recent remarks from the member for Fremantle, Melissa Parke, in support of a campaign of boycotts, divestment and sanctions against the state of Israel. By supporting campaigns for BDS promoted by the likes of Omar Barghouti, the member for Fremantle shows that she is ill-informed and her comments are simplistic and, unfortunately, inflammatory. 
The member supports boycotting Israeli and Jewish businesses and in her speech praises the BDS movement headed by Mr Barghouti, who has said on a number of occasions that he wants an end to the Jewish state. His BDS movement is not an opposition to settlements, it is an opposition to Israel’s existence and for Israeli Jews at best to live as a minority under a Muslim majority. Mr Barghouti has said: 
Going back to a two-state solution, beside having passed its expiry date, it was never a moral solution to start with.
He has said: 
The two-state solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is really dead. Good riddance! But someone has to issue an official death certificate before the rotting corpse is given a proper burial and we can all move on.
He has said: 
… a unitary state [is] where, by definition, Jews will be a minority.
I am convinced that the member for Fremantle would not like to live under sharia law where women’s rights are heavily constrained. Why does she demand that Israeli women who live in a thriving, open democracy where women have full rights be put in a situation where their rights would be reduced to that of women living under Hamas’s rule in Gaza?
I can tell you that, as an elector for over 35 years in the federal seat of Fremantle, I certainly would not prefer sharia law over the commitment to democracy, equality and personal liberties that Australia and Israel share.
It is time that the member for Fremantle stopped spouting propaganda that comes directly from organisations and groups that are devoted to genocidal ideologies. At a time when we are seeing so many examples around the world of the consequences of Islamic extremism, it is quite disgraceful that the member for Fremantle would support a movement that would isolate a liberal democracy with the intention of its ultimate dismantlement.
In addition, the Labor Party’s position on this issue is very clear. As the Leader of the Opposition confirmed in a statement yesterday, Labor’s position on this matter is crystal clear:
The Labor Party opposes the BDS campaign - it has no place in our society. I stand for engagement with Israel at every level. Peace in the Middle East will only be achieved by the parties negotiating a mutually equitable outcome; Labor does not regard the BDS campaign as contributing to this outcome. 
While I am all for internal debate within the Australian Labor Party, there are appropriate forums in place for such debate to be had. Should the member wish to bring this issue to the attention of her colleagues, I would encourage her to go through the proper processes rather than to continue to make public statements that, at best, are unhelpful and, at worst, incite greater animosity between communities. Unfortunately, the member needs to cease her support for divisive campaigns, like the BDS movement, and support a more constructive dialogue on the issues facing both Israelis and Palestinians.
It is time more people in Labor confronted their party’s dangerous flirtation with this latest form of totalitarianism.  

Clive Palmer backdated document in battle over $12 million

Andrew Bolt November 01 2014 (9:09am)

Clive Palmer seems in a world of legal trouble:
CLIVE Palmer signed and executed a document that he falsely backdated by 11 months to provide an explanation for his siphoning of $12 million in Chinese funds for his own use. 
The document, titled “Port Management Services Agreement’’, has been previously ­described as a “sham transaction” and a fabrication by the Chinese government-owned companies which accuse the Palmer United Party leader of dishonesty and fraud. 
The Weekend Australian can reveal Mr Palmer now admits the key document, which came from his company, was not created on June 1 last year, the date next to his signature on the paperwork. 
Mr Palmer admits in his formal legal defence, filed in the Supreme Court in Brisbane, that the document was created 11 months later, in April or May this year. This means the document was produced long after he took the funds, which bankrolled the PUP into the federal election in September last year… 
But the federal member for Fairfax strenuously denies that it was a “sham transaction” to try to justify his withdrawals of about $12m.... 
Mr Palmer’s acknowledgment that the document was from April or May this year, which followed The Australian’s reports that the Chinese companies were rigorously examining his claims that the $12.167m he withdrew was spent on “port management services’’, shapes as a major problem in an upcoming civil trial in Brisbane over alleged dishonesty. 
The Chinese government-owned companies under the Citic Pacific umbrella ... have previously alleged in the Supreme Court that the document was most likely brought into existence in April or May this year “in order to attempt to justify the ($12.167m) payments as legitimate expenses for, or in respect, of port management services when, to Palmer’s knowledge, they were not”.
Palmer denies doing anything wrong.
(Thanks to readers WaG311, Dave and Peter of Bellevue Hill.) 

Julia Gillard accused: “questionable” lawyering and “sham” payments

Andrew Bolt November 01 2014 (8:29am)

