For the last 100 days, Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has emerged each and every day to front the press. Since the beginning of Victoria’s second wave of COVID-19, he has provided daily updates, including case numbers and deaths, fielding questions from journalists immediately after. Many a day he has stood at the lectern for anywhere up to an hour or more, dodging questions like they are bullets that will end his political career. He brings a Minister or health official to every presser, likely in the hope that they will be able to provide some distraction from the obvious incompetence occurring within his own Government. He held journalists in contempt, talking down to them, acting as if their questions had no substance. He hid behind the hotel quarantine inquiry, an inquiry he claims to have established not for the avoidance of questions and answers, even though this is exactly what he is using it for. For months we have borne witness to more of the same day in, day out. But today, that all changed.

Earlier this morning, former Health Minister Jenny Mikakos said in a final submission to the hotel quarantine inquiry that Daniel Andrews’ testimony should be “treated with caution”. She essentially implied he had lied to the inquiry. In addition, she named Jobs Minister Martin Pakula as bearing a fair amount of responsibility for the bungled hotel quarantine program, including the hiring of private security. Although Mikakos had been thrown under the bus by Andrews, it seemed apparent she was attempting to drag him under there with her. There is nothing worse for a Premier than a Minister scorned. Mikakos is made even more dangerous by the simple fact that she has nothing to lose.  

This set up a fresh line of questioning for the press to take on at the looming daily press conference. And so, after the Premier presented the daily update, and Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton discussed the epidemiology of the day, the questions began. After Sutton fielded a few questions on various outbreaks and cases, the journalists set their sights on the Premier. As was to be expected, there were several questions asked on the subject of Mikakos and her statement, Daniel Andrews using the inquiry to deflect one after the other. It appeared that this was going to be just another standard press conference where nothing interesting gets answered. But then, a new voice in the press gallery. A familiar voice that likely caused many to do a double take. Enter Peta Credlin.

Peta Credlin, former Chief of Staff to former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, lawyer, journalist, and presenter of Credlin on Sky News, had turned up to an Andrews presser. And just like that, Day 100 got interesting. Credlin began by asking Daniel Andrews questions in relation to the inquiry and its powers. She told Andrews that in a submission made by Victorian Police overnight, they made it clear that there are not adequate powers to provide the full phone records of former Police Commissioner Graham Ashton. Their submission assert that “prior to 2pm, there was a decision made in relation to the use of private security in hotel quarantine, and that the decision was made and communicated by an individual at or around 1:12pm and 1:22pm”. The submission also makes it clear that the Victorian Inquiries Act does not give the head of the hotel quarantine inquiry, former Judge Jennifer Coate, the powers to get to the evidence of the incoming phone calls of Graham Ashton. This is an important point, considering these phone records are very likely the key evidence to proving a decision, rather than a creeping assumption, was made in relation to the use of private security in the hotel quarantine program, a decision that led to Victoria’s second wave, thousands of cases, and hundreds of deaths. In response to this, Andrews said that if Judge Coate thought she needed further powers, she could ask for them through the appropriate channels. The issue with this, as Credlin immediately pointed out, is that the powers that would be necessary to obtain these all-important phone records are ones that fall under the Telecommunications Interception Act, which is Commonwealth legislation. They are Federal powers, not State ones, and thus Daniel Andrews would not be able to provide these necessary powers to Judge Coate and the Board of Inquiry. What is more, in addition to Graham Ashton’s incoming call record, Police and Emergency Services Minister Lisa Neville’s records, Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet Chris Eccles’ records, Daniel Andrews’ Chief of Staff’s records, and the Premier’s own records have not been provided to the inquiry.

It beggars belief that any genuine Inquiry would lack the power to request the key evidence of the matter being investigated. Now it could just be that Daniel Andrews has no knowledge of the Victorian Inquiries Act, which is purely absurd considering he is the Premier of Victoria and has been claiming for months that he set up this inquiry to get answers. However, considering the record of the Premier and his Government, this seems like more than just pure incompetence and lack of understanding. It reeks of a cover-up. Andrews himself said that if a request were made, they would provide the phone records. There is a key six-minute period that is unaccounted for because the phone records have not been provided. If no-one has anything to hide, why not just release all the phone records now and clear this all up?

Credlin then switched to a different topic, that of Emergency Management Victoria Commissioner Andrew Crisp. In his original evidence to a Parliamentary Inquiry on August 26, Crisp said three times that he had briefed the Police Minister Lisa Neville on the day the decision was made in regard to hotel quarantine, March 27, and March 28. Earlier this week, in a stunning revelation, Crisp completely recanted that evidence and said that he did not brief the Minister over that two-day period. The problem with this is a legal one, and as a lawyer, Peta Credlin was completely around it.

