Why did that stupid little person wear a baseball cap with a gold-colored marijuana synbol fashioned boldly on its front? What was he trying to proclaim?

CM: I'll simply point out that I and many others are not anonymous and we seem to be able to state our views (as offensive as some apparently find them).

In the spirit of being anonymous. Jayb1 is used because just JB is not allowed. JB was given to me about 40 years ago. Too many Johns in my Club. Made sense at the time & has stuck ever since. My wife just gets M. I could put avatars or nicknames up that other people have given me over time; Eg; A#$hole through to Hero. At one time, when I was young, Lightning, because I never struck twice in the same place & Jungles because I was Green & Dense.

But this is not what this discussion is about. It's about boycotting the ABC. I don't agree, although it's quite obvious that the ABC is run by Greenie, Politically Correct Do-gooders. (YUCK) it does allow people to form an opinion of these people & it's not good. So really the ABC, in that light, is $#!tting in it's own nest. Still it's no reason to boycott the Station because there are lots of other good programmes on it.

I think it was a good thing having Mallah on because it allowed people to see just what we are dealing with concerning Islam, even with the moderates. Don't forget Mallah supports Al Nusa which is an off shoot of Al Queada. Al Nusa is a terrorist organization also dedicated to the expansion of Islam by any means necessary.

There was an excellent article by Sam Gipson in
The Age newspaper, June 24, 2015.

In it Gipson tells us that:

"Zaky Mallah is a misguided young man but the
Q&A incident clearly reveals flaws in the way the
government treats young Muslims."

Zaky Mallah's reaction on the program - and his
response to the baiting of the Liberal MP on the panel
highlights the government's need to woo young Muslims
not alienate them.

Gipson explains that:

"Rightly or wrongly, many young Australian Muslims feel an
overwhelming sense of alienation and marginalisation in their
own country. They feel as if they are seen as outsiders and
undesirables by their own government."

Gipson tells us:

"Though there is no one size fits all process of how or why
people become radicalised, much research identifies feelings
of marginalisation and insecurity as being driving forces.
These feelings breed a sense of purposelessness, vulnerability,
and futility which groups like ISI's prey upon."

"Reducing the threat of ISI's and of radicalisation can only
be achieved with a multi-faceted approach that places an
emphasis on inclusion."

Fox,

You are forever in that rut, blaming the kind, generous and vulnerable Australian public, the planned victims, for the crimes of offenders.

Would you similarly blame the rape victim for the offence committed against her?

It is a usual ploy of criminals to blame their victims and the public. That is while denying their crimes.

Typical leftists, forever rationalising and making excuses for criminals, while disregarding the harm and rights of the victims.

BTT
The public are not accepting the arrogance and spin of the ABC. The public recognise that the ABC was setting up a minister for a fall, but it backfired against the ABC.

Here is another instance where the 'Progressive' ABC's Q&A very obviously set up what it saw as a despised 'conservative' Peter Hitchens, for its blood sport of humiliating and chastising non-'Progressives', this time with a panel heavily weighted against him,

http://davidvangend.com/?p=1984

The ABC has two editorial policies. There is the one for public consumption, where it claims the independence required for its privileged, pampered position in broadcasting and the $1.3 billion pa from the taxpayer.

Then there is the informal editorial policy, the political 'Progressivism' of the ABC.

Who the hell do the executives of the ABC think they are that they assume that they always know what is right for the public they are supposed to be serving and being answerable to? Who the hell directed the ABC to spruik the social change and social reengineering the 'progressive' ABC believes is right for the public?

Of course the ABC isn't the only Australian public agency or Quango to show obvious political bias and to be applying its taxpayer-sourced monies to its own secondary agendas. The problem is that they are not directly answerable to the parliament in the way that ministerial departments are, it shows and they should be.

The public wants the old independent Auntie back and slimmed down too to concentrate on what is NOT is already available, often abundantly, from other sources and the Net. Times have changed and the ABC's obesity and self-indulgence are not welcome.

OK, let's analyse Foxy's latest effort to blame western civilisation for Muslim violence, and exonerate Muslims from any responsibility. Let's examine the clear double standard of her thinking.

If Zaky Mallah had been a Nazi who had served time in jail for threatening to kill ASIO agents, I think we could assume that Foxy would not have referred to him as a "misguided young man", suggested that the government was somehow responsible for his behaviour, or that the government is wrong to sneer at Nazis.

She would not cry about young Nazis feeling "alienated" or "marginalised" "in their own country." Especially if the Nazi party of Australia did everything it could to isolate their own Nazi youth from any social contact with "multiculturalist infidels", Jews and judenfruends. If the Nazi Party of Australia demanded that Nazis may marry multiculturalists and convert them to Nazism, but committed multiculturalists may not marry Nazis, I doubt if Foxy would approve. If Nazi schools preaching Nazi values were springing up everywhere, you can bet that Foxy would be apoplectic. If the written statutes of Nazism demanded that Nazis "Slay the multiculturalists, wherever you find them, lay ambushes for them, strike terror into their hearts", you can bet that the penny might drop for Foxy.

She and the journos like GIbson would hardly be going around complaining that the poor Nazis feel the way they do because they don't feel "included" in the very society that their leaders and their ideology most firmly reject. She would not be whining about Muslim "inclusion" or the fact that the unacceptable levels of Nazi criminal behaviour in her society means that most people in Australia just don't like Nazis.

Lastly, comes the laughable tenet that radicalisation of disaffected Nazi youth can only be achieved by a "multi faceted approach." That is a euphemism for "unless you give our social workers billions of dollars in Danegeld to appease these young Nazis, we won't be able to stop them from going berserk and doing something terrible.

Pay up now

If Abbott was really serious about defending Australia, he would be tracking down all the Left loons here and charging them with treason, along with Scott and all the other traitors in the ABC. With these obvious enemies of Australia enjoying the weakness of the Abbott government and the benefits of living here, we don't need to look outward for our enemies. Intern them all with the the illegal arrivals they side with until they are tried and dealt with.