The AWU scandal

The submission by the counsel assisting the royal commission in a nutshell:
JULIA Gillard received money from her corrupt union boyfriend’s “sham” fund to pay for renovations on her Melbourne house in the 1990s, and she could have helped prevent criminal behaviour if she had acted with more “rigour” as a solicitor — but she was not involved in any criminal conduct.
And more to come:
It is still possible that it is not the end of the affair for Ms Gillard if Victoria Police, who have an open investigation into alleged corruption by Mr Wilson, decide to pursue the former prime minister about whether or not payments were made by her then boyfriend for her home renovations, and what she might have known about them.
In fact, the more you read into  Jeremy Stoljar’s submission, the uglier it looks for the former Prime Minister:
342. Lastly, for the reasons set out above the Commission should find that Ms Gillard was the beneficiary or recipient of certain funds from [then boyfriend and corrupt union official Bruce] Wilson, consistent with the evidence of [builder Athol] James and [then AWU official Wayne] Hem. It is not possible to identify after all this time the precise source of the funds, since Mr Wilson seems to have drawn cash from the accounts operated in Victoria as well as from the Association’s account. The skimpy nature of the available evidence does not make it possible to infer on the balance of probabilities that Ms Gillard was aware that she had received the $5,000 which Mr Hem put into her bank account on Mr Wilson’s instructions. 
But she was aware of facts, had she turned her mind to them, which would have indicated that the source of the wads of bank notes cannot have been the low union salary of Mr Wilson of about $50,000 – a man who was supporting his family in Perth, his own household in Melbourne, and his relationship with Ms Gillard in Melbourne, and who was not shown to have had any income from property exceeding the cost of mortgage repayments – but must have been some fund he did not own but did control. That is, she must have been aware of facts, which had she turned her mind to them, would have revealed that Mr Wilson was making payments to her in breach of some fiduciary duty. 
Hedley Thomas: 
JULIA Gillard will be very unhappy at how her conduct in the AWU slush fund scandal is viewed by the union corruption inquiry’s senior counsel, Jeremy Stoljar SC.Did she receive cash for her home renovation? Stoljar prefers the evidence of Gillard’s builder, Athol James, an elderly man who spoke of seeing a “large amount of cash” and a “wad of notes” being handed to the future PM by her corrupt boyfriend, union boss Bruce Wilson, to pay for a home reno.
Gillard flatly rejected these claims when she had her turn in the witness box. She could not have been more emphatic. It was “not true”, she insisted. Stoljar, however, believes that James’s memory was “clear and accurate"…
Stoljar also distinguishes the evidence of a former AWU staffer, Wayne Hem, who said he put the $5000 into Gillard’s account at Wilson’s direction.
Stoljar’s view that the commission should find “Gillard was the beneficiary or recipient of certain funds from Mr Wilson, consistent with the evidence of Mr James and Mr Hem” is a big credibility blow.
Stoljar says it cannot be shown that Gillard knew she got the $5000 in her account. But he wants the inquiry’s head, retired High Court judge Dyson Heydon QC, to find that Gillard was aware of facts which should have alarmed her — “wads of bank notes” brandished by Wilson, who could not have earned the money legitimately on his $50,000 union salary. 
Another sting in Stoljar’s submission revolves around Gillard’s remarkably loose lawyering, which was instrumental in allowing the fraud to put down roots.
There may be more on which Gillard’s word cannot be trusted.  From ABC online’s report:
Ms Gillard told a hearing in September that she was working as a lawyer for the firm Slater and Gordon in 1992 when she was asked to set up an incorporated association to fund AWU officials’ election campaigns in Western Australia… “Obviously, given the extensive publicity and inquiry into these matters since, I’ve become aware in the years since that the Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association had an account.”
Reader Peter of Bellevue Hill:
Unless she felt it might keep its funds in a shoebox under the bed, it seems completely implausible that Gillard wasn’t aware the AWU-WRA had an account until years after the association was established.  Indeed, in her 1995 interview with her then Slater & Gordon partners, Gillard said: 
The thinking behind the forming of incorporated associations is that it had been our experience that if you did it in a less formal way, you just had someone, say Fred Bloggs, say, oh look, I’ll just open a bank account and everybody can put the money into there, the problem developed that when the leadership team fractured, as relatively commonly happens, you got into a very difficult dispute about who was the owner of the monies in the bank account, so it was better to have an incorporated association, a legal entity, into which people could participate as members, that was the holder of the account.
How can these two positions be reconciled?
Gillard seems to have been very incurious.
(Thanks to reader WaG311.) 

Why does the ABC employ Dr Karl?

Andrew Bolt November 01 2014 (8:20am)

The ABC’s “science” guru, Dr Karl , has a severe problem in accepting the world isn’t warming as he insists. Here is just one of several examples I’ve written about before:
What Britain’s warmist Met Office actually said about warming since 1997:
The linear trend from August 1997 ...  to August 2012 about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period
What ABC science presenter Dr Karl repeatedly claims the Met said: 
MET office data of static warming for last 16 years is a misconception? @JWSpry @25outsidefifty Yup, world has warmed 0.3C in last 16 years.
Dr Karl repeats his false claim: 
0.3C, as MET suggests.
Reader JW Spry tries again to get ABC science presenter Dr Karl - a denier of the 16-year pause in warming - to correct a blatant error

Yet even after being confronted with the evidence of error, Dr Karl refused to correct, acknowledge or apologise.
Totally unembarrassable, Dr Karl was at it again on the Drum yesterday, now claiming a mass beaching of walruses was evidence of global warming. Once again, he was completely wrong - and no one on the panel challenged him.
But when sceptics like me do what I’ve just done here - match warmist claims against facts, predictions against outcomes - and expose Karl-like alarmism, Dr Karl screams it’s a conspiracy. On The Drum yesterday:
I think it’s a disinformation campaign by the big carbon combustion companies.
Once again he was not contradicted.
Yet his conspiracy theory is nuts. In what way has a “carbon combustion company” influenced me when I compare Dr Karl’s crazier claims to the truth? Is Dr Karl claiming I’m using matieral supplied by such a company? That I’m corrupt, being paid by Big Carbon to lie?
Spell it out, Dr Karl. Oh, and please don’t forget to also address the actual errors I have identified in your claims.
Reader James:
On The Drum today I think even Steve Cannane was embarrassed by Dr Karl Kruszelnicki’s insistence that climate scepticism is an organised disinformation campaign by fossil fuel companies. 
ExxonMobil is the world’s largest western owned oil company. Here’s what they say about climate change on their web site: 
Climate policy… Keeping in mind the central importance of energy to economies of the world, ExxonMobil believes that it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the risks to society associated with increasing GHG emissions.
You will find similar or more strident comments of other oil company websites. Hardly looks like the sort of campaign Dr Karl claims exists. Why can’t he admit instead that people are able to compare statements and predictions made by alarmists to reality and draw their own conclusions?
A more important question: why does the ABC has a “science” presenter who is so shamelessly alarmist and unapologetically wrong?
The ABC is out of control. 