Legally, Andrew Crisp is what is known as a statutory officer. He is not a regular public servant, and thus has a different legal foundation to his work. Under Section 32 of the Emergency Management Act, Crisp is required to continually brief his Minister, that being the Police Minister. By his own admission, Crisp did not brief his Minister in a critical two-day period when Victoria was under a State of Emergency and the apparatus of hotel quarantine was being set up. However, although he had the opportunity to correct the original testimony he provided to the Parliamentary Inquiry within the 24 hours that the Hansard (official record of what is said in Parliament) was provided to him, Crisp waited six weeks to make correct the record, after Lisa Neville gave evidence at the Coate Inquiry in which she made it known she was not briefed on those two days. Daniel Andrews claims Crisp is a man of integrity. A man of integrity would have told the truth the first time around, not six weeks later after the Police Minister had backed him into a corner.

Now under Section 29 of the Emergency Management Act, Andrew Crisp has serious obligations. If in any case he were to neglect his duty, Crisp should be stood down, suspended, or removed from his position. There are provisions in the Act that if he does not adhere to its requirements, which includes briefing his Minister, that he should be suspended, and further, his commission terminated. It is a profoundly serious matter. Crisp has clearly, by a correction given of his own volition, breached the very Act to which he must always adhere. Yet he has not even been investigated over this matter. Daniel Andrews claims that, because he personally does not see this matter in the terms that Andrew Crisp has breached the Act that he as Premier administers, it becomes a matter of confidence, and that he has full confidence in Crisp as Emergency Management Commissioner. This, however, is not how it works. This matter is one of law. It is one of a legal Act to which Crisp must abide but has instead breached. As Premier, Daniel Andrews has a duty to enforce this Act. Just because he does not personally agree with it does not mean the matter rescinds to one of confidence and he can forego his duty as Premier of Victoria. If Andrews does not implicate the ramifications of this Act, then he has no respect for the law, much less the position of Premier.

Today’s press conference was only the beginning of a nightmare for Daniel Andrews. Peta Credlin is doing what many other journalists have failed to do, holding the Premier to account. Tonight, on her program, Credlin said the following: “I am not going to let this go. I will not go away. If I have to go to the Premier’s press conference every day, I will, to get answers, to get to the bottom of this debacle. I will get the truth.”

Credlin is not going to let Daniel Andrews get away with this. She is going to get justice for over 800 people who have died in Victoria, their families and loved ones. She is the hero Victoria has been waiting for.

Daniel Andrews has made a formidable enemy. Peta Credlin will be his downfall.

As if this year could not get any crazier, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, has tested positive for COVID19. When he announced via Twitter on Friday that both he and the First Lady had received a positive result and were going into quarantine for two weeks, there were two vastly different kinds of reactions. From those on the Right, there was nothing but sympathy and well wishes, accompanied by enthusiasm for Trump to recover and return stronger than ever to win a second term in office. Now while there were also some on the Left who wished the President and First Lady well, there were many that chose to go down another path, one which lacks all moral decency.

Many on the Left were in fact celebrating Trump contracting COVID19. They were out on social media expressing their elation that there “may be some hope for America after all”. There were those who said he deserved it. There were those who made light of the situation by saying he should drink bleach or inject disinfectant. Even Queensland’s Deputy Premier Steven Miles joined in, tweeting “Have you considered intravenous disinfectant?” Appalling behaviour from a representative of Australia, let alone the Deputy Premier and Health Minister of Queensland. But he was not the worst of the bunch. There have in fact been far too many wishing suffering and death upon Trump. I have seen some absolutely deplorable tweets over the last couple of days, with some joking about pulling the plug on Trump’s life support and others just saying they hope he dies. Some even hoped that his family and others in his administration would contract the virus.

The irony in all this is that only days before, these same people were upset at Trump for “not denouncing white supremacists” and allowing hate to spread. Yet here they are, mere days later, spreading some of the most vile and hateful comments you would ever see. For those who preach tolerance and hold others to certain standards, they sure do not practice what they preach. Clearly, it is one set of standards for them, and one set for those they despise.

Meanwhile, the usual suspects in the media have made fools out of themselves, being unable to choose between two extremes. The first, Trump does not actually have COVID19 and is faking the whole thing. The second, Trump is worse than he seems and is practically on death’s door. Trump has single handedly exposed the extensive lack of credibility in the media. Even today, after the President was driven in a car around the outside of Walter Reed hospital, where he has been staying so that his condition can be monitored, to wave to his supporters, media types like Brian Stelter and others at CNN and the typically anti-Trump media, alongside many others on the Left, including doctors and politicians, were outraged that he would do this. Why? Because they claim it would have put the Secret Service that travel with him at risk of infection. These are the very same people who for months on end have been calling for the police to be defunded, and now they suddenly care about the Secret Service. The irony is immense.

Trump will, no doubt, be fine and beat COVID19. But what does this mean for the campaign? Well, the campaign is likely as good as over, at least for Trump personally. It will be up to others in his campaign team and administration to continue spreading his message, to continue on the trail for him now. Vice President Mike Pence will still debate Biden’s VP nominee Kamala Harris this week, and will no doubt do his best to fight on Trump’s behalf.

The President himself continues to work hard from the Presidential office in Walter Reed, and it just goes to show his dedication to the American people. Trump does not stop working, even with COVID19, while his opponent Joe Biden consistently calls lids just after 9am every other day. For those unfamiliar with the lingo, a lid is called when a candidate does not plan to do any more public events nor appearances for the remainder of that day.

It would seem, however, that even though Trump is unable to host his famous rallies and attend events, even though the campaign trail for him personally may have come to an end, he has done enough to secure a second term. Some may be skeptical of this, in particular those who are not supporters of the President. Even those who are Trump supporters have shown concern, particularly after the first debate. However, as one would learn from ex-Secret Serviceman Dan Bongino, there was a strategy. Allow me to explain.

First, some background. Presidential Elections typically go a certain way. The voters are usually divided up as follows: 40% vote Republican, 40% vote Democrat, and 20% are what you might call “fence-sitters”. This 20% have not made up their mind and are basically up for grabs by either side. Typically, the Presidential candidates campaign to ensure not only their own voters, or “bases”, turn up, but also to get at least 11% of the 20% of undecided voters on their side, so that they can win the election. Now because the United States has non-compulsory voting, not everyone is going to show up to vote. In your usual Election, each side would get maybe 20% of their 40% to actually vote, which means those undecided voters become so much more important.

However, this Presidential Election is different. It is what Bongino refers to as a “base election”. Again, for those unfamiliar with this political lingo, a Party’s “base” is the group of voters that practically always supports that Party and its candidates. So, the base election is one where the two Parties’ bases become more important than the undecided voters. Now President Trump and his team seem to have worked this out. Over the course of this election campaign, Trump has held events, rallies, and fired up at the debate. Each time, he has attracted incredibly large crowds, his supporters, his base, showing out in droves. This demonstrates the enthusiasm of his base. Biden, on the other hand, has had far smaller numbers turn out to his events, and many days has forgone holding events at all. Thereby, his base was already fairly unenthusiastic.

When the debate occurred last week, it appeared on the surface to be a disaster. The moderator, Chris Wallace, was clearly biased, interrupting the President 76 times as compared to Biden’s 15. The President made a fair few interruptions himself when Biden was speaking, some more warranted than others. And at one point, Biden told President Trump to “just shut up”. There were mixed opinions on the debate, with Trump supporters even uncertain as to whether he had done well. But while Biden claimed victory, he was far from victorious.

See, Bongino provided one of the best takes on the debate and demonstrated how Trump actually won. Some may have thought that Trump would have lost voters. That is incorrect. Bongino received a host of messages from Trump supporters post-debate telling him how they though it was a train wreck. But when Bongino asked if they were still voting for Trump, they all said yes. Trump’s base is far more loyal to the man, and it shows.

But Trump did something far more spectacular that night than not losing a vote. He got Joe Biden to disown his base. The current base of the Democrats is not your standard Left-Wing base. Rather, it is the radical Left, the ones who would align with Alexandria Occasio-Cortez, the lovers of the Green New Deal. Yes, the same Green New Deal that Biden claimed he does not support at the debate. But Trump also said something else that was key to destabilizing Biden’s campaign. When Trump told Biden that he was being dominated by the Socialists, Biden said he was not, claimed he was not a Socialist, and then uttered the line “I am the Democrat Party.” In doing so, he made it clear that he does not represent the Socialist Left, the radical Left of the Party, the base of the Democrat Party, disowning them. This will result in a far less enthusiastic base, something which bodes terribly for Biden, given his base lacked enthusiasm as it were.

Trump has already won this election. Why? Because in firing up his own base, he is likely to have somewhere around 80% of his 40% turn up to vote. Considering the mail-in voting is tarnished by corruption, the vast majority of his voters will be more inclined to turn up on the day. In getting Biden to disown his own base, Trump is practically guaranteed to win, with Biden likely to get less than the standard 20% of his 40% to turn out to vote. The President does not even need to win over any of the undecided voters to win this election. His base will do enough.

So, while President Donald Trump may be off the campaign trail for now, while he may never return to the trail as he recovers from COVID19, you can be sure he will be back better than ever. He will trump COVID19 and move forward triumphantly to claim victory and four more years as the leader of the free world.

In a world where the truth is becoming increasingly more difficult to determine, those whose job it is to retrieve truth and report it to the people are ever more important. The media act not only as messengers, but also investigators. Journalists are the ones who hold people of power, especially politicians, to account. They have a duty to the people to report accurately and factually, and to ensure that those who lead them are not stepping out of line. The press plays a critically important role in our world, particularly in democratic nations.

Yet in the modern world, the landscape has changed. Bias has left its mark, with many media outlets now foregoing facts for whatever narrative suits their political agenda. We see this reflected in media around the world. In the United States, among the worst offenders are CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, and the New York Times. In the United Kingdom, it is the BBC, Sky and The Guardian. In Australia, it is the ABC, SBS and The Guardian. There are plenty of others who also do the same, these are just some of the most prominent. And on a point of clarification, Sky News in the UK and Sky News in Australia tend to be fairly different. In the UK, it is more left-leaning and oftentimes presents falsities to push an agenda against the Conservative Party. In Australia, Sky is one of the only outlets that reports factually and honestly.