Nova Peris scandal: did she mislead Parliament? And why did The Age protect her?

Andrew Bolt November 01 2014 (7:38am)

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten defended Senator Nova Peris when emails emerged showing Peris telling a West Indian Olympian, Ato Boldon, she’d get government funds to fly him over so they could have sex - as well as have him motivate Aboriginal children.
But will Shorten now defend her using parliamentary privilege in the Senate to claim she was just being blackmailed by relatives involved in a dispute over access and property?: 
The website New Matilda has published an article which suggests that Senator Peris at the very least offered an incomplete description of private emails between her and an estranged family member, by way of background explanation for why she was being targeted over the Boldon link. 
The new allegation suggests at best, that she was deliberately incomplete in her speech to the Senate, and at worst, may have misled Parliament.
Peris seems to me to have also used parliamentary privilege to defame her relatives. The emails she selectively quoted in making that damaging claim don’t actually seem to support her at all when read in full and in context.
This should go to the privileges committee, in my opinion. If Peris were a white male, I suspect it would.
The Age newspaper in its Thursday print edition refused to report a single word on the Peris emails scandal.
This was astonishing from a paper only too happy to publish the private emails of Professor Barry Spurr, a conservative, in which he played racist word games with a friend but did not reveal anything in the public interest, such as misusing public funds.
One Age columnist can see the rank hypocrisy:
LINDY KERIN: ... Fairfax columnist and former Media Watch presenter Jonathon Holmes says the decision by NT News to publish the [Peris] emails was justified.
JONATHON HOLMES: There is a pretty strong public interest justification for what they’ve done, just as there was for what New Matilda did in publishing the private emails of Professor Barry Spurr. I don’t think it would be logical frankly to say one is justified and the other isn’t, because there is a strong public interest case in both of those.
LINDY KERIN: So the NT News hasn’t done anything wrong here or News Corporation hasn’t done anything wrong? 
JONATHON HOLMES: Look, of course, you can argue, that they published too much for the purpose or that they shouldn’t have published the email about Cathy Freeman or they didn’t’ need to put in all the salacious details, but ... I thought it was a lay down public interest case for the publication of the Barry Spurr emails and I don’t think I could logically say well that one’s okay but the Northern Territory isn’t.
Question: what else won’t  The Age tell its readers that conflicts with its politics? Other than the truth about global warming, I mean.
{Thanks to reader Peter of Bellevue Hill.) 
Matt Granz. .. bass player
Sarah Palin
President Obama flew in to Boston today to deliver another “ShamWow”-style infomercial for Obamacare, and it went about as well as his entourage’s snarled traffic debacle in Beantown.

As millions of Americans are being kicked off their desired insurance plans and seeing their premiums skyrocket, the President had a lot of 'splaining to do today. For starters we anticipated a Presidential apology for lying to Americans repeatedly when he promised things like, “If you like your current health care plan, you can keep it.” Make no mistake, he knew he was lying when he said that. And make no further mistake, after five years of false Obama claims, no one should actually expect contrition on this administration’s part.

Bloomberg reports that in June of 2010, the administration knew millions would be kicked off existing healthcare plans due to Obamacare; but President Obama continued to knowingly deceive the American people with repeated claims that if we liked our current plan we could keep it.

So, finally busted, did the President apologize? Was remorse and sympathy shown for Americans who now can’t afford health insurance thanks to Obamacare? Nope. He instead informed us that Americans who receive cancellation notices have been on “substandard” plans supplied by “bad apple” insurers. That’s right. Obama didn’t lie to you when he said, “if you like your plan, you can keep it.” Why? Because, you sillies, you DIDN’T REALLY like the plan you chose for yourselves! No arguing. Barack Obama knows best and he’ll tell you whether you actually liked your insurance plan or not. If you’re an elderly bachelor, your old plan was clearly “substandard” because it didn’t offer maternity care. What’s that you say? You don’t need maternity care? Well, according to the President today, he says you do, and any insurance plan that doesn’t offer it is a “junk” plan provided by a “bad apple” insurer.

But don’t worry, the President also promised that only “rich” people making $250,000 or more will see their premium costs rise. This lie is so appalling and so easily debunked that the brazenness with which he made it is simply breathtaking. But who will hold him accountable for it? Media, you know I love you... so let me help you save your hide with the American public by suggesting you fact-check that.

Despite the Obamacare rollout disaster and the broken government website (which HHS Secretary Sebelius admitted is a “debacle” in her testimony before Congress today), the President gleefully highlighted the few people signing up for Obamacare as indicative of his socialized medicine’s “success.” He neglected to mention that the government is forcing Americans to sign up for his program or pay fines that will increase each year we fail to do so.

For sheer chutzpah, the President closed his speech by praising America’s “rugged individualism.” Because nothing says “rugged individualism” like heavy-handed big government forcing individuals to buy a product they don’t want and arrogantly telling them they didn’t really like the product they wisely chose for themselves and could afford.