Unless you have been living under a rock the last few years, chances are you would have heard the term “fake news”. A term made prominent by US President Donald Trump, “fake news” is defined as “false news stories, often of a sensational nature, created to be widely shared or distributed for the purpose of generating revenue, or promoting or discrediting a public figure, political movement, company, etc.”. Essentially, fake news is a narrative constructed in order to push a political agenda. It is not at all based in fact, rather being the fantastical creation of the individual or group who establishes it. Fake news is the enemy of good journalism. And by extension the enemy of the people. When the media spread stories of this nature, they are doing the public a great disservice. The media are not supposed to be so self-serving, yet that is exactly what they have become.

To show you just the amount of contempt many in the media now have for the people and the duty they have to report factually and truthfully, here are a few examples. First, Russiagate. For years, ever since Trump was elected, many in the media, mostly those at Left Wing media outlets like CNN and MSNBC, in conjunction with the Democrats, have perpetuated the clearly contrived story that Russia influenced the 2016 Presidential Election. They have attacked Trump on this front for years, accusing him of colluding with Putin and the Russians. They even used it to try to impeach him, and while this got through the House of Representatives (predictably considering it is controlled by the Democrats), it was never going to get anywhere in the Senate. Robert Mueller, who investigated the ‘collusion’, produced a report, and testified that there was insufficient evidence of any such collusion. Trump was, essentially, cleared. This entire investigation was based on the premise of the Steele Dossier, research funded by none other than Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democrats. Yet even after Mueller made his findings clear, and Trump was effectively exonerated, the media continued to perpetuate the lie. Even Australia’s very own publicly funded national broadcaster, the ABC, produced a series on Four Corners about how Trump had colluded with Russia. It was clearly a blatant misuse of taxpayer money, but it is never below the ABC to waste taxpayer dollars for the sake of pushing a political agenda.

Russiagate was, however, only one of many. All too often the media either intentionally misrepresent what their political opponents say, or just take them out of context, again usually intentionally. Take Trump’s remarks about injecting disinfectant. This was a clearly sarcastic comment. Yet the media behaved as if he was being completely serious and started reporting that Trump was irresponsibly telling people to inject themselves with disinfectant and drink bleach to cure COVID19. These representations were again falsehoods. Even now, after Trump tested positive to COVID19, many are acting as if he said COVID19 was a hoax. This is just untrue. Several fact-checking sites, including Snopes, in addition to Associated Press and CNN, have all confirmed this to be as much. Trump never claimed COVID19 was a hoax, rather saying at the time that things the Democrats had been saying were.

Here are a few more examples: CNN reported that Kim Jong Un was gravely ill. Many other media outlets followed suit, resulting in one of the worst shows of fake news ever seen, showing exactly why people have lost trust in the media. Left-Wing media outlets in the US, including CNN and MSNBC, reported the Black Lives Matter protests as being mostly peaceful. This was again untrue and was proven so as CNN presented this headline banner while live crossing to a reporter in Kenosha, Wisconsin with fire lighting up the sky behind him. One more recent example of this was Chris Wallace, the moderator of the first campaign of the debate. Wallace was not at all subtle about his bias, interrupting Trump 76 times and presenting him with leading questions, while only interrupting Biden 15 times and even laughing with him at one point. He is the perfect example of why people have lost faith in the media. Meanwhile in the UK, Sky News presenter Kay Burley labelled former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott a homophobe and a misogynist. Even Abbott’s own sister Christine Forster, who is in a same-sex relationship, said he was not a homophobe. The list goes on.

Then you have Australian media. The worst offender in the country in terms of bias is the ABC. What makes this worse is that the ABC is funded by taxpayers. That means everyone, whether they like it or not, is paying for the ABC to give themselves incredulous salaries and produce and spread Left-Wing ideology across Australia. The ABC’s panel-based programs like Q&A, The Drum, and Insiders are consistently stacked with Left-Wing individuals, usually with one token Conservative to give the impression of “balance”. Let me be clear, the ABC has a Charter that they are to adhere to considering they are taxpayer funded, and that Charter requires they are balanced so as to represent the views of all Australians, not just some Australians. After all, we all pay their salaries. In fact, The Drum even barred those affiliated with One Nation from appearing on their program. The hosts of many of the shows presented, even on ABC Radio, are typically Left biased (eg. Hamish McDonald, Virginia Trioli, Michael Rowland, Fran Kelly etc.). Those who do not show such bias are berated by typical ABC viewers. David Speers has been hammered for “going too easy” on Government MPs, but it is clear that they are just upset that he is actually bringing some balance to the national broadcaster. The same viewers get upset when Conservatives pop up on their programs, for example those from the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), Alan Jones, Greg Sheridan, and the like. The ABC are also major proponents of the new age climate change narrative, spruiking unruly predictions and climate alarmism on a regular basis. They often use Labor or Greens talking points, slamming the Government or any Conservative parties. When it comes to Trump, the ABC typically go on the attack, taking his comments out of context to paint him as something he is not. Indeed, this is true of much of the media in Australia, bar outlets like Sky News and The Australian.

Network Ten’s The Project is guilty of purporting falsities on a regular basis to push a Left-Wing ideological agenda. Indeed, they also take Trump and other Conservative leaders out of context to contrive a false narrative. Waleed Aly has even gone so far as to be an Islamic terrorism apologist, calling it “a perpetual irritant”. According to Waleed, Right-Wing extremism poses a much larger threat. It is media types like these that have brought about a lack of trust in the media by many on the Right, and an obsession with fake news by those on the Left.

One more point on the ABC before we move on: If the ABC are not going to represent the views of all Australians in a fair and balanced manner, why should they receive public funding? This makes the case for privatization of the national broadcaster. If those who view it wish to fund it, they should do so themselves on a subscription basis, just like many do with Sky News.

Speaking of Sky News, let’s have a look at the other side of the coin. While much of the mainstream media are perpetrators of deliberately contrived stories with false pretenses and intentional deception of their viewers, there are some media outlets who still rise above the murky waters to report the truthfully and factually. Among these outlets are Sky News Australia, The Daily Telegraph, and The Australian. Each of these publications employ some of the most reliable and hard-hitting journalists in Australia and are each trustworthy sources when it comes to news. But they are often beat down upon by the Left using one ridiculous argument: They are owned by Rupert Murdoch.

The conspiracy goes as follows: Rupert Murdoch is controlling every single person in his media empire, telling them what to say, and by extension deciding who gets to run the country. Let me make something clear: Rupert Murdoch would not have time to contact every single journalist and political commentator in the media outlets he owns to tell them what they must say or write. It is quite nonsensical to think otherwise. Each person who works in these media outlets have their own views, their own opinions, and report or commentate in their own words. They have their own minds, unlike the collective hive mind that is many on the Left.

The problem for journalists and political commentators at these media outlets is that they are often attacked in various ways for telling the truth. Take Sky’s so-called “After Dark” commentators for example. Peta Credlin, Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Paul Murray, and the hosts of Outsiders Rowan Dean, James Morrow and Rita Panahi. This group of fine individuals have no problem telling it how it is. Yet they are often labelled the typical terms the Left so often love to use in an attempt to discredit their political opponents: racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic, bigot, the list goes on. Some of the terms are far too disgusting to share. Peta Credlin in particular is hated by the Left for a clear reason: she is a smart and reasoned woman who has made her mark in the political scene. That is why the Left feel threatened by her and subsequently label her and her views as dangerous. They despise Rita Panahi for much the same reason. Rowan Dean is often labelled as “crazy” by the Left simply for pointing out the obvious flaws in the climate agenda. And practically every one of these individuals has been labelled as dangerous or the like for not wanting to see the economy destroyed by COVID19.

Chris Kenny is another on Sky who is attacked relentlessly, so much so that he decided to leave Twitter. Kenny has a show on Sky called Kenny on Media, where he looks at how others in the media have been guilty of purporting false narratives to push political points. This is somewhat similar to the ABC program MediaWatch, presented by Paul Barry. But see, MediaWatch often attack Right-Wing Media, and never call out errors made by their own. They have an obligation to do so. The Left would argue that they do not, and that Sky must be balanced as well. There is, however, a clear difference between the ABC and Sky News. The ABC are taxpayer funded and must therefore adhere to a Charter. Sky News have no such obligation, as they are a subscription-based service.

The most recent example of a journalist being attacked for doing her job well and trying to get to the truth is The Australian’s Rachel Baxendale. Baxendale has consistently posed hard-hitting questions to Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews throughout the COVID19 crisis. In seeking the truth of matters like hotel quarantine, who signed off on certain restrictions, and several others, Baxendale has become the Left’s new punching bag. She has been relentlessly attacked on social media, particularly on Twitter. A hashtag was even trended only last week after Daniel Andrews showed contempt for her at his press conference and coined the phrase “What’s the issue Rachel?” Ironically, those who have made fun of her appearance and the like are those who describe themselves as feminists. But what is worse is that, for simply doing her job well, Baxendale has been subject to threats of violence against her, including death threats and rape threats. This is completely unacceptable. It has no place in society.

While other journalists have been soft on Andrews, Baxendale and a few others, including the Herald Sun’s Alex White, and more recently, The Age’s Sumeyya Ilanbey and Seven’s Denham Hitchcock, have been tough on the Victorian Premier, holding him, his Ministers, the Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton, and a host of others to account for the errors and unjustified harsh restrictions and abuses of human rights that have been occurring in Victoria. Yet whenever they ask these sorts of questions, they receive one of Daniel Andrews’ typical lines: “I cannot recall that”, or “I’ll have to get back to you”, or “I don’t accept that”, or “That is a matter for (insert anyone else here)” or, “I don’t want to cut across the inquiry”. Andrews has nothing but contempt for these journalists and the work that they do. He hides behind an inquiry, even though the head of the inquiry, Judge Coate, has said he is free to comment on it. There have been far too many occasions where he has said he would get back to journalists and has never done so. And therein lies the problem. If journalists are shown such utter contempt by those who they are employed to hold accountable, then we have a serious problem on our hands.