Thanks for the infomercial, Mr. President. I don’t know anyone who wants your “ShamWow” product, but the IRS will make sure we call that toll free number or go online to order it right now…. well, just as soon as your impossibly broken $600 million website is fixed and your phones lines aren’t busy.

Happy with this, America? Make your voices heard. 2014 is just around the corner.

- Sarah Palin

P.S. Take a look at this article by Fox’s Eric Bolling:

As Eric asks, “If they can’t get a basic website up and running in three years… How on God’s green Earth are they going to administer health care to 300 million Americans? So, with billions upon billions of health related communications clearing through the government medicine portal annually, our very health will be hanging in the balance…Therefore, you must conclude: The Obama administration has our lives in their hands…Ask yourself… Do you trust President Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Kathleen Sebelius and Jay Carney with your life? I certainly do not!”
Where is the drive to excel? To do work better. More. Faster. Less effort. These people don't think like town planners. And yet they do. - ed
ALP offers to suicide on carbon tax/ETS - ed
Yep. Doogie Howser MP does have a bit of a point. 
The young adults may go looking for it. Sex with strangers is dark and dangerous. Maybe that seems appealing to some? But it doesn't lead to nesting, or building a life. It is no different to a curse. - ed

“Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that the family of believers throughout the world is undergoing the same kind of sufferings.” 1 Peter 5:8-9NIV
Morning and Evening by Charles Spurgeon


"Renew a right spirit within me."
Psalm 51:10

A backslider, if there be a spark of life left in him will groan after restoration. In this renewal the same exercise of grace is required as at our conversion. We needed repentance then; we certainly need it now. We wanted faith that we might come to Christ at first; only the like grace can bring us to Jesus now. We wanted a word from the Most High, a word from the lip of the loving One, to end our fears then; we shall soon discover, when under a sense of present sin, that we need it now. No man can be renewed without as real and true a manifestation of the Holy Spirit's energy as he felt at first, because the work is as great, and flesh and blood are as much in the way now as ever they were. Let thy personal weakness, O Christian, be an argument to make thee pray earnestly to thy God for help. Remember, David when he felt himself to be powerless, did not fold his arms or close his lips, but he hastened to the mercy-seat with "renew a right spirit within me." Let not the doctrine that you, unaided, can do nothing, make you sleep; but let it be a goad in your side to drive you with an awful earnestness to Israel's strong Helper. O that you may have grace to plead with God, as though you pleaded for your very life--"Lord, renew a right spirit within me." He who sincerely prays to God to do this, will prove his honesty by using the means through which God works. Be much in prayer; live much upon the Word of God; kill the lusts which have driven your Lord from you; be careful to watch over the future uprisings of sin. The Lord has his own appointed ways; sit by the wayside and you will be ready when he passes by. Continue in all those blessed ordinances which will foster and nourish your dying graces; and, knowing that all the power must proceed from him, cease not to cry, "Renew a right spirit within me."


"I did know thee in the wilderness, in the land of great drought."
Hosea 13:5
Yes, Lord, thou didst indeed know me in my fallen state, and thou didst even then choose me for thyself. When I was loathsome and self-abhorred, thou didst receive me as thy child, and thou didst satisfy my craving wants. Blessed forever be thy name for this free, rich, abounding mercy. Since then, my inward experience has often been a wilderness; but thou hast owned me still as thy beloved, and poured streams of love and grace into me to gladden me, and make me fruitful. Yea, when my outward circumstances have been at the worst, and I have wandered in a land of drought, thy sweet presence has solaced me. Men have not known me when scorn has awaited me, but thou hast known my soul in adversities, for no affliction dims the lustre of thy love. Most gracious Lord, I magnify thee for all thy faithfulness to me in trying circumstances, and I deplore that I should at any time have forgotten thee and been exalted in heart, when I have owed all to thy gentleness and love. Have mercy upon thy servant in this thing!
My soul, if Jesus thus acknowledged thee in thy low estate, be sure that thou own both himself and his cause now that thou art in thy prosperity. Be not lifted up by thy worldly successes so as to be ashamed of the truth or of the poor church with which thou hast been associated. Follow Jesus into the wilderness: bear the cross with him when the heat of persecution grows hot. He owned thee, O my soul, in thy poverty and shame--never be so treacherous as to be ashamed of him. O for more shame at the thought of being ashamed of my best Beloved! Jesus, my soul cleaveth to thee.
"I'll turn to thee in days of light,
As well as nights of care,
Thou brightest amid all that's bright!
Thou fairest of the fair!"

Today's reading: Jeremiah 22-23, Titus 1 (NIV)

View today's reading on Bible Gateway

Today's Old Testament reading: Jeremiah 22-23

Judgment Against Wicked Kings
1 This is what the LORD says: “Go down to the palace of the king of Judah and proclaim this message there: 2 ‘Hear the word of the LORD to you, king of Judah, you who sit on David’s throne—you, your officials and your people who come through these gates. 3 This is what the LORD says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of the oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place. 4 For if you are careful to carry out these commands, then kings who sit on David’s throne will come through the gates of this palace, riding in chariots and on horses, accompanied by their officials and their people. 5 But if you do not obey these commands, declares the LORD, I swear by myself that this palace will become a ruin.’”
6 For this is what the LORD says about the palace of the king of Judah:
“Though you are like Gilead to me,
like the summit of Lebanon,
I will surely make you like a wasteland,
like towns not inhabited.
7 I will send destroyers against you,
each man with his weapons,
and they will cut up your fine cedar beams
and throw them into the fire....