It is the plight of journalism that good and honest journalists would be so heavily criticized and abused for carrying out their civil duty to the people, whilst those journalists who would maliciously contrive stories in attempts to bring down their political opponents are praised. Journalists who tell the truth are becoming a rare breed in a world of politicking and agenda-setting. The media has, for the most part, lost its way. It has been blinded by political bias. Hence many in the general public are being fed disinformation, unable to see reality as the media blindfolds them to the truth. It is an utter tragedy.

That is why the world needs more good and honest journalists; journalists that will report accurately to the people and do the best they can to get to the bottom of matters of public interest. We need more people like Rachel Baxendale and Peta Credlin, more like Denham Hitchcock and Alan Jones. We need journalists and political commentators that are not afraid to tell it how it really is. That is one of the major reasons I got into the field, and why I have continued to persist and push on, even when the going gets tough. I wanted to ensure that people get the truth and are not fooled into believing a false reality by certain media types. It is not an easy job, far from it, but it entirely rewarding to get to get the truth out there to people. Although the truth is despised by many, it is of great importance to the world.

As Plato once said: “No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.”

So often in the world we see people do things that we cannot stand. Yet at some point, we find ourselves doing the same thing. It is an intriguing manner of humanity. We can so easily become the very same things that we hate. Now while most of us will find ourselves in this predicament at some point or another in our lives, there are certain groups of people who are far more susceptible.

Ideologues are, by far, the worst of these. They can get so caught up in their ideology that it consumes them. This can be destructive not only to them, but to those around them. If they are in a position of power, the ramifications could be even more dire. This is because ideologues are not content with allowing others to think for themselves. No, they would rather push their views upon you until you snap and join them. That being said, some ideologies are likely worse than others. The most dangerous ideologues are those on the Left.

The concept of paradox is an interesting one. That something could be set out in such a way that a particular ending is seen as inevitable, only to have it turn in on itself and create an outcome that was thought to be virtually impossible is incredulous. To demonstrate, take Scandinavia. These countries became more progressive when it came to gender roles, attempting to socialize children through the means of gender equality. The outcome thought to be inevitable was that there would be more gender balance in fields such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Yet the opposite effect occurred and demonstrated that countries with higher levels of gender equality consequentially have less gender balance in such fields as compared to less equal countries. This is a good example of how attempting to push an ideological ideal can backfire significantly. It is something that forms the basis for the remainder of this piece.

Currently, the United States are preparing for a Presidential Election, with a little over a month to go. The hatred for President Trump by the Left is extensive. They constantly label him such terms as ‘racist’, ‘sexist’ and many more. The irony in this is that they have now become those very things themselves. Take the latest outrage regarding the Supreme Court nominee. After the tragic passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a seat on the Supreme Court opened up. As is conventional in such a situation in an election year, the President is permitted to make a nomination, considering the Senate Majority is of the same Party as the President. In the current circumstance, Donald Trump is a Republican, as is the Senate Majority. This means that President Trump has every right to make a nomination to the Supreme Court, and the Senate have every right to confirm the nominee so that he/she may sit on the Supreme Court and bring it back to nine Justices. So, the President nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who happens to be a Christian with a large family, including two adoptive children from Haiti. What happened was pure ideological consumption.

Now you would think the Left would be ecstatic to see another woman appointed to the Supreme Court. After all, they love gender equality. But it seems that equality is limited to women with their views and does not apply to Conservative women. So, instead of cheering the nomination of a woman to the Supreme Court, they do everything in their power to tear her down. They call her vile names and bring her family into the matter. It seems as if there is no depth to which they will not sink. How does one come to this conclusion? Well, all you need do is look at how these people are attacking Judge Barrett for adopting two Haitian children. Instead of praising her for being such a kind-hearted person, they discuss how “authoritarians seize children of colour for adoption by White Christians” and how “White colonizers “civilized” these “savage” children in the “superior” ways of White people.” Some have also said questions need to be asked as to the circumstances in which Barrett came to adopt her children and how they have been treated since. This is what would commonly be referred to as a smear campaign.

What these people say is no doubt shocking and appalling. It is also a good example of the paradox. They have become what they hate. They are putting on a display of not only vile racism and selective feminism, but also religious discrimination. They will do just about anything to protect their beloved abortion laws, to protect Roe v. Wade. See that is the key issue that has them in an ideological rage. If Barrett is confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice, Roe v. Wade will likely be overturned, and abortion outlawed as a consequence. Fundamentally, this is a good thing because it will save countless lives. But these people do not want this to happen. They want millions more innocent lives to be lost because they have such utter contempt for humanity itself. They wish to destroy every tenant of Western Civilization and rebuild it as a Socialist Hellscape.