Today's New Testament reading: Titus 1

1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness— 2 in the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time, 3and which now at his appointed season he has brought to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior,
4 To Titus, my true son in our common faith:
Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.
Appointing Elders Who Love What Is Good
5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. 6 An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7 Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8 Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it....


The Woman Who Rose From Obscurity to Riches

Scripture References - The Book of Ruth, Matthew 1:5
Name Meaning - Since the Ruth of ancient Bible times, her name has ever been a most popular one for girls. Elsdon C. Smith, in his compilation of the first hundred female names in America, places Ruth seventh in the list, with an estimated number of almost one and a half million bearing the name. The author's only daughter bears this honored name. As to its significance, we cannot do better than the interpretation Wilkinson gives us in his Personal Names of the Bible, in the chapter on "Heathen Names" -
The most distinguished person of the Moabitish race is Ruth, who became the wife of Boaz, and ancestress of David. Her name is a contraction of reuth , which may either be the word for "the act of seeing," "sight" and hence, as in English, objectively "a sight," "something worth seeing" - or the word for "friendship" or "a female friend," like reu in Reuel, "friend of God." If the former etymology be adopted, we must ascribe the name to the early beauty of the child; if the latter, it may be due to the exhibition in infancy of that amiable and affectionate disposition which was so characteristic of the woman.
Both meanings of the name were true of Ruth, for as a beautiful girl from Moab she was certainly a sight worth seeing, and her character revealed her to be a woman capable of rare friendship.
It took the grace of God to befriend a bitter woman as Naomi became, but Ruth was bound to her mother-in-law by the cords of love, and literature has no exhibition of friendship comparable to that dramatic episode on the way to Bethlehem (Ruth 1:1617 ). Not wanting to go back to Moab, as Orpah did, Ruth, cleaving to Naomi said with passion in her voice -
Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:
Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lorddo so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.
What an appealing and stirring demonstration of undying friendship that was, and Ruth meant it, and through it changed Naomi's sourness into sweetness! We have dear friends like Ruth who cling to us, and others like Orpah whose friendship is only veneer and who quickly leave us (see Naomi and Orpah). Scripture gives us a fivefold profile of this famous Moabitess -
A Young Widow
The first glimpse we have of Ruth is as a young wife robbed by death of her husband. In our previous cameos of Naomi and Orpah we have already seen how Elimelech and his wife, along with their two sons Mahlon and Chilion, in order to escape prevailing famine in Bethlehem, emigrated to the neighboring country of Moab, the inhabitants of which were idolaters. After a while Elimelech died, and the two fatherless sons married women of Moab. Mahlon took Ruth to wife, and Chilion, Orpah. After some ten years' sojourn in Moab, Mahlon and Chilion died leaving their wives childless. In marrying women of Moab those two Hebrew men sinned against the Mosaic Law which prohibted any association with the idolatrous Moabites (Deuteronomy 7:323:3).
Mahlon means "the sickly one," or "invalid"; Chilion, "the pining one," or "wasting away" - names probably associated with their natal frailty. They may have been twins, and from their birth Naomi had to surround them with great care and attention. This is evident that life in Moab, with all its food and comfort, hastened their end. Like their father, Elimelech, they found graves in foreign soil, and the desolation of widowhood came upon both Ruth and Orpah, who became sharers of Naomi's desolation. Ten years of widowhood brought the two younger women to a mature age. How far they had been influenced Godward by their marriage into a Hebrew family, with its recognition of God, and not their idols, as the only true object of worship, we are not told. As Ruth's husband, Mahlon, was the first-born of Elimelech and Naomi, we can imagine how he would strive through their years together to draw her from her heathen ways. With all we know of Ruth's honest nature, it is quite possible that she warmly received all her husband told her of the mighty Jehovah.
Bereft of her husband, Ruth, as well as Orpah, would be left without material resources of support, and would face the hard and bitter lot of a biting poverty, as many widows do when the breadwinner is taken. But if Ruth shed any tears over her sorry plight as she faced a gloomy future without her husband, there is no record of them. She did not seek for self-pity neither did she manifest the bitterness that had gripped the heart of Naomi because of her sad lot. Amid the shadows, Ruth maintained a poise and a serenity which even her mother-in-law must have coveted. When happy homes are ravaged by death, it requires grace to say, "The Lord gave, the Lord hath taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord." Naomi's self-confessed bitterness over the loss of husband and sons spoke of her lack of faith in God's good providence. But Ruth, heathen though she may have been, seems to have calmly acquiesced in the divine will.
A Faithful Daughter-in-Law
Bound together by a bond of common grief, the three widows found consolation in each other's company. "Fellow-feeling, makes us wondrous kind." The widowed Naomi, now bereft of her two sons who died childless, had no links with Moab. As famine had passed in Bethlehem, the decision was made to pull up stakes and return to her own country and people, perhaps with a faint hope that God would prove Himself to be the Guardian of widows. "Let thy widows trust in me." What about Ruth and Orpah? Deeply attached to their mother-in-law, who had become a second mother to them, and to whom they clung as their friend and counselor, they decided to accompany the pilgrim on her way. Naomi used no persuasion, but left the two young widows to make their own choice. Therefore all three left Moab together, but on the way they stopped and Naomi urged them to return to their own country, marry again and settle down. She did not want them to face uncertainty in a strange land. With poor Orpah, ties of kindred and her own idolatrous practices won out. Her heart failed, and kissing her mother-in-law she went back to her people and to her gods. It is possible that when among her heathen friends again, her conscience often whispered to her of the wrong course taken.
As for Ruth, the choice was different. She loved Naomi and was willing to leave her own land and share the unknown future with the aging woman in whom her life was bound up. In her happier days with Mahlon, and then in her desolation and bereavement, Ruth found in Naomi a home for her heart. Orpah manifested a show of passionate affection as she kissed her mother-in-law good-by! But Ruth, as always, revealed a quiet fidelity so characteristic of her association with the embittered woman now returning to Bethlehem. We agree with the sentiment of Alexander Whyte that there is not a love story comparable to the love of the Moabite daughter-in-law for her Hebrew mother-in-law.
Ruth's love for her dead husband's aged mother is as pure as gold and as strong as death. Many waters cannot quench Ruth's love. And her confession of her love, when she is constrained to confess it, is the most beautiful confession of love in all the world.
Ruth's declaration of love and loyalty for Naomi marks it out as being the purest and most unselfish form of devotion, especially when we remember that Naomi was more than twice the age of Ruth, and that, proverbially, it is not easy to live with a mother-in-law. Here we have a strong contradiction to modern flippancy - the passionate affection of a young widow for her widowed mother-in-law. History and literature cannot provide a more exquisite expression of love and loyalty as that to be found in the lovely idyll bearing the name of the lover herself. The matchless beauty of the character of Ruth appeared when she cried, "Intreat me not to leave thee." As A. S. Geden puts it, "The piety and fidelity of Ruth are early exhibited in the course of the narrative, in that she refused to abandon her mother-in-law, although thrice exhorted to do so by Naomi herself, on account of her own great age, and the better prospects for Ruth in her own country." In an age like ours with its ever growing number of strained relationships, broken homes and loveless lives it is most refreshing to go back to the charming picture of loyalty found in a short yet sublime book in which every prospect pleases.
A Determined Convert
In spite of her heathen background and association with the degenerated tribe of Moab, Ruth became a devout worshiper of the true God. Just when she cast off her idolatry with its folly of bowing down to gods of wood and stone, and turned to the beauty and blessedness of true religion we are not told. Perhaps in her somewhat short married life, her heart was stirred by what her husband told her of the greatness of Jehovah. Then she must have seen that Naomi's God was totally different from the lifeless deity she worshiped. This much is evident, that her outburst of song of life devotion on the road from Moab to Bethlehem was the birth-strain of a new life. From henceforth the Hebrews would be her people, and Naomi's God her God. Her new-found faith constrained her to say, "The Lord do so to me, and more also, if aught but death part thee and me."
Had Ruth accompanied Orpah to Moab and to obscurity, she would have returned to the altars of Baal. But now with God in her heart, she longed to live with those people "whose God is the Lord." Faith burst forth into the light of day, took the form of quiet, humble service, and remained untainted by any trace of pride or of spiritual haughtiness, as Kuyper expresses it. To which we can add the sentiment of Fausset that, "Ruth is an instance of natural affection made instrumental in leading to true religion. A blossom of heathendom stretching its flower cup desiringly towards the light of revelation in Israel."
The firm decision of Ruth to follow Jehovah, and to completely identify herself with His people, brought her a rich reward when she became the ancestress of the Saviour who came into the world to save idolaters and sinners of every race. With her surrender to the claims of God, Ruth's "beauty of heart, generosity of soul, firm sense of duty and meekness" were sanctified, and were used to place her winsome portrait among the immortals. There are thousands of Christian parents whose heavy load would be lifted if only their unsaved children would come home one day confessing. "Thy God shall be my God, thy people my people." The miracle happened in the heathen heart of Ruth, and God is still the same today as when He won the young widow of Moab for Himself.
A Humble Gleaner
Back in Bethlehem, Naomi was reminded of how her afflictions had changed her. Friends found it hard to believe that this was the beautiful woman who had left them ten years before. At that time she was clothed so well, but now she is clad in a poor and sorrowful dress. Her brow was wrinkled and her back bent, but by her side was the "foreigner," to share her sorrow, and to taste any joys that might come to her. At first it seemed as if they were to remain desolate and uncared for, but fortunately it was harvest time, and the golden sheaves were being gathered in. Naomi and Ruth must live, and Ruth, with her characteristic thoughtfulness, knew that her aged mother-in-law was not able to work. Thus she went out and was directed to join the poor gleaners in the fields of the rich, godly landowner, Boaz.
We find ourselves in disagreement with those who try to portray Ruth as a lonely girl overcome with homesickness for her old Moabite friends as she bent her back to glean in an unfamiliar field. In his Ode to a Nightingale, Keats sought to immortalize such a feeling in the arrestive lines -
Perhaps the self-same song that found a path Thro' the sad heart of Ruth, when, sick for home, She stood in tears amid the alien corn.
There is no trace whatever of such a doleful note in the record of Ruth. Having deliberately severed all association with Moab, she found joy among the strange people whom she had made her people, and when she went forth that bright morning to follow the reapers, it was with joy and confidence that the God under whose wings she had come to trust would undertake for her. Thus we much prefer the beautiful tribute Thomas Hood gives us in his poem on Ruth.
She stood breast-high amid the corn,
Clasped by the golden light of morn,
Like the sweetheart of the sun,
Who many a glowing kiss had won.
On her cheek an autumn flush,
Deeply ripened - such a blush
In the midst of Brown was born,
Like red poppies grown with corn.
Round her eyes her tresses fell,
Which were blackest none could tell,
But long lashes veiled a light,
That had else been all too bright.
And her hat, with shady brim,
Made her tressy forehead dim -
Thus she stood amid the stooks,
Praising God with sweetest looks.
"Sure," I said, "Heav'n did not mean,
Where I reap thou should'st but glean;
Lay thy sheaf adown and come,
Share my harvest and my home."
Ruth was not ashamed of the low order of her work as she took her place as a gleaner with the poor and outcast. The sacred historian tells us that as Ruth went out to secure food for Naomi and herself that it was "her hap to light on a part of the field belonging unto Boaz, who was of the kindred of Elimelech." But her entrance into the field of Boaz, and not into another man's field, did not just happen. Under Jewish law Ruth had the right to glean in any harvest field. It was no mere chance, then, that brought Boaz and Ruth together, for even the steps of God's children are directed by Him. In His plan for His own there is no such a thing as luck . Determined not to eat the bread of idleness, industrious Ruth walked right into the arms of divine providence. Little did she dream that she would become the much-loved wife of the master of the field in which the reapers had given her a friendly welcome (Ruth 2:12;Psalms 17:836:7).
Being one who feared God, and one who cared for the poor, Boaz went among his reapers, spoke kindly to them, and earned their benediction. Coming upon Ruth he was arrested by her staid and modest look. Although poorly clad there was a dignity in her mien, a refinement giving her distinction, and Boaz is arrested by her beauty and personality. Making inquiries about her, Boaz learns of her sacrifice for Naomi, and of her conversion to the worship of Jehovah (Ruth 2:6), and commands the reapers to purposely drop extra sheaves for Ruth's benefit. Boaz also bade Ruth to glean only in his field, and to stand fast by his female workers. He wanted to preserve her from coarse contact with men who might take advantage of such a poor woman, who was in his admiring eyes a superior one. She was not to eat with others but present herself at his feasts.