The treatment of Amy Coney Barrett is but one example. Black Lives Matter (BLM) is another. BLM is an inherently Marxist organisation. Their founders have admitted to being Marxists. Marxism is a doctrine of mass destruction and pure anarchy. You only need to look at what has occurred in US cities where riots have occurred to see that. It is inherently evil, as are its siblings Socialism and Communism. These are what I call the three roads to hell. That is not hell as in the religious type, but rather a hell on Earth. It would be something on par, maybe even worse, than living out your own worst nightmare. For example, the Soviet Union was hell. But I digress. BLM has used the deaths of several criminals to prop up their cause and justify mass riots. Now that is not to say that police brutality is not a reality. Indeed, it exists, and it is something that must be corrected. But BLM should not be using criminals as their poster-people. Yet they would not care about that, because they are more interested in serving their own interests and wreaking havoc on their cities rather than making any valid effort to bring about change. Indeed, in the worst show of hypocrisy, amidst the looting and rioting, one rioter, who just so happened to be African American, shot and killed retired police captain David Dorn, also African American. Dorn had attempted to stop the rioter from looting a pawn shop, tragically losing his life doing so. Was there any uproar and protest over his death? Sadly, yet predictably, no. For a group who make themselves out to care about black lives, they sure are selective. But after all the damage they do, they put the blame on Trump and the police, with Democrats echoing their sentiments. This is an archetype of the Left. They will cause damage, sometimes irreparable, then pin it on someone else so they do not have to take responsibility.

It is something we see reflected in Australia. Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews and his Government have made a right mess of hotel quarantine and by extension the State of Victoria itself, yet no one, not even the leader who said the buck stops with him, wants to take responsibility, nor be held accountable for their actions. Yet the Leftist ideologues in Victoria, even around the country, even so far as around the world, praise him for his “hard work”. If by hard work they mean annihilating the State of Victoria, then they would be correct. Now make no mistake, if the shoe were on the other foot, and a Conservative Government had committed the destruction that Victorian Labor have, there would be hell to pay. The Left would be baying for blood, but not for the right reasons. It should not matter which Party causes such destruction; it should be denounced regardless. As a Conservative, I would be just as critical of a Conservative Government who wreaked such havoc as I am of the Andrews Government, as I am sure many Conservatives would. It seems this does not apply to Leftist ideologues.

What really puts their blatant hypocrisy on full display is the contempt they have for journalists. Take Rachel Baxendale for example. Baxendale works for The Australian, typically seen to be a more right-leaning publication. She is one of the only journalists who has been holding Andrews to account at his daily press conferences. She asks the tough questions that any good journalist would because she is trying to get answers for the public. That is what journalists are obligated to do. They ask questions on behalf of the public so that we remain informed. Yet because of her adamancy to do her job well, the Leftist ideologues, many of whom appear to idolize Daniel Andrews, emerge from their underground dwellings, launching vicious attacks at Baxendale and calling her all manner of vile names. All because she dared to do her job. If anything, we need more journalists like Rachel Baxendale in the world; good and honest journalists who are not afraid to ask the tough questions and will go as far as they can to get answers, journalists who report the truth, not some false constructed narrative to push an agenda. Those who seek the truth are subject to excessive hatred. But if you are copping hate for doing your job as a journalist and telling the public the truth, chances are you are doing your job well.

Even Daniel Andrews himself has shown contempt for Baxendale, in particular over the past few days, when he spoke in a manner as if he was talking down to her, and coined the phrase “What’s the issue, Rachel?”, which became a trending hashtag on Twitter for the Leftist ideologues to jump on board and hurl even more abuse at her. Yet if this were to happen to a journalist from a left-leaning media outlet, these same ideologues would be in an uproar, outraged that anyone would dare question the integrity of their beloved media. Compare their treatment of Baxendale to their treatment of former ABC Chief Economics Correspondent Emma Alberici. When Alberici was cut from the national broadcaster, they were outraged (they tend to be outraged in one form or another on most occasions). So much so that they started the hashtag ‘#IStandWithEmma’. See the difference? When it is a Left-Wing woman, she is brilliant and does not deserve anything but the best, and everyone should love her. But when it is a Conservative woman, she deserves nothing but scorn and contempt because she is evil. When it is a Left-Wing woman, if she is attacked, it is likely due to misogyny or sexism or the like. But when it is a Conservative woman, if she is attacked, she probably deserves it, and it is definitely not misogyny nor sexism. It is a paradox of incredulous proportions.

It is clear that ideologues are consumed by their ideology. Leftist ideologues are far worse, considering that, if they manage to weasel their way into a position of power, they can instill one of the three roads to hell within society and tear apart the very fabric that holds it together. In their quest for world conquest, the Left have become the very terms they label others; racists, sexists, misogynists, the list goes on. They have truly become everything which they hate. It is a truly tragic reflection on what that side of the political spectrum has become.

It does, however, clearly demonstrate something which we must take heed of: Marxism, Socialism and Communism, the social constructs of Leftist ideologues, the three roads to hell, should be avoided at all costs. For if we go down even one of those roads, it will only end in a living nightmare.