As for Ruth, her heart was full because kindness had been shown her by a stranger in the solitude of a strange land. How excited she must have been when she reached home and told Naomi all about her good fortune, and showed her all the parched corn she had gathered. Was there a lyric note in Ruth's story of that first day? Had she sensed that somehow Boaz had been strangely attracted to her, hence his generosity in spite of the alien blood in her veins? As for Naomi, when Ruth came to mention the name of her benefactor, Boaz, she recalls the name as that of a kinsman of her deceased husband, Elimelech. It may be that in the mind of Naomi there entered a feeling that perhaps a brighter future may be hers and Ruth's.
An Honored Mother
We all know how matters between Boaz and Ruth developed which caused Goethe to say of the Book of Ruth that "we have nothing so lovely in the whole range of epic and idyllic poetry." The name of Boaz became immortalized because of his loving-kindness toward Ruth, the poor Moabitess, while the kinsman who would not mar his own inheritance is unknown. It turned out that Boaz was one of Naomi's nearest relatives and one of the few remaining kinsmen of her husband's family. Therefore he was able to befriend the widow of Mahlon, Elimelech's son, according to the deep principle pervading the law of Israel regarding the preservation of families. This Levirate Law stated that where a husband died without issue, the nearest brother-in-law (levir) might be called upon by the widow to perform for her all the duties of a husband, and raise up seed for the deceased.
In the case of Ruth, however, no brother-in-law was available seeing the only sons Elimelech had were dead. Consequently, the nearest of kin could be called upon to act as "redeemer" (goel) for the unfortunate, relieving them thereby of their distress. The nearest relative to Ruth by marriage was unable to function as her goel, and being the next relative, Boaz did not shirk his responsibility toward the lovely woman who had won his heart. Before the council of ten men at the city gate he announced before witnesses his decision to buy Ruth's inheritance and marry her. Although bachelor Boaz was advanced in years, he was determined to play his part and as Naomi said, "The man will not rest, until he has finished the thing this day" - and finish it he did! So the idyllic conclusion was reached, with Ruth being lifted out of obscurity into a happy union with Boaz, the mighty man of wealth. This story provides us with one of the first records in world history of a rise from rags to riches, from poverty to plenty.
God smiled upon the marriage of honorable Boaz and virtuous Ruth, and blessed them with a son whom they named Obed which means "a servant who worships." As Ruth was the servant who came to worship Jehovah, we can imagine her son's name as being expressive of her own conversion from idolatry. Through the birth of Obed, who became the father of Jesse, who, in turn was the father of King David, Ruth found herself numbered among the elect, and God wove the thread of her life most intricately into the web of the history of His people, both before and after Christ. A Gentile by birth, Ruth yet became the chosen line through which later the Saviour of the world appeared. As He came to redeem both Jew and Gentile alike, it was fitting that the blood of both should mingle in His veins. "A good name," says Solomon, "is rather to be chosen than riches, and loving favour than silver and gold." Ruth found it so, and thus her good name found a place in the royal genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1:5 ). As George Matheson so beautifully puts it, "In the soul of Jesus the wedding bells of Ruth and Boaz are rung once more. Here again Moab and Israel meet together. In the heart of the Son of Man the Gentile stands side by side with the Jew as the recipient of a common divine fatherhood."
Those of us who are Christians praise God for Ruth's inclusion in His portrait gallery, for she was the ancestress of Him who, by His death, brought us nigh to God. It was from Boaz, an Israelite without guile, and from Ruth, who became an "Israelite not in race, but in mind; not in blood but faith; not by tribe but by virtue and goodness," that Jesus came as the most perfect expression of all graces.
One could say much of the merits and message of the book to which Ruth gave her name, as well as of the many lessons to be gathered from it. Benjamin Franklin, who was ridiculed at one time in Paris for his defense of the Bible, was determined to find out how much of it his scoffers had read. He informed one of the learned societies that he had come across a story of pastoral life in ancient times that seemed to him very beautiful but he would like the opinion of the society. A night was arranged for Franklin to read to the assembly of scholars a lyric which impressed him. The Bible lover read the Book of Ruth, and when he had finished the scholars were in ecstasies and begged Franklin to print it. "It is already in print," said Franklin. "It is a part of the Bible you ridicule."
There is nothing in the entire range of biography sacred or profane, comparable to the idyllic simplicity, tenderness and beauty of the story of Ruth, the young widow of Moab. There are only two books out of the sixty-six forming the Bible that are named after women. Ruth is one, and the other is Esther - and both books have enchanted succeeding ages. The Jews have a peculiar regard for both books. At their Feast of Purim they read Esther, and at the Feast of Pentecost, the scroll of Ruth. Among the many typical features in the latter, the most outstanding is that of the composition of the true church of Jesus Christ. Ruth was a Gentile, Boaz a Hebrew. Boaz redeemed Ruth's possession and then became her husband. All have sinned, both Jews and Gentiles, but Jesus died for all, and His church is composed of regenerated Jews and Gentiles whom He calls His Bride. Thus "the marriage-bells of Ruth at Bethlehem were the same bells which sounded at the marriage-supper of the Lamb."
From Ruth's outstanding qualities of unselfishness and loyalty we learn that such virtues are the only foundation upon which true happiness can be built. Without them, abiding friendship is impossible, home ties are loose, and the social structure weak. Ruth also teaches us that attractive graciousness is worth cultivating; and that racial hatred and religious bigotry can be solved by a right relationship to Him who made of one blood all nations. Further, the rare literary gem of the Book of Ruth, which takes one some fifteen minutes to read, shows us how our industrial and labor problems can be solved. Boaz was a wealthy farmer, yet he maintained a delightful relation to those who worked for him in a dark, chaotic period of Israelitish history. As he walked through his fields, meeting his servants he would say, "The Lord be with thee," and such was the harmony that prevailed that they would reply, "The Lord bless thee." In our time, the strained relationship between masters and employees would be quickly solved by the application of the good will manifested in those ancient days. Combining as it does all the traits of human life and character, Ruth is a book all can read with both pleasure and profit.