So, here is a message to those young people who are becoming corrupted by Leftist ideology, particularly in universities: Do not pay heed to what your university professors tell you. Think for yourselves. You are capable of doing so, so why allow some highly paid university professor who only has their personal interests in mind to shape your worldview for you? Leftist ideology only leads to misery. No matter how many times Leftist ideologues tell you Socialism, Communism and Marxism work, they are dead wrong. Even if they argue that it just wasn’t done right previously, say in the Soviet Union, they are dead wrong. Quite literally so, as over 20 million died in the Soviet Union, and over 100 million have been killed by Communism. These social constructs can never be “done right” because human beings are inherently susceptible to corruption.

These are all one-way roads. They all lead to hell on Earth.  

Prime Minister,

Australia was once a great nation. It was once a free country, full of joy and prosperity. We were the lucky country. Now, we are anything but.

Since COVID19 entered this country, it has fallen so far from what it was. The swift and overbearing response was, to a degree, acceptable towards the start. However, once we learnt more about the virus and figured out ways of dealing with it and living with it, most of the restrictions should have ended.

Prime Minister, the National Cabinet was a grave mistake. You handed more power over to the Premiers, practically rendering yourself powerless. This has allowed them to run rampant, doing whatever they wish. All you can do is watch and fulfill any requests they make. The majority of the States have done well in curbing the virus, albeit many still have unnecessary measures in place, including border closures. The borders should not be used as a weapon in their political arsenal. Surely you can agree with this.

In giving the Premiers a power boost, you gave them the excuse to play politics with people’s lives. Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has gone completely rogue. He has brought in far too many arbitrary measures, practically turning Melbourne into one giant prison complex. People have been imprisoned in their homes day in and day out for months. Small business will die out. Many businesses have shut their doors for good, unable to continue to operate with the constant restrictions. Many Victorians have lost their livelihoods, their jobs, jobs that will not be returned to them because of the state Victoria is in.

People cannot even protest against these draconian measures without being arrested. I am sure you have seen the footage from the Freedom Protests in Victoria and around the country, Prime Minister. It should serve as a message to you, this must end. Premier Andrews and all those that surround him in the relevant Ministries and bureaucratic positions cannot even remember what happened several months ago. How can anyone possibly expect them to get Victoria out of the mess they have created? How can anyone have confidence in this Government to do their jobs, when they do not even seem to know what their jobs are?

Now the Victorian Premier wants to pass a Bill to allow anyone the Government deems fit to detain anyone they even think might break the rules indefinitely. What ever happened to habeas corpus, Prime Minister? What ever happened to protecting the people of this country from authoritarian rule? What ever happened to the Constitution?

Prime Minister, Australia is becoming something it never should be. This once great democratic nation is being overrun by power-hungry Premiers with only their own interests in mind. Politicians are letting this country down. Never in my lifetime did I think I would see even one State of this nation brought to its knees, falling to a leader corrupted by power. Never in my lifetime did I think I would see any place in Australia lose touch with democracy. Yet here we are, living through that time right now.

Prime Minister, I think I speak for many when I say that I am genuinely concerned with the way this nation is headed. Overreaching draconian measures, Border Wars, citizens being detained for protest, one of the very tenants of democracy itself, and politicians failing to be accountable for their incredibly self-serving destructive tendencies. All these things and more are tearing apart the very fabric of this country. A nation of mateship and freedom is being replaced by one of fear and subservience to government. This cannot go on.

Prime Minister, I implore you to use the Constitution to the benefit of this nation. Listen to people like Bronwyn Bishop, who has been referring to specific Sections and how to use them. You would do well to take her advice on board because this could be the only way to regain your power and restore this once great nation to its former glory. If you did such a thing, you could practically guarantee yourself another term in government.

In addition, it would be wise to set up a Royal Commission into what has occurred in Victoria. I say this because the Hotel Quarantine Inquiry is not at all going as it should. No-one wants to own up to their errors, and they are being permitted to get away with it. Each and every individual who had a role to play who is questioned does not provide any clear answers. The sheer incompetence is beyond belief. The whole purpose of the inquiry was to get answers for Victorians. It has not done so thus far.

The curfew may also be unlawful, something that is being explored in the Supreme Court currently. The Victorian Government have attempted to stifle the Court from retrieving important documents relating to the curfew, which should be frowned upon, yet were unable to keep them secret once the Court took action to obtain them and forced the Government’s hand. It is clear that the curfew was not imposed based on medical advice, nor the advice of the Chief Police Commissioner, which likely means it was never a lawful curfew from the beginning. If this is found to be true, surely there should be consequences for those who imposed it? After all, they would have unlawfully kept Victorians locked in their homes at night for no justifiable reason.

Prime Minister, this has gone on long enough. It is time for the Commonwealth to take back its power. It is time for you to step up and lead this nation back to true democracy, back to greatness. It is time to re-empower the Australian Constitution, the most powerful weapon in your political arsenal. It is time to end this.

Prime Minister, it is time to take this nation back.