[Jōb] - hated, one ever returning to god or he that weeps.

  1. The third son of Issachar(Gen. 46:13). Called Jashub inNumbers 26:24 and 1 Chronicles 7:1.
  2. A descendant of Aram, son of Shem, dwelling in Uz, and possibly contemporary with Abraham, and who died at the age of 240 years. References to the patriarch apart from his book are to be found in Ezekiel 14:14 and James 5:11.

The Man of Patience

This renowned Old Testament saint dwelt in the land of Uz on the borders of Idumaea. Job's portrait is clearly defined for us in his dramatic book.
I. As to his character, he was perfect and upright, feared God and eschewed evil (Job 1:1). Here we have the manward, Godward and selfward aspects of his life.
II. As to his family, he had seven sons and three daughters (Job 1:2, 18, 19).
III. As to his possessions, he was a wealthy landowner, having seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen, five hundred she asses and a large household (Job 1:3, 13-19).
IV. As to reputation, Job, who lived long before Israel with its religious, social and political organizations existed, was reckoned as the greatest of all the men of the East (Job 1:3).
V. As to his friends, candid friends, there were Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar and Elihu ( Job 2:11; 36:1).
VI. As to his foes, we have mention of the Sabeans and Chaldeans (Job 1:15, 17).
VII. As to his sufferings, he lost his property, sons and wealth. But his losses were doubly recompensed (Job 42:11-13).
VIII. As to his prayer-life, Job knew how to seek God. Thus we have restrained prayer (Job 15:4), purity of prayer (Job 16:17), empty prayer ( Job 21:15), profitable prayer (Job 22:27), blessedness of prayer (Job 33:26), interceding prayer (Job 42:8), emancipating prayer (Job 42:10; see 8:5).
IX. As to his patience, the Bible presents him as our model. Faith was strained but Job emerged victorious ( Job 19:1-27; Jas. 5:11).
As to the remarkable book bearing Job's name, the following summary might suffice:
Its purpose. It is not an apologetic vindication of the ways of God to man; not a philosophic proof of the doctrine of immortality; not an argumentative refutation of the so-called Hosaic doctrine of retribution; not a word of exhortation to man not to pry into the deep designs of providence, neither is it the testing and improvement of Job's piety. That is acknowledged by God and admitted by Satan to be perfect. It has been written to prove:
That God can be loved for His own sake; that goodness may be unselfish and disinterested; that the righteous can serve God for nought and trust in Him even when He seems to be an enemy.
That the painful riddle of human life is capable of a blessed solution; that the sufferings of the righteous are not necessarily due to their own sins; that the inequalities of this life are to be redressed in the life to come. Justice will be done somehow, sometime, somewhere.
But the Bible is the Book of Christ, and the great theme of Job is the mystery of the Cross: How can the sufferings of the righteous be reconciled with the justice of God? Job is a type of the righteous man, of the Nation, of the Church and of Christ Himself.
Hence we have in Job the picture of a righteous man suffering because it pleased the Lord, for a wise purpose, to bruise him. God reversed the verdict of the men who rejected him and numbered him among the transgressors.
Key VerseJob 13:15 . "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him." This is an Old Testament anticipation of the cry of dereliction that came from Christ upon the Cross: "Why didst Thou forsake me?"
Key Thought: Confidence in God (Job 23:10; 27:2-6). He knoweth. In the depth of his darkness and in the agony of his suffering, Job held on to God. My Redeemer liveth.
Post a Comment